Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01155/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kwik Care Ltd.
Petitioner
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union
Intervenor

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 April 1, 1996 Decided May 7, 1996

No. 95-1155

KWIK CARE LTD., D/B/A VIP HEALTH CARE SERVICES,

PETITIONER

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

RESPONDENT

LOCAL 670, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT

STORE UNION, AFL-CIO,

INTERVENOR

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for

Enforcement of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

Roger S. Kaplan argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner. Mark R. Sussman entered an

appearance.

Marion L. Griffin, Attorney, NationalLabor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent, with

whom Linda R. Sher, Associate General Counsel and Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate

General Counsel, were on the brief.

Richard M. Greenspan was on the brief for intervenor.

Before: WALD, WILLIAMS and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD.

WALD, Circuit Judge: Following a mail-in election during which a unit of home health aides

voted in favor of union representation, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board")

certified the elected Union, Local 670, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union ("Union"), as

the unit's collective bargaining representative. When the employer, Kwik Care Ltd., d/b/a/ VIP

Health Care Services ("employer" or "VIP"), refused to bargain with the unit, the Union filed an

unfair labor practices charge with the Board. Finding that VIP had violated § 8(a)(1) and (5) of the

NationalLabor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151, etseq., ("NLRA" or "Act"), the Board ordered VIP

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 1 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

to bargain with the Union. Kwik Care Ltd., 316 N.L.R.B. No. 98 (Feb 24, 1995) ("Final Order");

Appendix ("A-") 297.

VIP now petitions this court for review, requesting that we deny enforcement of the Board's

order because the mail-in election was improper. Specifically, the employer claims: (1) that the

Board abused its discretion in ordering a mail-in election rather than a manual one; (2) that even if

the Board were justified at the outset in ordering the election-by-mail, it should have rejected the

results based on election complications; and (3) that the Board should have invalidated the vote in

favor ofrepresentation based on the Union's distribution oftwo improperlydesignated sample ballots

which could have misled voters into thinking that the sample ballot represented the official position

of the Board rather than propaganda of the Union.

Given the specific characteristics of the bargaining unit eligible to participate in this election,

we find that the Board acted well within its broad discretion when it ordered a mail-in election rather

than a manual one. We also find that the Board properly determined that the Union's sample ballot

constituted legitimate propaganda since it would not tend to mislead voters into thinking it had been

produced by the Board. Accordingly, we deny the employer's petition for review and grant the

Union's cross-application for enforcement of the Board's order.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Hearing

The Union initially petitioned the NLRB in August 1993 to represent a unit of home health

care workers employed by VIP. Those employees who provide personal living assistance or health

care to patients in adult care facilities or in the patients' homes were eligible to vote in the

representation election. These workers live and work at locations scattered around New York, and

are supervised out of five VIP offices in Westchester, Rockland, Nassau, Queens and the Bronx.

Although weekly paychecks are disbursed to workers(or designated familymembers or co-workers)

in the company offices one day each week, a significant number of the employees (14%, by the

employer's estimate) work either 24-hour shifts or 12-hour shifts during daylight hours and cannot

make special trips to the office on payday. As an alternative to in-person check pick-ups, the

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 2 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

employer mails payment to these long-shift workers and any other employees who elect to receive

their checks by mail. According to the employer, approximately 20% of the unit employees receive

their checks by mail. Testimony of Cynthia Rosen, VIP Director, at 93 (Sept. 8, 1993) ("Rosen

Testimony"); A-46. Of the remaining 80% of unit workers, whose paychecks are picked up each

week in the VIP offices, the record is unclear how many send a friend or relative as an emissary and

how many make the trek in person. The employer acknowledged that workers in group homes will

sometimes send just one person to retrieve all of the paychecks, id. at 126; A-68, and VIP can

conclude only that "more than half" retrieve the paychecks themselves. Id. at 94; A-47.

The employer, urging a manual election, claimed that only 14% of the unit workers (those

who work either 12- or 24-hour shifts) would have trouble making it into the offices to vote. Rosen

Testimony at 99; A-52 ("[W]e asked [the directors] just to give us who was unable to vote during

[the proposed] times. That's how we came up with that. And that's what those were, those were the

live-ins and the 12 hours."). Rosen testified that the employer would attempt to supply "replacement"

workers for these employees, to allow them time to participate in the election, but could not, at the

time of the hearing, guarantee coverage for all workers who might request it. Id. at 153; A-92.

Rosen also opined that the employees working in group care facilities, many of whom send a

representative to pick up their checks, would be able to travel to the offices to vote. "I know that

some of the employees in the adult care facilities work fewer than eight hours," she testified.

"Therefore, I know that they could come to pick up their own check. That's what I know." Id. at

138; A-80. Rosen's testimony, however, appears to have been based on the assumption that the

employer considered any worker who had at least one hour off-duty during the time the polls would

be open to be "able" to vote in a manual election. See id. at 96-102; A-49-55. For example,

someone who worked a 12-hour shift at night would be deemed available to vote during the day. Id.

at 100-01; A-53-54.

During her testimony, Rosen also noted that a subset of employees might work other jobs

when not on duty for VIP, and that some have reported that their availability is limited due to "other

responsibilit[ies]." Id. at 114-15; A-63-64. Additionally, she testified that many of the workers

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 3 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

depend on public transportation for their mobility. Id. at 126; A-68.

Noting the scattered location of the workers' job sites, and the difficulty many employees

might face traveling to the offices for a manual election, the Board's Regional Director determined

over VIP's objectionsthat the use ofmail-in ballots would offer the best opportunityfor the maximum

number of employeesto cast a vote. Kwik Care Ltd., 29-RC-8198, Decision&Direction ofElection,

at 12 (Dec. 14, 1993) ("Direction of Election"); A-103, 114.

B. The Ballots

On February 8, 1994, the Board sent each of the 860 eligible VIP employees a mail ballot kit

which, by agreement of the parties, was printed in four languages (English, Spanish, Russian, and

Haitian/Creole). Each kit containedin all four languagesa Notice of Election, a ballot, and

detailed instructions on how to cast a vote. The Notice contained a warning (in large, bold, capital

letters on the English and Spanish versions) informing voters that the Board would remain a neutral

party in the election:

WARNING: THIS IS THE ONLY OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THIS ELECTION

AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE. ANY MARKINGS THAT

YOU MAY SEE ON ANY SAMPLE BALLOT OR ANYWHERE ON THIS

NOTICE HAVE BEEN MADE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND HAVE NOT BEEN PUT

THERE BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. THE

[BOARD] IS AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

AND DOES NOT ENDORSE ANY CHOICE IN THE ELECTION.

Notice of Election (emphasis in original); A-149.

The voting instructionsinformed the employeesthat they had to mark the appropriate box on

the ballot (and that if they made any other markings, their ballot would not count) and sign the return

envelope (if they failed to sign the envelope, their ballot would not count). The instructions also

included a checklist that said:

YOURBALLOT WILLBE VOIDANDWILLNOTBE COUNTED UNLESS you:

1. Mark on the ballot only in the place provided for marking; do not identify yourself

on the ballot.

2. Return the ballot in the same envelope which you received for that purpose.

3. Sign your name in your own handwriting on the outside of that envelope after the

word "Signature," so that your name can be checked against the eligibility list.

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 4 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Instructions (emphasis in original); A-L6. Additionally, the form stated that the ballots had to be

mailed in time to be "RECEIVED" by the Board by March 8, 1994. Voters were instructed that if

they had any questions about the election they should contact the Regional Director, whose address

and telephone number were provided on the form.

C. The Union's Altered Sample Ballot

The same day the Board sent out the voter kits, the Union mailed to all eligible workers a

one-page letter and a sample ballot altered to show support for the Union. Kwik Care Ltd., 29-RC8198, SupplementalDecision onObjections andCertification ofRepresentation (Aug. 1, 1994), App.

D, F ("Supp. Dec."); A-175, 209, 211. Each envelope bore the Union's name and return address,

and contained the two unattached sheets of paper. The letter, which clearly designated the Union as

its author, unquestionably constituted legitimate partisan propaganda urging support of the Union.

The sample ballot, however, contained no facialreference to the Union, and the employer claimsthat

it thus had the potential to mislead voters as to its origin.

The sample ballot resembled the official ballot distributed by the Board in the voter packets,

but with certain significant differences. The official ballot posed the question, "Do you wish to be

represented for purposes of collective bargaining by [the Union]?" and had at the bottom two boxes,

one marked "yes" and the other "no." Official Ballot; A-L12. The Union's sample ballot posed the

same question, but bore a heading which read, "THE BALLOT WILL LOOK LIKE THIS," and had

an X marked in the "yes" box. Additionally, the sample ballot did not have the Board's seal on it, as

did the official ballot (and the official "sample ballot" included in the Notice of Election). The

following day, the Union again mailed out the altered sample ballot, this time stapled to another

propaganda letter on Union letterhead urging the employeesto vote in favor ofrepresentation. Again

the materials were enclosed in a clearly-marked Union envelope.

D. The Election and Subsequent Proceedings

On March 8, the day originally scheduled for the vote count, the parties agreed to extend the

election for an additional week. The delay resulted in part from the discovery that some of the return

envelopes had been stamped with the wrong bar code, which caused those ballots to be routed

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 5 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1Section 8(a) states, in relevant part:

It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the

[self-organization] rights guaranteed in section 7;

....

(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his

employees....

29 U.S.C. § 158(a). 

through an NLRB office in Philadelphia. Supp. Dec. at 13-14; A-187-88. By March 15, the day the

ballots were ultimately counted, 72% of the eligible workers had returned ballots to the Board. A

final tally ofthe votesrevealed that 560 ofthe 613 votesthe Board received were valid; 43 were void

(most of them either for failure to sign the envelope or for bearing extraneous markings); and 10

were challenged. Id. at 3; A-177. Of the valid ballots, 295 supported the Union and 265 opposed

it. Id. The valid ballots represented the views of 66% of the eligible voters. Id. at 13; A-187.

The employer objected to the election, but theRegionalDirector overruled the objections and

certified the Union as the unit's bargaining representative. Id. at 24-25; A-198-99. The company

filed a petition for review which the Board denied. Kwik Care Ltd., Order, 29-RC-8198 (Jan. 6,

1995) ("Order"); A-217a. When the employer, which continued to object to the Union's

certification, refused to bargain with the unit, the Union filed an unfair labor practices charge with

the Board. The Board granted summary judgment to the NLRB's General Counsel, finding that VIP

had violated § 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA by refusing to recognize the Union,1and ordered the

employer to bargain with the Union. Final Order; A-297. VIP then petitioned this court for review

and the Union cross-applied for enforcement of the Board's order.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Election by Mail

First, VIP challenges the Board's initial decision to hold this representation election by mail

rather than manually at the VIP offices.

As a general matter, the Board enjoys broad discretion in its administration of representation

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 6 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

elections, and the party challenging the Board-certified results of an election carries a heavy burden.

See, e.g., C.J. Krehbiel Co. v. NLRB, 844 F.2d 880, 882 (D.C. Cir. 1988); J. Ray McDermott &Co.,

Inc. v. NLRB, 571 F.2d 850, 854 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 424 F.2d 818,

827 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

In this case, the employer has failed to meet this tough standard of review. Even though

postal elections generally inspire lower participation than on-site elections, see Petitioner's Brief at

25-26 (citing Memorandum from Richard Roth to WilliamGould (June 23, 1994); A-L55-57), there

is no reason to believe that this assumption would prove correct in the particular case at hand. In

fact, the Board had every reason to believe that the voter participation rate would have been

significantly lowerifit had opted for a manual election for VIP's employees. The same memorandum

cited by the employer to tout the advantages of on-site elections also acknowledges that "[m]ail

ballots are useful ... [when] there is no central place where the[ ] employees normally report to." Id.

In other words, the employer's own evidence suggests that mail ballots are useful in situations like

this one, where the voters' work descriptions support the conclusion that voter participation might

be even lower in a manual election.

Similarly, theBoard'sinternalCasehandling Manual, which provides nonbinding guidance for

the agency's staff members, see NLRB CASEHANDLING MANUAL, Part Two, Representation

Proceedings, Purpose of Manual ("Manual") ("The guidelines included ... are not intended to be and

should not be viewed as binding procedural rules."), can be read to support the Regional Director's

decision in this case. Most importantly, the Manual acknowledges the Director's discretion on this

issue: "The Regional Director should decide whether, or to what extent, mail voting should be

employed." Manual at § 11336. And even though the Manual acknowledges that mail elections,

when challenged by one party, should be limited "to those circumstances that clearly indicate the

infeasibility of a manual election," id., the Manual also explicitly states that "[p]articularly ... where

eligible voters are scattered because of their duties, the possibility [of mail balloting] should be

explored." Id. Thus, in cases like this, the Regional Director was instructed to explore the possibility

of mail balloting and exercise his discretion in ordering an election.

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 7 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In this case, a manual election would have required many of the workers to make a special

trip to one of the employer's offices. A significant number of the employees (including, at the very

least, the estimated 14% who work 24-hour shifts or 12-hour daytime shifts) would have had to

coordinate with replacement workers who could assume their duties while they went to vote, and

many members of the bargaining unit would have had to spend significant time and effort navigating

the public transportation systemin order to participate in this election. And even those with duty-free

hours or short shifts might well face other circumstances preventing their participation in a manual

election. As noted, some of the employees hold second jobs and have "other responsibilities" that

might bar them from spending their single off-duty hour traveling to the VIP office to cast a vote.

Instead of ordering a manual election, the Board sensibly opted for a mail-in ballot, which

gave every employee the opportunity to cast a vote from home after reviewing the material sent out

in the ballot kits. We find that the Board acted within its discretion when it decided to forego a

manual election under these particular circumstances. Given that only 72% of the qualified voters

exerted the minimal effort required to check a box and return the ballot in a pre-stamped envelope,

we are unconvinced by the employer's argument that a greater percentage of employees would have

spent their off-duty hoursin time-consuming travel acrosstown in order to vote in a manual election.

To be sure,some employees visit the VIP headquartersregularly to pick up paychecks and could have

been asked to vote at that time. But there is no evidence that, relative to the mail-in ballots, the

possibilityofincreased participationfromthose site-visiting employees would offset predictably lower

participation by those who never have other cause to check in at headquarters.

Therefore, we conclude that the Board's decision was not unreasonable.

B. Election Complications.

VIP has suggested several "problems" with the mail-in election, but we do not believe that

any of them warrant our vacating either the results of the election or the Board's subsequent orders.

1. Ambiguous Instructions

First, VIP argues that the Board's instructions were unduly confusing, since language on the

ballot itself directed voters to drop the vote in a ballot box, even though, in a mail election, there was

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 8 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2

It appears from the Board's opinion that the parties ultimately agreed to count these votes. 

See Supp. Dec. at 15; A-189. 

no box available. The instructions (and checklist) accompanying the ballot, however, advised voters

to return the ballot in the enclosed envelope. VIP argues that these conflicting directions caused

confusion, which was further exacerbated by the fact that the ballot kits included materials in four

different languages.

Responding to VIP's concern, the Board pointed to four separate instructionsin the ballot kit

materials advising votersto mail in their ballots, and concluded that these directions provided voters

with "ample notice concerning the proper balloting procedure." Supp. Dec. at 11; A-185.

Moreover, the Board took note of the invitation on the instructionsfor the votersto call the Regional

Office with any questions. Thus, even if the ballot initially confused a voter, that voter could still

have determined the proper procedure to follow.

There is also no reason the Board should have assumed that the multilingual nature of the

voting kit had the potential to confuse any employees, since each voter could reasonably be expected

to read the instructions in her language of choice and disregard the extraneous material. In fact, the

ballots appeared in four languages precisely because the parties had all agreed at the outset that the

linguistic diversitywould provide the best means ofmaking sure that all the workersfully understood

the election rules.

2. Invalid Ballots

Second, VIP claims that the large number of invalid ballots (43 "voided" ballots and 11 late

ones) demonstrates that the Board's procedure confused VIP's employees. Central to this objection

isthe employer's assumption that the problemsrendering the ballotsinvalid would have been avoided

by holding a manual election. VIP points to 29 ballots which were voided because the voters did not

sign the envelopes; 11 which arrived after the March 15 tally date; 14 voided because they had

extraneous writing on them; and 5 voided because the voters mailed in stubs instead of ballots.2

Petitioner's Brief at 22.

The Board determined that the instructions clearly required a signature on the envelope, and

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 9 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3Only two of these were from the miscoded batch that passed through Philadelphia, and those

two arrived at the end of Marchlate enough that the barcode error probably had no effect. 

Supp. Dec. at 14; A-188. 

that the failure of some people to follow the explicit directions should not invalidate the election

results. The Board also noted that the voters had been instructed several times to mail their ballots

early enough to guarantee a March 8 arrival date. The 11 late ballots were received more than a

week after that deadline. Supp. Dec. at 14; A-188.3 We cannot conclude that the Board acted

unreasonably in assuming that an employee who failed to make the effort to return a pre-stamped

envelope within the month-long election period might well have also failed to make the sacrifice of

time, energy and money that a manual vote would have required.

The employer claims that the 14 mismarked ballots would have been successfully cast if the

election had been a manual one, since the voters would immediately have been able to ask the Board

agent supervising the election to replace the ballots with new ones. Petitioner's Brief at 22-23. First,

we note that mismarked ballots are not unique to mail-in elections. See, e.g., NLRB v. Precise

Castings, Inc., 915 F.2d 1160, 1163 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 959 (1991) (discussing

an on-site election, and noting that "Ballots are not always read. The number of spoiled or invalid

ballots attests to this."). More importantly, however, the voters who mismarked their ballots most

likely did not knowthat they had erred. Had they been aware of their mistakes, they could have called

the regional director and requested new ballots, just as they would have requested new ballots from

an on-site election supervisor in a manual election.

In sum, although this election was far from smooth, see supra at 10-12 & n.3, the Board's

ruling that the improperly cast ballots should not invalidate this election cannot be held to be

unreasonable.

C. The Sample Ballot

The parties agree that the Union's distribution of altered ballotsshould invalidate the election

only if "the document ha[d] the tendency to mislead employees into believing that the Board favors

one party's cause." SDC Investment, Inc., 274 N.L.R.B. 556, 557 (1985) ("SDC"). The Union

argues that the Board's recent decision in Brookville Healthcare Center, 312 N.L.R.B. 594 (1993)

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 10 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

("Brookville"), establishesthat, as a matter oflaw, altered ballots do not have the tendencyto mislead

voters, since the Board's revised Notice of Election form bears the disclaimer quoted above, supra,

at 5, proclaiming Board neutrality in all elections. VIP argues that Brookville does not govern the

question presented in this case, and cites two opinions the employer claims mandate reversal of the

Board's determination that the sample ballot constituted legitimate propaganda.

1. The SDC/3-Day Blinds Test

For years, the Board has used a two-part analysis for evaluating the propriety of an altered

ballot distributed by a party involved in a scheduled election. First, under this test, if the face of the

sample ballot clearly identifiesthe source of any alterations or partisan comments, then the use ofthat

ballot as propaganda is justified. For example, in this case, VIP had itself distributed a sample ballot

with an X marked in the "no" box, to show a vote against the Union, but since the employer's

distribution, unlike the Union's, clearlystated on itsface that it had been "Prepared byVIP," the ballot

passed the first prong of the SDC test and has never been challenged.

Second, if the sample ballot does not reveal on its face the source of any alterations, then the

Board will examine "the nature and contents of the document," as well as "the circumstances of [its]

distribution," 3-Day Blinds, 299 N.L.R.B. 110 (1986), to determine "whether it was likely to give

employees the misleading impression that the Board favored [one side] in the election." Id.

In 3-Day Blinds, the employer had distributed by hand a photocopy of the Board's official

sample ballot, marked with a vote in favor of the employer. The altered ballot was printed on the

same light green paper used for official Board-produced election documents. At the bottom of the

page, the employer had written "THIS IS HOW TO MARK YOUR BALLOT TO GIVE THE NEW

OWNERS A CHANCE." Agents of the employer had distributed the ballot in person, at which time

the agents identified themselves as the new owners and urged the employees to vote "no" in the

upcoming election. In addition to the altered ballot, the employer distributed an unattached form

guaranteeing the workers that they would be free from retaliation based on their vote. This

"guarantee handbill," unlike the ballot, was clearlymarked as having been produced by the employer.

The Board in 3-Day Blinds determined that the ballot's facial reference to the "new owners"

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 11 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

failed sufficiently to identify it as the employer's partisan propaganda. Because the sample ballot did

not identify its origin on its face, the Board moved on to the second prong of the analysis and

concluded that the circumstancessurrounding its distribution had the potential to mislead votersinto

thinking the Board, rather than the employer, might have issued the ballot. The Board noted that the

formhad been "handed outseparatelyand distinctly" fromanyother materialidentifying the employer

as its source; that it looked like an official document; and that the contrast between the ballot and

the clearly-partisan guarantee handbill had the potential to contribute to the perception that the ballot

had been produced by a different source. Id. at 111-12. Even though the employer had distributed

the altered ballots, "distribution of a document by a party does not necessarily mean that the party,

rather than the board, prepared the document." Id. at 112.

VIP argues that the circumstances in this case make the Union's ballot even more misleading

than the employer's in 3-Day Blinds: for example, the Union's ballot here bore no markings

suggesting its source, whereas in 3-Day Blinds the form urged readers to give "the New Owners" a

chance. Additionally, VIP claims that the Union's altered ballot had the potential to mislead voters

because it was not physically attached to the partisan letter (at least in the first mailing) and because

the partisan letter did not explicitly refer to the altered ballot. Despite certain similarities to 3-Day

Blinds, the Board determined that the Union's ballot in this case would not tend to mislead voters.

Even though it might not have been stapled to the Union letter, it was enclosed in the same envelope

withclearlypartisanpropagandawrittenonUnion letterhead, and the envelope itselfwasmarked with

the name of the Union. Supp. Dec. at 21-23; A-195-97. Moreover, the altered ballot is white

whereas the official ballot is yellow, and the Board seals do not appear on the facsimile. Compare

SDC,supra, 274 N.L.R.B. at 558 ("[T]he presence ofthe Board seal at the top and the officialBoard

sample ballot on the reverse side did much to make the document appear to be official."). Although

the Union'sfailure to identify itself asthe author of the document gives us pause, we cannot conclude

that the Board acted unreasonably when it determined that voters would understand that the sample

ballot had been altered by the Union.

2. The Brookville Test

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 12 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In its order denying VIP's request for review of the decision to certify the results of the

election, the Board noted an additional rationale for the conclusion that the Union's sample ballot

would not mislead voters. Citing Brookville, supra, 312 N.L.R.B. 594, the Board found that "the

warning language concerning the Board's neutrality and the unauthorized marking of sample ballots

... makesit extremelyunlikelythat the Petitioner'sfacsimile ballot gave employeesthe impression that

the Board endorsed the Petitioner in this election." Order; A-217a. Although VIP correctly argues

that the situation at hand is distinguishable from that in Brookville, the difference does not invalidate

the Board's reliance on the Brookville rationale as support for its decision here.

The partisan alteration at issue in Brookville had been made on the sample ballot that

appeared on a copy of the Board's then-newly-revised Notice of Election, containing the firm

declaration of Board neutrality quoted supra, at 5. Here, by contrast, the alteration appeared on a

sample ballot sent out to voters under separate Union cover. Thus, the holding in Brookville does

not directly apply to this case; the Board there held that "in all cases involving the defacement of a

revised notice, the SDC Investment analysis no longer is required," since the new warning on the

Notice issufficient "to preclude a reasonable impression that the Board favors or endorses" one side

in the election. 312 N.L.R.B. at 594.

Although the earlier case is not directly on point, it was not unreasonable for the Board here

to rely on Brookville to support the assumption that participantsin the VIP mail election would have

read the Noticeincluding the statement that "ANY MARKINGS THAT YOU MAY SEE ON ANY

SAMPLE BALLOT ... HAVE BEEN MADE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE [BOARD]," A149 (emphasis added)and would therefore have known that the altered ballot constituted the

Union's partisan propaganda. This court need not decide if the Brookville analysis by itself would

support the Board's finding, since the Board only relied on Brookville to bolster its reasonable

determination that the Union's mailing satisfied the SDC/3-Day Blinds standard.

For the foregoing reasons, the employer's petition for review is denied and the Union's

cross-application for enforcement of the Board's order is granted.

So ordered.

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 13 of 14
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

USCA Case #95-1155 Document #198436 Filed: 05/07/1996 Page 14 of 14