Jowa Security Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 297 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

JOWA SECURITY SERVICES
Jowa Security Services, Inc. and Jowa Associates,
Inc., Employer-Petitioner and National Union,
United Plant Guard Workers of America
(UPGWA). Case RM-1186
21 March 1984
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered the Union's objec-
tions to an election held 15 October 1981 and the
Regional Director's report recommending disposi-
tion of them. The election was conducted pursuant
to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of
ballots shows 26 for and 37 against the Petitioner,
with 9 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to
affect the results. In addition, there was one void
ballot and one vote cast for Security Services Offi-
cers Association, which has since withdrawn from
this representation proceeding.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs and hereby adopts the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations,
only to the extent consistent herewith. 1
The facts are straightforward. Out of approxi-
mately 314 eligible employees in the unit, a total of
64 valid ballots (26 for the Union) and 9 challenged
ballots were cast. The Union's Objection 5 alleged
that, because of this low voter turnout, the election
did not fairly establish that the Union, which at the
time of the election was the certified representative
of the employees, had lost its majority support.
The investigation disclosed that, 3 days before
the election, official notices of election were posted
in several locations at the Employer's facility
where employees regularly report to receive their
paychecks. The election was conducted on a
payday. In addition, 2 days before the election the
Union mailed copies of the notice of election to all
employees on the Excelsior list. Nevertheless, the
Regional Director concluded that the employees
received inadequate notice of the election, inferred
that this was the cause of the low voter turnout,2
and recommended setting aside the election.
The election process with all of its attendant
safeguards affords the most reliable indication of
employee sentiment with respect to union represen-
t In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the Regional Di-
rector's recommendations that Objections 1, 2, 4 and 6 be overruled. We
also adopt his recommendation to overrule.
2 He reached these conclusions on the basis that the unit employees
essentially only went to the Employer's office to pick up their biweekly
paychecks, and thus they were not likely to have had the opportunity to
see the posted notices until the day of the election.
269 NLRB No. 53
tation. The often hard-fought contest between the
advocates and opponents of unionization culmi-
nates in the expression of the employees' desires at
the ballot box in an exercise of labor democracy.
The results of a Board election therefore constitute
the prima facie will of the employees in an appro-
priate collective-bargaining unit; hence, a substan-
tial burden rests on a party who would vacate the
election. We will not set aside this election on the
basis of pure speculation.
It is particularly significant that the election at
issue in this proceeding was conducted pursuant to
a stipulation entered into by the parties. The pur-
pose of a stipulation is to encourage the parties to
agree, in advance, to the election and certification
procedure. The stipulation in this case encom-
passed all aspects of the election procedure, includ-
ing, inter alia, the date, hours, and location of the
balloting; the wording of the ballot itself; the em-
ployee eligibility date; the scope and composition
of the unit; and the posting of notices of election.
There is simply no evidence that any party voiced
a concern over the posting of election notices. On
the contrary, the parties agreed to the standard
procedure and the Regional Director approved it.
Indeed, the procedure, which was identical to the
one used in the election in which the Union was
originally certified,3 was scrupulously followed by
the Employer. Thus, according to the Employer,
election notices were posted for the required
period in four locations at its facility: at the Coke
machine, in the employees' classroom which is
used to distribute paychecks near the uniform
supply board, and next to an employee bulletin
board. Moreover, there was no evidence presented
that in fact any employee did not see the notice of
election. The Regional Director reasoned, howev-
er, that it would be "pure speculation to assume
that all or the great majority of employees who did
I Jowa Security Services, Case 8-RC-13828 (1977) (not reported in
Board volumes). The election in that case was also characterized by a
relatively low voter turnout and the Employer, like the Union here, filed
objections alleging inadequacy of the notice posting procedure. Specifi-
cally, the Employer claimed that its employees had little, if any, opportu-
nity to view the official notices of election because they reported for
work directly to diverse jobsites and rarely visited the Employer's office
facility where the notices were posted. As here, the election in that case
was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election. In recommending that the objections be overruled, the Region-
al Director noted that the parties had agreed upon the mechanics of the
election and that, despite its intimate knowledge regarding the work loca-
tions of its employees, the Employer did not raise the notice issue until
after the election. The Regional Director found that in the circumstances
the Board had fully discharged its responsibility to establish a fair elec-
tion procedure which provided eligible employees the greatest opportuni-
ty to vote. Finally, the Regional Director observed that "voter indiffer-
ence is not sufficient to invalidate an otherwise properly conducted elec-
tion, especially where as here there is no evidence that these individuals
were prevented from voting by the conduct of any party to the elec-
tion .... " The Board affirmed the Regional Director's report.
297
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
come into the Employer's facility before the polls
closed to pick up their checks actually saw the
Notice of Election." It would be equally specula-
tive to conclude that they did not.4
The Board has never required that employees re-
ceive actual notice of an impending election.
Rather, the standard has always been that reasona-
ble measures must be taken to assure that unit em-
ployees are aware of their right to exercise freely
their franchise in a Board-conducted election. This
is traditionally accomplished through the posting of
the official notice of election in conspicuous places
prior to the election. There is no requirement, for
example, that eligible employees who are off duty
during the posting period be individually notified
of the election.5 See Rohr Aircraft Corp., 136
NLRB 958 (1962). It is sufficient to show that rea-
sonable steps were taken to apprise employees of
their election rights.
There is no evidence of any irregularity in the
posting of election notices in this case. According-
4 Member Dennis does not rely on the Employer's statement concern-
ing where the notices of election were posted, because no verifying evi-
dence was introduced at a hearing.
, This includes employees who are away from the employer's facility
for any reason other than work assignments deliberately given by the em-
ployer to assure the employees' absence from the location of the election.
ly, other than the naked assertion that the low
turnout was a fortiori attributable to inadequate
notice, there is no basis for drawing an inference
that lack of notice was the reason for the low turn-
out. Whether employees fail to vote because of
hospitalization, vacation, apathy, or any other
normal conditions of life, we see no useful purpose
in speculating as to the state of mind of employees
who do not vote. In the absence of evidence that
any employee eligible to vote was denied the right
to cast a ballot, the reasons for an employee's fail-
ure to vote are irrelevant. Stiefel Construction Co.,
65 NLRB 925 (1946). Rather, we prefer to rely on
the untainted results of the well-established election
machinery as the best evidence of employee senti-
ment. Accordingly, we overrule Objection 5 and
shall certify the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have not been cast for National Union, United
Plant Guard Workers of America, and that it is not
the exclusive representative of these bargaining
unit employees.
298