V.I.P. Limousine, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

V I P LIMOUSINE
V.I.P. Limousine , Inc. and Robert P. Marlin, Peti-
tioner and Local 145 , International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. Case 39-UD-15
28 February 1985
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Regional Director for Region 1 dated
13 January 1983, a deauthorization election was
conducted by secret ballot on 11 February 1983.
Following the election, the parties were furnished a
tally of ballots which showed that of the approxi-
mately 89 eligible voters, 37 voted for and 30
voted against rescinding the authority of the Union
to require, under its agreement with the Employer,
that membership in the Union be a condition of
employment.
On 16 February 1983 both the Employer and the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election. The objections al-
leged that a severe snowstorm developed during
the polling period which prevented a substantial
number of eligible voters from reaching the polls
and, therefore, the election should be set aside.
Pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, the Acting Regional Director
conducted an investigation. On 14 March 1983 he
issued a supplemental decision in which he over-
ruled the Employer's and Petitioner's objections,
and certified that a majority of employees eligible
to vote did not vote for withdrawal of the Union's
authority to make a union-security agreement.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Employer
filed a timely request for review of the Acting Re-
gional Director's supplemental decision on the
ground that his refusal to set aside the deauthoriza-
tion election raises a substantial question of law and
policy.
The Board, by telegraphic order dated 12 Sep-
tember 1983, granted the request for review.
Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on review.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issue under review, in-
cluding the Employer's brief on review, and finds
merit in the Employer's objection. The Employer
operates a limousine service in the New York met-
ropolitan area. A deauthorization election was
scheduled for 11 February 1983 in a unit of the
Employer's drivers at its Stamford, Connecticut fa-
cility. On the day of the election, the polls were
641
open from 12 noon to 9 p.m. to accommodate driv-
ers on long trips and those who worked afternoon
and evening shifts. During the afternoon a snow-
storm developed which caused approximately 20
inches of snow to fall in and about the Stamford,
Connecticut area making navigation of the roads
extremely difficult, if not impossible.
In its objection, the Employer claimed that the
snow and the accompanying road conditions pre-
vented many employees from voting. In support of
this position, the Employer attached to its objec-
tion and its request for review statements from 11
employees which allege, in essence, that the "bliz-
zard" conditions caused many of them to be
trapped in traffic and thus prevented them from, re-
turning to the Employer's facility to vote in the
election.
In overruling the Employer's objection, the
Acting Regional Director found that, despite the
inclement weather, the polls were open for a sub-
stantial period of time and that 75 percent of those
eligible to vote were able to cast their ballots, a
figure which constitutes a representative portion of
the electorate. Moreover, even assuming that the
problems created by the snowstorm prevented em-
ployees from voting, such circumstances were "not
at all unusual," and were beyond the control of the
parties. Accordingly, relying on Wanzer Dairy, 232
NLRB 631 (1977), and Versail Mfg., 212 NLRB
592 (1974), the Acting Regional Director found no
valid basis for setting aside the election. We dis-
agree.
The Board is responsible for establishing the
proper procedure for the conduct of its elections.
In carrying out this responsibility, a primary con-
cern of the Board is whether employees are given
a sufficient opportunity to vote.' While the Board
is not required to guarantee that every voter is able
to get to the polls, when it is alleged that numerous
employees were prevented from voting, the Board
must assess whether the particular circumstances so
affected a sufficient number of ballots as to destroy
the requisite laboratory conditions under which
elections must be conducted. If there is a reasona-
ble possibility that this occurred and a determina-
tive number of votes are called into question, to
maintain the Board's high standards, the election
must be set aside.
Here, it is undisputed that a severe 20-inch snow-
storm occurred in and around the election site
during the polling period. The snowstorm which
reached blizzard proportions affected the electorate
as a whole. A substantial number of employees did
not vote in the election. In these circumstances, the
' Verges Van Liners, 162 NLRB 1259, 1260 (1967)
274 NLRB No. 90
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board has no alternative but to set the election
aside. 2
The cases relied on by the Acting Regional Di-
rector are distinguishable. In both Wanzer and Ver-
sail, where the elections were not set aside, the
issue presented was whether the absence of one
employee from the polls due to inclement weather
or personal business warranted a new election.
Here, the issue is not the disenfranchisement of a
single employee, but whether an unusually severe
snowstorm wherein a considerable number of em-
ployees did not vote is so disruptive of the entire
election process that a new election must be con-
ducted. Hence, the focus is not on the circum-
2 Whatcom Security Agency, 258 NLRB 985 (1981), Kerona Plastics Ex-
trusion Co, 196 NLRB 1120 (1972), New York Telephone Co, 109 NLRB
788, 790-791 (1954)
stances of why a particular individual was unable
to vote, but instead on whether the election was
conducted properly and in such a manner as to
assure that all employees were given a sufficient
opportunity to vote. We find that it was not.3
ORDER
It is ordered that the election conducted on 11
February 1983 be set aside.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]
3 We realize that the absence of voters from the polls is particularly
telling in a deauthorization election because a majority of those eligible to
vote must vote for rescission of authority before a certification rescinding
such authority will be issued See NLRB Casehandling Manual, Pt II,
Representation Proceedings , Sec 11512 We emphasize however that our
analytical focus is not only on the number of voters who did not partici-
pate, but also on whether the election process itself has been disrupted
Our analysis here would therefore apply to all types of Board elections.