Gleason Plant Security, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 890 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

I)[(CISI()NS ()F NAII()NAI. I.AI()R RELATI)NS B)OARL)
Gleason Plant Security, Inc. and Federation of Spe-
cial Police and Law Enforcement Officers, Peti-
tioner. Case 2-RC-18501
September 30, 1980
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MIMBII RS
JI NKINS ANI) P NI.I.O
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an elec-
tion held between November 28 and December 19,
1980,1 and the Regional Director's report recom-
mending disposition of same. The Board has re-
viewed the record in light of the exceptions and
brief, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's
findings and recommendations only to the extent
consistent herewith.
We find merit in the Employer's exception to the
Regional Director's finding that the Petitioner did
not interfere with the election by mailing sample
ballots to employees 2 days before the mail ballot
election began. The document distributed by the
Union contains an exact reproduction of the
Board's sample ballot and voting instructions. Di-
rectly above the reproduced ballot are the hand-
written words "Vote 'Yes' Federation," with an
arrow pointing to the "Yes" box, which has an
"X" in it. The document does not refer to the
Union as the source of the altered sample ballot.
The Regional Director, relying on Clark Equip-
ment Company, 242 NLRB 1166 (1979); A. Brandt
Company. Inc., 199 NLRB 459 (1972); and Associat-
ed Lerner Shops of America, Inc., 207 NLRB 348
(1973), found that the handwritten notations were
clearly discernible as additions made by the Union
and sufficiently distinct from the printed ballot so
as to preclude the suggestion that the Board was
endorsing the Petitioner. However, we find Clark
Equipment and A. Brandt to be inapposite in that
they involved reproductions of the "Rights of Em-
' The election Aas conducted pursuant t a Stipulation For Certifica-
rion Upon Consent t lecion 1he lalls was 24 for. and I1 against, the
Petitioter, there were 5 challenged hallots, an ll sufficen number to
affect the results
ployees" portion of an election notice and a region-
al director's decision, not an official ballot. We also
find Associated Lerner Shops to be distinguishable
on the ground that the sample ballot therein clearly
identified the employer as the author and was dis-
tributed for use in a mock voting demonstration.
Rather, we agree with the Employer's contention
that the Union's reproduction and alteration of the
sample ballot was objectionable under the doctrine
first set forth in Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109
NLRB 1270 (1954), and reiterated in several recent
decisions. 2
In Allied Electric the Board expressed its strong
concern that no participant in an election be per-
mitted to misuse Board processes to create the im-
pression that the Board endorses a particular
choice. The Board found in Allied Electric that the
reproduction of a document purporting to be a
copy of the Board's official secret ballot, which has
been altered for partisan purposes, must tend to
suggest to its reader that the message appearing on
the document bears this Agency's approval. Here,
the Union's ballot is an exact reproduction of the
Board's sample ballot and contains no indication
that the Union was responsible for the alterations.
Accordingly, we find that the Union's use of a
ballot bearing a partisan message creates the ap-
pearance that the Board endorsed the Union and
therefore tends to mislead voters. We shall set
aside the election and direct that a second election
be conducted.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election held be-
tween November 28 and December 19, 1980, be,
and the same hereby is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
' Sec. e.g., Si/co Inc. 4las Division, 231 NLRB 110 (19771; Mcrtury
Industries. In., 238 NLRB 896 (1978) (Member Penello dissenting);
Building .eaing Corporation 239 NLRB 13 (1978) EDM of ixas, Div.
of Chromalloy .4merican Corp., 245 NL.RB 934 (1979); Pacific Motel Corp.
d/h/I Brst Wuviern Motel, 248 NLRB 1319 (1980); 4rmstrong Cork Com-
puny, 250( NLRB 10064 (1980)
Memlhber Penello agrees with his colleagues that the election should be
sel aside because the source of the altered ballot was not s identified as
to preclude any impression ont the part of he voters that the Agency has
sponsored r aplo'ed the partisan additions to the ballot. See his dis-
seilltig opinion in MerurF Induoriev. Inc., 23 NI.RB 896.
*
252 NLRB No. 125