## Facts

- SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC operated a hotel near San Francisco International Airport where UNITE HERE! Local 2 was the incumbent bargaining representative for a unit of hotel employees.
- In August and early September 2005, hotel managers encouraged and assisted employees in a decertification effort directed at removing the union.
- Management presented decertification/anti-union petitions at work, actively solicited signatures, and applied pressure on employees to sign.
- A manager threatened an employee with discharge for opposing the decertification effort.
- Fourteen of twenty-four unit employees signed decertification or anti-union petitions.
- In mid-September 2005, the employer withdrew recognition from the union, citing the petitions as evidence of loss of majority support.
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging interference and refusal to bargain under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5).
- An ALJ found unlawful employer assistance that tainted the petitions; the Board affirmed the violations but applied a different analytical framework.

## Issues

1. When an employer unlawfully instigates or directly assists a decertification effort and then relies on resulting petitions to withdraw recognition, does the Hearst presumption of taint or the Master Slack causation test govern?
2. Under the governing framework, may the employer rely on the petitions to establish loss of majority support and lawfully withdraw recognition?

## Decision

- The Board held that the Hearst presumption of taint governs when an employer is directly involved in advancing a decertification petition and then invokes that petition to justify withdrawal of recognition.
- The Board found the employer directly assisted and propelled the decertification effort through coercive solicitation of signatures and a threat of discharge.
- Applying Hearst, the Board treated the petitions as presumptively tainted and therefore unreliable as proof of loss of majority support.
- The employer’s withdrawal of recognition violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1).
- The employer’s coercive solicitation and threat independently violated NLRA § 8(a)(1).
- The Board ordered cease-and-desist relief, restoration of recognition, and bargaining upon request, along with notice posting.

## Legal Principles

- When an employer unlawfully instigates or directly assists a decertification campaign and then relies on its results to withdraw recognition, the resulting petitions are presumptively tainted (Hearst) and cannot support lawful withdrawal.
- The Master Slack causation analysis applies where unfair labor practices are unrelated to the petition itself but may have contributed to a loss of support; it does not apply when the employer’s misconduct is part of generating or circulating the petition.
- Employer coercion, pressure, or threats connected to union disaffection efforts interferes with employees’ § 7 rights and violates § 8(a)(1).
- An employer violates § 8(a)(5) by refusing to recognize and bargain with an incumbent union based on a tainted showing of disaffection.

## Conclusion

The Board ruled that an employer that directly assists and coerces a decertification drive cannot rely on the resulting petitions to withdraw union recognition; in that circumstance, the petitions are presumptively tainted under Hearst, making withdrawal of recognition an unfair labor practice.


SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC, 357 N.L.R.B. 79 (2011)