Ryder Student Transportation Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 2000

332 N.L.R.B. 1590 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1590
Ryder Student Transportation Services and School
Employees Local 284, SEIU, Petitioner. Case
18–RC–16461
December 29, 2000
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND HURTGEN
This case presents the issue of whether the Employer
engaged in objectionable conduct by announcing, shortly
before the election, that it would conduct a raffle for em-
ployees and award two trips to Disney World or $1000 in
cash (after taxes) if 1450 employees cast ballots at the
election.1 In Atlantic Limousine, 331 NLRB No. 134,
slip op. at 5 (2000), the Board recently adopted a new
rule barring “employers and unions from conducting a
raffle if (1) eligibility to participate in the raffle or win
prizes is in any way tied to voting in the election or being
at the election site on election day or (2) the raffle is
conducted at any time during a period beginning 24
hours before the scheduled opening of the polls and end-
ing with the closing of the polls.” The Board also stated
that, consistent with its usual practice, it would apply this
new rule to all pending cases before the Agency.2
Applying Atlantic Limousine, for the reasons set forth
below, we agree with the Regional Director’s
recommendation to sustain the Petitioner’s Objection 1,
which alleges that the Employer’s raffle interfered with
the election.3 Th evidence shows that, on May 24, 1999,4 2 days be-
fore the election held May 26 and 27, the Employer
mailed notices to employees stating that:
Because of the importance of every voice being heard,
we are offering two Disney World vacation getaways
for two—4 days and 3 nights including airfare, hotel
and $250 spending money, or $1,000 cash. A drawing
will be held to award these getaways (or cash) if at least
1450 of the eligible employees vote over the two day
period.

1 Pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement, an election was held
May 26 and 27, 1999, in a unit consisting of all full-time and regular
part-time school bus drivers, school bus aides, and wash rack employ-
ees employed by the Employer at its locations throughout the metro-
politan Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota area; excluding dispatchers,
terminal managers, assistant managers, office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The tally of ballots shows
that, of approximately 1690 eligible voters, 664 cast votes for, and 723
against, the Petitioner, with 49 challenged ballots, an insufficient num-
ber to affect the results.
2 Atlantic Limousine, supra, slip op. at 6, fn. 15.
3 The Regional Director has approved the Petitioner’s request to
withdraw its remaining objections.
4 All dates are in 1999.
The Employer, about the same time, also posted signs in its
facilities informing employees that it would award two trips
to Disney World “OR $1,000 CASH (after taxes).” The
notices stated that, “if 1450 votes are cast, No matter how
you choose to vote, We will have the drawing.” In some
cases, the Employer placed these signs beside “Vote No”
posters that the Employer had posted. Although the evi-
dence does not show that there were any posters or notices
in the polling areas during the balloting, signs pertaining to
the raffle remained posted in other locations at the 10 voting
sites throughout the election.5
Based on Atlantic Limousine, supra, we conclude that
the Employer’s raffle interfered with the election. As
stated, the Board in that case prohibited raffles by either
party to an election in which “eligibility to participate in
the raffle or win prizes is in any way tied to voting in the
election or being at the election site on election day.”
Raffles which are tied to voting in the election implicate
the concerns expressed in Sunrise Rehabilitation Hospi-
tal, 320 NLRB 212 (1995), which held that an offer to
compensate employees for coming in to vote on election
day, in amounts which are not linked in any way to
transportation expenses, is objectionable. Atlantic Lim-
ousine, supra, slip op. at 5. In Sunrise, the Board con-
cluded that such payments could reasonably be consid-
ered as “something extra” for coming in to vote, and thus
could reasonably be perceived as a favor from the Em-
ployer which the employees might feel obligated to repay
by voting against the Union. Sunrise, supra at 213. In
the same way, the opportunity to win a prize in a raffle
that is tied to voting in the election could be perceived as
“something extra” which could make employees feel
obligated to vote against the Union. Atlantic Limousine,
supra, slip op. at 5. The Board rejected the argument that
such raffles should not be prohibited because they serve
the laudable goal of encouraging employees to vote,
holding that their inherent tendency to interfere with em-
ployee free choice outweighed this goal:
We are not persuaded by the argument that election raf-
fles merely encourage employees to vote. As the
Board recently explained in United Cerebral Palsy
Assn. of Niagara County, 327 NLRB 40 (1998),
“maximum voter participation in Board-sponsored
elections is a laudable goal. However, the Board must
protect employee free choice in all voting decisions.”
Where the challenged conduct is objectionable, i.e., it
5 The tally of ballots shows that the number of employees voting in
the election fell 14 short of the prerequisite figure the Employer had set
for holding the raffle. Nevertheless, documentary evidence submitted
by the Employer reveals that, after the election, it announced in its June
8 newsletter to employees that it would conduct the raffle at the “Ryder
Employee and Family Appreciation Day” scheduled for June 12.
332 NLRB No. 166
RYDER STUDENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1591
has a reasonable tendency to influence the election out-
come, the fact that the conduct may also encourage
voter turnout is immaterial.
Id.
The Employer in this case conditioned the holding of
the raffle on the requirement that 1450 employees cast
ballots in the election. Although the Employer did not
thereby condition an individual employee’s eligibility to
participate in the raffle on whether or not that individual
voted in the election, it nevertheless used the raffle as an
inducement to vote by conditioning overall eligibility for
the raffle on a certain level of participation in the elec-
tion. It is just this sort of inducement that we found to be
objectionable in Atlantic Limousine.
The Employer also arguably violated the second prong
of Atlantic Limousine by “announcing a raffle” within 24
hours before the scheduled opening of the polls.6 How-
ever, we find it unnecessary to make this determination
here. Eligibility for participation in the Employer’s raffle
was clearly tied to voting in the election, and thus it vio-
lated the first prong of the two-prong disjunctive test set
forth in Atlantic Limousine. Accordingly, on this basis,
we affirm the Regional Director’s recommendation to
sustain the Petitioner’s Objection 1 and to direct a new
election.
[Direction of Second Election Omitted From Publica-
tion.]

MEMBER HURTGEN, dissenting.
For reasons set forth in my dissent in Atlantic Limou-
sine, Inc., 331 NLRB No. 134 (2000), I do not subscribe
to a per se ban on election raffles. Rather, I adhere to the
longstanding multifactor standard set forth in Sony Corp.

6 Atlantic Limousine, supra at slip op. 5, defined the term conducting
a raffle to include: “(1) announcing a raffle; (2) distributing raffle tick-
ets; (3) identifying the raffle winners; and (4) awarding the raffle
prizes.”
of America, 313 NLRB 420 (1993). Therefore, unlike
my colleagues, I would not set aside this election.
In this case, the Employer mailed notices and posted
signs before the election that it would conduct a raffle
designed to encourage participation in the election. If
1450 of the approximately 1690 eligible voters came to
the polls, the employees would be given a chance to win
prizes. There would be two winners. Each winner
would choose between a trip to Disney World and $1000
in cash (after taxes). The total value of all prizes did not
exceed $4000.
Applying the Sony standards to the present case, I find,
contrary to my colleagues, that the raffle and announce-
ment thereof were unobjectionable. The raffle did not
provide the Employer with the means for determining
how and whether employees voted in the election. Nor
did the Employer condition its employees’ participation
in the raffle on how they voted in the election, only on
whether a substantial majority of the employees voted.
Finally, the raffle did not offer prizes so substantial as to
either divert attention of employees away from the elec-
tion and its purposes or to induce employees to vote in
favor of the Employer. Thus, with 1690 employees and
the maximum value of the drawing estimated at $4000,
the benefit of a raffle ticket to each participating em-
ployee was no more than $2.37, significantly less than
the $12.50 value of the raffle ticket found unobjection-
able in Sony. See also Arizona Public Service, 325
NLRB 723 (1998) (raffle ticket valued at $7) and my
dissenting opinion in Allenbrooke Healthcare Center,
331 NLRB No. 144 (2000) (raffle ticket valued at $5).
Thus, by application of the Sony standard, the Em-
ployer’s raffle did not interfere with this election. The
announcement of the raffle is likewise unobjectionable.
Accordingly, I would overrule the Petitioner’s Objec-
tion 1 and certify the results of the election.