Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01178/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01178-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
North of Market Senior Services, Inc.
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 28, 2000 Decided March 10, 2000

No. 99-1178

North of Market Senior Services, Inc.,

Petitioner

v.

National Labor Relations Board,

Respondent

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for

Enforcement of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

Paul B. Johnson argued the cause and filed the briefs for

petitioner.

Sonya Spielberg, Attorney, National Labor Relations

Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the

brief were Linda R. Sher, Associate General Counsel, and

Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel.

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 1 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Peter D. Winkler, Supervisory Attorney, entered an appearance.

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Ginsburg, Circuit Judge,

and Buckley, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: The petitioner in this case, North of

Market Senior Services ("North of Market"), a medical care

provider for low-income senior citizens, challenges the National Labor Relations Board's ("Board" or "NLRB") order

requiring it to bargain with the Service Employees International Union, Local 790 ("Union"). Following a representation election held on January 6, 1998, the Union was certified

on September 28, 1998, as the exclusive bargaining agent for

a unit of employees at North of Market. The employer's

objections to the election were considered, without a hearing,

and overruled by the Board's Regional Director in a written

Report that was subsequently adopted by a three-member

panel of the Board, over one dissent. Board Member Peter

Hurtgen dissented from the Board's failure to provide a

hearing on two of the objections raised by North of Market.

North of Market then refused to bargain, prompting the

issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint by the Board's

General Counsel. On Motion for Summary Judgment, a

three-member panel of the Board found that North of Market

had unlawfully refused to bargain, in violation of sections

8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and

ordered the employer to bargain with the Union as the

employees' exclusive representative.

The Board now seeks enforcement of its order. North of

Market, in turn, argues that certain impermissible actions of

the Board's agent who conducted the election and Union

representatives who were present during the balloting process so tainted the election procedure that the results should

be set aside or, at a minimum, the case should be remanded

for a hearing on the employer's objections.

On the morning of the election, the Board agent who

conducted the election sent Union agents into North of MarUSCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 2 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ket's facilities to tell employees that they could vote between

11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. For approximately half an hour, the

Union agents walked through the employer's facilities, telling

employees that they had been sent by the Board to tell them

when the polls were open. The Union agents even went so

far as to walk into private medical examination rooms where

patients were being examined. As the Union agents talked

with employees on the employer's premises, they openly

rejected a manager's assertion that employees needed to take

their lunch break to vote. The manager who accompanied

the Union agents filed a declaration saying that she was

"powerless to stop this rampage through [the employer's]

facility or to counter what the union agents were doing or

saying." Decl. of Gloria Valoris, reprinted in Deferred Appendix ("D.A.") 85.

North of Market contends that the election should be

invalidated, because the disputed conduct impugned the integrity of the election and interfered with the employees' free

and uncoerced choice in the election. North of Market

argues, in the alternative, that, at the very least, the Board

erred in denying it a hearing on its objections. We agree.

When a party objecting to an election presents specific,

prima facie evidence that an election is invalid, the Board is

required to hold a hearing. See 29 C.F.R. s 102.69(d) (1999);

Swing Staging, Inc. v. NLRB, 994 F.2d 859, 862 (D.C. Cir.

1993). North of Market has presented such evidence in this

case. Thus, the petition for review is granted in part and the

case is remanded. On remand, the Board must either invalidate the election results and schedule a new election or hold a

hearing on the objections raised by North of Market to

determine whether to hold a new election.

I. Background

In the fall of 1997, the Union began a campaign to organize

the employees of North of Market's San Francisco facility.

On November 24, 1997, the Union filed a petition to represent

the employees of that facility. The election was set for

January 6, 1998. North of Market complains about a number

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 3 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of different incidents surrounding the election. However,

only two charges raised by North of Market--the claims that

the actions of the Board agent and Union representatives

destroyed the integrity of the election and interfered with

free and uncoerced voting--warrant our attention.

On the morning of the election, Board Agent Wayne Chin

held a pre-election conference with Gloria Valoris, the Executive Director of North of Market, and Union organizers Jen

Lai and Louisa Blue. The description of the events that

follows is gleaned entirely from Gloria Valoris' perspective, as

her affidavit and declaration are the only evidence in the

record as to what happened that morning. According to Ms.

Valoris, Jen Lai told Mr. Chin that she had heard that

supervisors were telling employees that they could only vote

on their lunch hour between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. If this

was true, it was wrong, because the polls were scheduled to

be open from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Ms. Valoris asserted

that it was not true. She said that employees had been told

that they had to vote during their lunch break, but that they

could take their lunch hour any time between 11:00 a.m. and

1:00 p.m. At this point, with the polls opening in less than

half an hour, Mr. Chin made a poor judgment call.

Mr. Chin decided that the employees should be informed

about the correct voting time. At first he considered sending

Ms. Valoris into the facility to deliver the message to the

employees. Then he changed his mind and told her that she

should have a non-supervisor make the announcement. He

changed his mind again and settled on a final course of action:

"He ... said that the two union agents should make the

announcement to employees that they could vote any time

between 11 and 1." Aff. of Gloria Valoris, reprinted in D.A.

90-91. Ms. Valoris states that it was her "impression that

[she] was to just escort them through the office to show them

where employees were working." Id. at 90.

The Union agents apparently were not shy in carrying out

their assignment: Wearing their Union insignia in full view,

they patted employees on the arm or back, shook their hands

like good buddies, and told them that they had been sent by

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 4 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the NLRB to say that employees could vote any time between

11 and 1. The Union agents added that employees did not

need to take their lunch break to vote. This was contrary to

Ms. Valoris' view, and she followed the Union agents around

telling employees that they could take their lunch any time

between 11 and 1, but that they did have to take their lunch

to vote. The Union agents, however, frustrated her efforts to

get that message across. "Whenever I would make that

statement," she said, "the union agents would contradict my

instructions, telling employees that they had been sent by the

Board agent to tell them that they could vote whenever they

wanted and it did not have to be on their lunch hour." Decl.

of Gloria Valoris, reprinted in D.A. 85. All of this took place

from approximately 10:50 a.m. until 11:15 a.m., fifteen minutes into the election.

During this time, the Union agents also walked into patient

examination rooms, delivering their message to the employees

there. According to Ms. Valoris, "[t]hey barged into exam

rooms unannounced and without any permission from me."

Id. Ms. Valoris says that elderly patients were being treated

in these rooms and that some of them were in various states

of undress. Ms. Valoris states that she "was powerless to

stop this rampage through our facility or to counter what the

union agents were doing and saying, particularly in light of

their repeated statement to employees that they had been

sent by the NLRB." Id. The election otherwise continued

as planned.

The Union won by a vote of 15 to 11, and North of Market

filed timely objections to the election. The Regional Director

investigated, but held no hearing, and recommended overruling the objections. The Board, with one member dissenting,

adopted the Regional Director's findings and recommendations. North of Market Senior Servs. Inc., Case No. 20-RC17350 (Sept. 28, 1998). The dissenting member believed that

the conduct described above warranted a hearing. Id. at 2

n.2. The Union was certified, but North of Market, in order

to obtain judicial review of the decision to certify the Union,

refused to bargain. An unfair labor complaint was issued

against North of Market. The Board, on a Motion for

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 5 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Summary Judgment, held that North of Market violated 29

U.S.C. s 158(a)(1) and (5) and ordered North of Market to

bargain with the Union. North of Market Senior Servs., Inc.,

327 N.L.R.B. No. 197 (Mar. 24, 1999). This appeal followed.

III. Discussion

The Board's discretion to assess the propriety and results

of representation elections is broad. Thus, it is well established that a court will overturn a Board decision to certify an

election in only the rarest of circumstances. See E.N. Bisso

& Son, Inc. v. NLRB, 84 F.3d 1443, 1445 (D.C. Cir. 1996). A

party seeking to overturn an election bears a heavy burden of

showing that the election is invalid. See Swing Staging, Inc.

v. NLRB, 994 F.2d 859, 861 (D.C. Cir. 1993). But a party

who "raises substantial and material issues of fact sufficient

to support a prima facie showing of objectionable conduct," is

entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Id. (citing 29 C.F.R.

s 102.69(d) (1999)). This evidence cannot be conclusory but

"must point to specific events and specific people." Id.

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

North of Market presented such specific evidence here, yet

the Board in this case declined to hold a hearing. North of

Market filed six objections with the Board and supported

those objections with specific evidence of wrong-doing.

Among the objections, North of Market argued that the

Board agent's decision to send the Union agents into the

employer's facility and the Union agents' subsequent behavior

impugned the integrity of the election and interfered with the

employees' free and uncoerced voting. And while we agree

with the Board's decision to reject most of North of Market's

objections, these two objections raise substantial issues that

should have been addressed by the Board.

A. The Integrity of the Election

The Board attempts, as near as possible, to hold elections

in a laboratory condition. See NLRB v. Schwartz Bros., Inc.,

475 F.2d 926, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1973); General Shoe Corp., 77

N.L.R.B. 124, 127 (1948). This requires the Board and its

agents to maintain an appearance of neutrality in conducting

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 6 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

fair and impartial elections. See, e.g., Sioux Products, Inc. v.

NLRB, 703 F.2d 1010, 1013-14 (7th Cir. 1983). Obviously,

Board agents in charge of elections have a responsibility to

uphold this standard. Thus, if a Board agent acts in a way to

"destroy confidence in the Board's election process, or [in a

way that] could reasonably be interpreted as impugning the

election standards," the election must be set aside. Id. at

1013 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

A Board agent can destroy confidence in the election in a

number of different ways: by creating questions about the

integrity of the ballot box, see Austill Waxed Paper Co., 169

N.L.R.B. 1109, 1109-1110 (1968) (invalidating an election,

because the ballot box was left unsealed and unattended for

from two to five minutes); by fraternizing with one party to

the election, see Athbro Precision Eng'g Corp., 166 N.L.R.B.

966, 966 (1967), vacated sub nom. Electrical Workers IUE v.

NLRB, 67 L.R.R.M. 2361 (D.D.C. 1968), acq. 171 N.L.R.B. 21

(1968), enf'd. 423 F.2d 573 (1st Cir. 1970) (invalidating an

election, because Board agent was seen having a beer with

Union agent between polling periods); or by delegating nonminor official election duties to a party, see Alco Iron & Metal

Co., 269 N.L.R.B. 590, 591-92 (1984) (invalidating election,

because Board agent delegated task of translating voting

instructions to Union observer). It is this last cited conduct

that is at issue here.

The Board agent in this case delegated to Union officials

the task of telling employees when they could vote in the

representation election. In other words, there is no doubt

that an official election task was impermissibly assigned to a

party. The question here is whether this delegation compromised the integrity of the election. The Board traditionally

has considered such questions on a case-by-case basis, weighing the importance of the delegated task, the manner in which

it was assigned and performed, and its likely effect on the

required appearance of neutrality. For example, in Alco, the

Board determined that the integrity of the election was

compromised when the Board agent delegated the task of

translating ballots to the Union's observer. 269 N.L.R.B. at

591-92. The Board stated that "[t]he delegation of an imporUSCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 7 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tant part of the election process to the Petitioner's observer

conveyed the impression that the Petitioner, and not the

Board, was responsible for running the election." Id. This

conduct, the Board held, was "incompatible with [its] responsibility for assuring properly conducted elections," and necessitated overturning the election. Id. at 592. However, in

San Francisco Sausage Co., 291 N.L.R.B. 384 (1988), the

integrity of the election was found not to have been compromised when the Board agent delegated the task of announcing, over an intercom, that voting had begun. That, the

Board held, "was a delegation of a minor task" that was

performed in an innocuous way and so did not necessitate

overturning the election. San Francisco Sausage, 291

N.L.R.B. at 384 n.1.

Here, the Board agent's delegation raised a serious threat

to the integrity of the election, because it resulted in Union

agents tromping through the employer's facility, on the direct

authority of an official from the NLRB, during the precious

moments before the polls opened. There is no doubt that

simply delegating the task of telling employees when to vote

does not impugn the integrity of an election. See, e.g., San

Francisco Sausage, 291 N.L.R.B. at 384 n.1. However, unlike San Francisco Sausage, where the party made only a

brief announcement over an intercom, the Union agents in

this case, in full Union regalia, announced that they were sent

by the NLRB, then personally and warmly greeted each

employee and told them when they could vote. And the

Union agents added insult to injury by openly refuting a

management official's instruction regarding employees' lunch

breaks. It was strange at best for Union officials to be

wandering through the employer's work areas, with no assent

from the employer and on the proclaimed authority of the

NLRB. This certainly may have given the impression that

the Board had ceded significant authority to the Union over

the conduct of the election.

In short, North of Market has presented a compelling case,

and certainly a prima facie one, that the integrity of the

election was impugned when the Board agent sent Union

officials into the employer's facility to tell employees when to

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 8 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

vote. And the vigor with which the Union agents carried out

the task, flaunting their new found "authority" to speak for

the Board, while openly disagreeing with a management

official, made the situation even worse. The Board erred in

denying North of Market a hearing on this objection.

B. Interference with Free and Uncoerced Voting

Likewise, the Board erred in summarily rejecting the objection that the Union agents' tour through the facilities and

open disagreements with a management official necessitated

invalidating the election. An election is invalid if the actions

of a party to the election "reasonably tend[ed] to interfere

with the employees' free and uncoerced choice in the election." Family Serv. Agency v. NLRB, 163 F.3d 1369, 1383

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The employees' free and uncoerced choice in an election

may be interfered with by actions that create the impression

that an employer is not in control of its own facilities and is

not able to stand up to the Union. See Phillips Chrysler

Plymouth, Inc., 304 N.L.R.B. 16 (1991).

In Phillips, the Board invalidated an election where Union

agents refused to leave the employer's property and engaged

in a shouting match with the employer in front of employees

an hour before the polls opened. Because this "direct challenge to the Employer's assertion of its property rights" and

the message that "the Employer was powerless to protect its

own legal rights in a confrontation with the Union" could not

have been lost on the employees, the Board held that the

Union's conduct interfered with the employees' free and

uncoerced choice. Phillips Chrysler, 304 N.L.R.B. at 16.

Similarly, in this case, North of Market has raised significant issues regarding the Union's improper invasion of its

property and the resulting impression that the employer was

helpless to control the situation. First, not only did the

Union agents walk around the employer's facility without the

employer's permission, but they walked into private examination rooms where patients were in a state of undress. The

Union agents' unhindered access to the facilities and the

examining rooms surely could have been seen as a challenge

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 9 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

to North of Market's property rights. Second, the Union

agents repeatedly disagreed with Ms. Valoris: She told employees that they had to vote on their lunch break, but the

Union agents told employees that they did not have to vote

during their lunch hour. This disagreement could well have

given employees the impression that North of Market was

unable to protect its rights in a dispute with the Union. This

is especially true given that the Union agents purported to be

speaking for the Board when they disagreed with the employer.

Moreover, we scrutinize this misconduct more closely both

because it took place on the day of the election, see Family

Serv. Agency, 163 F.3d at 1383 (noting that argument between employer and union did not necessitate invalidating the

election in part because election was at least a month away

from the time the argument occurred); NLRB v. Earle

Indus., Inc., 999 F.2d 1268, 1274 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that

conduct did not violate Phillips Chrysler, in part because it

took place weeks before the election), and because the Union's margin of victory was narrow, see C.J. Krehbiel Co. v.

NLRB, 844 F.2d 880, 884 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (carefully scrutinizing the election, because the vote was close); United Steel

Workers v. NLRB, 496 F.2d 1342, 1347 n. 11 (5th Cir. 1974)

("If the vote margin in a representational election is very

narrow, minor violations should be more closely scrutinized.").

In light of the record at hand and considering the principles underlying Phillips Chrysler, we conclude that North of

Market was at least entitled to a hearing on this issue.

Accordingly, the case will be remanded for further consideration by the Board, either to conduct of a new election or for

a hearing on the employer's objections. If a hearing is held,

the Board must specifically address the application of Phillips

Chrysler to this case.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons given above, the Board's request for

enforcement is denied, the petition for review is granted in

part, and the case is remanded to the Board. On remand, the

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 10 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Board may conclude that the present record is sufficient

without more to show that the integrity of the election was

compromised and/or that the employees' free and uncoerced

choice was impaired so as to justify a new election. At a

minimum, however, the Board must conduct a hearing to

address these two charges raised by the employer.

USCA Case #99-1178 Document #502316 Filed: 03/10/2000 Page 11 of 11