The H onorab le J ane E. M agnu s- Stin son ofthe Southern  Dis t ri c tofI ndi ana , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058 R UAN T RANS PORT C OR PO RA T I ON, Pet i t i one r/ Cros s - Res pond e nt, v. N ATI ONA L L ABO R R ELA TION S B O ARD , R espo nd ent/C ross-P etitio ner.

OnPeti tionfor Revi ew an d Cr oss -Ap pl ic a tion fo r Enfo rc em ento f anOrd er of the National L ab o r Relations B o ard. No . 13 CA46555
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 19, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 19, 2012

Befo re F L A U M an d M A NI ON, C ircu it Judges, an d M AGN US S T I NS ON, D istrict Judge.  M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. F o l l o win ga v o t e b y t h e e mplo yee s o fa tr uck t ra nsport ati on co m pany nam ed Ruan Transpor t, the N ati onalLaborR el ati ons Board ce rt i fi ed2 N os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058 a l oca l uni on t o be the r epres entat i ve f orR u an’ s e m plo ye e s . Ru an now pet iti ons this cou rt to reverse the Boa rd ’s deci si on, wh ile the Boa rd cr oss - peti ti ons us to enf or ce i ts deci si on. The di spute tur n s o n w hethera bal l ot w i th i rr egul arm ar kings

— the deci ding vot e in the el ecti on

— sh o u ld be co u n te d . B ec au se w e c on c lu d e t h atit w as not an abuse o f d iscr eti on f orthe Board t o fi nd that th e ch al l en g ed ba l l o t i ndi ca te s th e cl ea r i nt en t o fthe vo te r, we affi r m th e Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n c er ti fy i ngthe uni o n.

I. Ruan is a tr u c k transpor tat i on co m pany thatem plo ys tr uck dri ver s a nd wareh ou se spot ter s. I n Feb ruar y 2 010, the Tea m ste rs Local70 5 uni on fi l ed a r epres entat i on pet i ti o n s ee k i ngt o b e th e uni o n r epr es en ta ti ve o fthe dri ver s work i ng atRuan’s Ca st le M eta l f aci l i ty near Ch i cago . A n ot h eruni on, Team ste rs Local71 0, was al so in te re st ed in re p re se n tin g R u an ’s e m p loy ee s. A s a res u lt ofthe re prese ntati on peti ti on, the N ati onal Labor Rel ation s B oard cond uc ted an election. On the ba ll ot, R ua n’s wo r k e r s we r e ab l e t o ma r ka c ho i c e f o r r e pr e s e nt a ti on by L ocal 705, a ch oice f or re p r e sen tation by the interveni ng uni on Local71 0, o r a cho i ce fo r nei ther

. The i ni ti al re sul ts ofthe ele c tion w er e t w el ve vot es f orLocal70 5, e l e v e n v o t e s f o r L o c a l 7 1 0 , n o v o t e s f o r n e i th e r, a n d t wo c ha l l e ng e d b a l l o t s . Aft e r a s t i pu l a t i o n f r o m t he p a r t i es, o ne o fthe c ha l l e ng e d b a l l o t s w a s o pe ne d a nd c o un t e d, gi vi ng a fi nal r evi sed ta l l y o ft w elve vo tes f orLocal70 5 and tw el ve vot es f orLocal71 0. B e c a u s e o f th e t i e , a r u n - o ff e l e c t i o n b y ma i l b e c a me necess ar y. Begi nning M ay 14, 2 010, bal l ots were pri ntedN os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058 3 on br i ght pi nk paper and m ailed to a l l vo ter s. On each b a l l o t we r e t wo b o xe s , o ne f o r Lo c a l 7 0 5 a nd o ne f or Local71 0. Each bal l ot al so had the printed i nstr ucti on t o “mar ka n ‘ X’ i n the s qua r e o fy o urc ho ice. ” Fina l l y, a t th e b ot to m of ea c h ba llotw as th e in st ru c tio n, “If y ou sp oil th is b allo t re tu rn it to th e B oa rd A ge n t fo r a n ew on e.” On June 2 , the vot es w er e t al l i ed. Local 705 and Local 710 re cei ved f ourt een v ot es ea ch, with tw o chal l enged bal l ots
. One bal l ot w as cha llen ged bec ause i t was cas t by an i nel i gible vot er

— a per son w ho had r esi gned fro m empl o y m en t wi thRua n b efo r e th e dat e ofthe e l ec ti o n. The chal l enge w as susta i ned by the H ear i ng Offi cer re vi ew i ng t he el ecti on, and that fi nd i ng was adopted b y t h e B oa rd . Th is b allo t is n otatiss u e o n ap p ea l. I t i s th e se co nd c ha ll en g ed ba l l o t th ati s ati ss ue

— a ba l l o t w ith m arking s i n b o ththe b o x f o r Lo ca l7 05 a nd the b ox f orLoca l 7 10
. The o ri gi nal bal l ot w as subm i tte d t o th i s c o u r ta s a n e x h ib i to n a pp e a l , an d w e h a v e e x a mi ned i t. ( A co py ofthe bal l ot i s incl u d ed i n thi s o pini on as A pp endix A.) I n the l eft- hand bo x, the one f orLocal70 5, th er e i s a cl ea r, he av i l y mar k ed “X” i n b l ack ink fi l l i ng the e nti re bo x, with n o ad dit i onalm ar ki ngs. I n the ri ghth an d bo x , th e o n e fo r L oc al 7 10 , th er e is a fain tly vis ible “X” i n bl ack i nk filling the box

— th e “ X ” is p ar tia lly sm u d ge d an d p ar tia lly sc ra tc h ed ou t. A l s o , t h e “ X ” in the rig h t-hand box has been shaded orco l or ed ove r by w hat a pp ear s t o be a pi nk o r pu rpl e hi ghl i ghterwith ani nkc o l o r tha t i s si m i l ar, b uts l i g ht l y da r k er, tha n the col oro fthe pink bal l ot paper. A s a r esul t o fthes e s up ple

m entalm ar ki ngs, the paper i nsi de the box has bee n4 N os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058 darke ned to a pi nk- pu rpl e c olo r that does not m atch th e bright p ink of th e rest of th e pa p er. Ruan chal l enge d the bal l ot, ar gui ng tha t i t s houl d be d eem ed void bec au se th e i n ten t of th e voter w as u nc lear. The H ear i ng Offi c er r evi ew i ng the el ecti on o ver rul ed Ruan’s chal l enge, co ncl ud i ng tha t the vo terhad attem pted to obl i ter ate hi s m ar ki ng i n the L oca l 71 0 bo x and had “cl ear l y a nd unam bi guousl y” express ed an i ntent to vot e f orLoc al 70 5. Ruan and Local71 0 appe al ed th i s rul i ng, b uta thr ee - m embe r pa ne l o fthe Board affi rm ed th e deci si on. Thi s g ave a t al l y o ffi ftee n vot es f or L oca l 70 5 a nd f ourt een v ote s f orLocal71 0. W i th a m aj or i ty ofthe bal l ots in favoro fLocal70 5, the Board ce rt i fi ed Local70 5 a s the excl usi ve col l ecti ve bar gai ni ng r epres entat i ve f orRuan’s em plo yee s. A fterthi s uni on ce rt ifi cati on, Local70 5 s ought to ba rg ain wi thRua n. Rua n di spu te d the v al i di tyo fthe Board’ s ce rt i fi cati on, and i t r efused to r eco gni ze or b ar gai n w i th Local 705. “Refusi ng to bar gai n i s th e o n ly way f o r a n e m pl o y ert o g etj ud ici al revi ew o fa n NLRB d ec isio n u p h ol d i n g a n ele c tio n an d ce rt ifyin g a u n ion .” N LR B v. Am er iCo ld Logis ti cs , Inc. , 21 4 F
. 3d 935, 93 7 ( 7th C ir. 2000). A s a res ult, L ocal 705 fi led an un fai r-l aborpract i ce c harg e, an d the Boar d’s GeneralCounseli ssued a co m pla i nt thatRuan’s r efusalto bar gai n w i th L oc al 705 vi ol ate d Se c tio n 8( a) ( 5) and ( 1) o fthe N ati onal L ab or R ela tio n s A c t. See 2 9 U
. S. C. § 1 58( a) ( 1) , ( 5)
. Ruan adm i tte d that i t r efus ed t o barg ai n, but ar gued that Local70 5’ s ce rt i fi cati on a s uni on r epres entat i ve w as i m pr o per . The Bo ar d g r anted su m m ar y j udg m en tN os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058 5 ag ains t Rua n, fi ndi ngRuan inv i o l at i o n o fthe Acta nd ord ering it to recogn ize Loc al 705 as the law ful bargai ni ng r epres entat i ve f orRuan’s em plo yee s. Ruan then appe al ed to thi s co ur t f o r r ev i ew of t he Bo ar d’ s dec i si o n, w hi l e th e Bo ar d fi l ed a cr o ss - appl i ca ti o n to th i s cou rt i n o r dert o s ee ke nf o r ce m en t o fi ts de ci si o n.

II. “W e m ay re vi ew the Boar d’s cer ti fi cati on deci si on o nce the Boa rd has deter m i ned that an unfa i r lab or pra cti ce has o ccurr ed. ” N LRB v . E
. A. Swe e n Co. , 64 0 F
. 3d 781, 78 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 )
. As the S up r e me Cour th a s e xp l a i ne d, “Congr ess has entr usted the Board with a wide degr ee o fdi s c r e t i o n i n e s t a b l i s hingthe p r o c e du r e a nd s a fe g ua r ds ne ce ss ar y t o i ns ur e th e f ai r a nd fr ee choice o fb ar g aini ng re prese ntati ves by em plo yee s .” N LR B v. A. J
. TowerCo. , 329 U
. S. 32 4, 33 0 ( 1946 )
. That m eans that “ourr evi ew o f th e Bo ar d’ s de ci si o n t o c er ti fy a c o l l ec ti ve b ar g aini ng age nt f ol l owing an el ecti on i s ex tr em el y l i m i ted
. ” NLRB v. Chi cago Tr i b uneCo. , 943 F. 2d 791, 794 ( 7th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). W e a lw ay s “pres um e the va l i dity o fa Board- supervi sed election an d w il l affi rm the B oard ’s certification of a u n ion if th at d ec isio n is su p p or te d by su b st an tia l ev idence. ” A m er iCo ld Logis ti cs, Inc. , 21 4 F
. 3d at 937. A s a pre l i m i nary m at te r, Ruan cl ai m s that the uni on cer ti fi cati on w as i m proper because of a du e p ro cess vi o l a t i o n o n th e p a r to fth e He a r i n gO ffi c e r a n d the Bo ar d, b as ed o n the i r a l l eg edl y i nc o m pl et e r ev i ew o fthe r ec o r d a nd the i r f ai l ur e to i ns pec t th e o r i g i na l b al l o t. But there i s no th i ngi n the r ec o r d t o s uppo r t Rua n’ s po si ti o n.6 N os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058 I t i s e vi dent fro m the H ear i n g Offi cer ’ s descr i pti on o f the bal l ot that the H ear i ng Offi cer re vi ew ed the a c tu al ba l l o t an d no t a pho to co py as s up p o se d b y Rua n. And ther e i s no thi ng i n the re cor d to in d ica te that the three

m embe r pa ne l o fthe Bo ar d di d no t pr o per l y r ev i ew the en tire r ecord w he n it affirm ed the H earing O ff ic er’s deci si on. I n i ts or der, the Board decl ar ed th at i t had r e v i e we d t he r e c o r d, a nd thi s de c i s i o n ha s a “ pr e s umpti on o fr egul ar i ty
. ” NLRB v. Jas per ChairCo. , 13 8 F
. 2d 756, 75 8 ( 7th Ci r . 1 94 3)
. S o we ca n qui ck l y di smi ss thi s ar g um en t an d m o ve t o Rua n’ s ce nt r ala r g um en t: tha t th e deci si on t o cer ti fy Loca l 70 5 i s no t s up po rt ed by subst an ti ale vi den ce b ec au se i t i s i m po ss ibl e to de te r m i ne th e clear inten t of th e voter from th e ch all en ged ball ot’s i rr egul arm ar ki ngs. “The Boar d’s pol i cy

— an d th e ru le in th is c irc u it

— i s t o count ba l l ots wh en the vo ter s’ i ntent i s cl ear, despi te i rregula ri ti es i n the m anner i n w hi ch the bal l ots have been m a r k ed

. W e give deferen ce to th e B oard ’s i nt erpreta ti on o fa bal l ot and w i l l r everse o nl y forabuse ofdi scr eti on. ” A m eri C o ld Logis ti cs, Inc. , 21 4 F
. 3d at 939 ( i nter nalci tat i ons om i tte d). N ei therthe f act that a bal l ot has i rr egul arm ar ki ngs, northe f act that a ba l l ot i nstr ucts the vo terto o btain a n ew b al l ot i fthe bal l ot i s s po i l e d, ar e r e a s o ns t o i nv a l i da t e the b a l l o t
. I ns t e a d, “the Board’ s l ongs tandi ng pol i cy i s t o give effect to vot er i ntent w heneverposs ibl e. Thus the Board w ill c ount a bal l ot w here , despit e an i rr egul ar i ty i n the m anner in w hich it h a s b een m arked , i t clearly ex p resses th e voter’s i ntent. ” B rooks Brothers, Inc. , 31 6 N
. L.R. B. 176, 17 6 ( 1995 ) (i nt erna l citations om itted ).N os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058 7 T h is p rin c ip le is illu st ra te d by th e B oa rd ’s d ec isio n in B roo ks B roth ers . I n th atc as e, the b al l o t ha d a n “ X” i n the “n o” bo x . Id. T h e re w as als o a n ap p ar en t “ X ” m ar ke d in th e “ ye s” bo x , bu t ith ad be en sc r a t c h e d ov er w ith ad d itio n al p en c il m ar kin gs . Id. T he Boar d concl ud ed that the v ote r’ s intent w as cl ear l y e xpresse d

— th athe o r s he ha d “ effec ti ve l y a nd c l ea r l y o bl i te r at ed” the “ X” i n the “ye s ” b o x a nd l e ft a n “ un mi s t a k a b l e ” “ X” i n the “no ” box

— and, ther ef ore, the v ote r had i ntended to vot e “no. ” Id. A si m i l arexam ple can b e f ound in the Boa rd’ s deci si on i n Abt ex Be ve r ageCorp. , 237 N
. L.R. B. 1271 ( 1978 )
. I n that case , ther e was an “ X ” in b oth the “ no” and “yes ” bo xes, but the “X” in the “no” box had bee n scr atched o ver w i th ci rcul arm ar ki ngs. Id. a t 12 71
. The Bo ar d f o und th at be c au se th e v ot er c o u l d n otera se h is in k m ar k in th e “no ” box , he h ad attem p ted to obli terate th e m ark bymakingthe c i r cu la r mar k i ng s, l ea vingc l ea r hi s i nt en t to vot e “ yes . ” Id. I n contr astto B roo ks B rot h ers a nd Abt ex Be ve r agei s th e Bo ar d’ s ea r l i erde ci si o n i n M e r cyCol l ege, 21 2 N .L .R .B . 9 25 (1974), w hich offers the stronge st su p p or t for Ru an ’s ar gum ent that th e B oar d’s deci si on t o accept the b al l ot in th e c as e b efo re u s is n otba s ed on su b st an tia l ev iden ce . I n M e r cyCol l ege, the c ha l l en g ed ba l l o t ha d a n “ X” in the “yes” box , bu t a p p a r en tly in th e “no ” box there w as a d isc er n ible “X ” t h at w as h ea vily s h a d e d ov er . Id. a t 9 2 5
. I n th at cas e, a tw o-perso n m aj ority ofthe B oard r ul e d tha t the i nt e nt o f the v o t e r wa s “ no t f r ee f ro m doubt” be cause “the m ar ki ngs in eith ero fthe desi gnate d8 N os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058

The third Bo ard m em ber on the panel diss ente d, finding that 1 it was reas onab le to concl ud e that the voter had i ntended to o b lit er a te th e “ X ” in th e “ n o ” b o x. M er cy Col l ege, 2 1 2 N. L. R. B. at 926. sq u ar es , ab se n t t h e m ar ki n g i n th e o th er sq u ar e, w ou ld b e c on sid er ed a c lea r in d ica tio n o f t h e in te n t o f th e v ot er .” Id. A sim ilar ca se in s u p p o r t o f R u an ’s p os itio n is 1 Sadl e rBr os . Tru ck i ng & Le as i ng Co. , 225 N
. L
. R
. B
. 194 (1976). I n Sa dler, o ne b o x o n the b al l o t ha d a n “ X” whi l e th e ot h er bo x w as co m p let ely bla c ke d in. Id. at19 6. Ci ti ng to the M ercy C o llege d ec isio n for s u p p o r t, th e B oa rd sim p ly stated thatthe vot er ’ s intenti on “ w as not f re e fro m d ou b t,” an d ac c or d in gly , d ee m ed th e b allo t v oid

. Id. I t i s i m port an t to note thati n the B roo ks B roth ers case , th e B oard consi dered the M e r cyCol l egecase an d cha racte ri zed i t a s a n i nstance w h er e “the Board f ound that the s hading add ed to on e sid e o fthe bal l ot w as i nadequ ate to show that an a tte m pt to o bl i ter ate that choi ce ha d occurr ed. ” B rooks B rothe rs, Inc. , 316 N
. L.R. B. at 17 6. T h e q u es tio n for u s, th en , i s w h et h er it is p o s s i b le to disc ern a c lear e xpressi on o fthe vot er ’ s intent base d on the b a l l o t ’ s i r r e g ul a r ma r k i ng s . We ha v e r e v i ew ed the o ri gi nal bal l ot, and w e fi nd thati t i s pos sibl e. A s we de s c r ib e d a b o v e , the “ X” i n the Lo c a l 71 0 bo x is p ar tia lly sm u d ge d an d p ar tia lly sc ra tc h ed o u t, an d it h as be en co lore d ov er w ith a h igh ligh te r t h a t c los ely m atches the col oro fthe bal l ot pap er . Thi s di sti ngui shes th e ca se fr o m the f ac ts i n M ercy C o llege a nd S a d l er, as t h is i s no t a si tuation wh er e the shadi ng “was i nadequ ateN os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058 9 to show that a n att em pt t o ob l i ter ate thatchoi ce had occur re d .” B r o o k s B roth ers , 3 16 N. L. R. B. a t 17 6. Her e, the vot ero bvi ousl y a tte m pted to rub o ut the “X” and then col or ed ove r i t with a hi ghl i ghtersi m i l ar in col orto that ofthe bal l ot paper i n or der t o m i ni m i ze the a pp ear ance ofthe m ar ki ng in th e Loca l 71 0 bo x. A l ongs i de thi s a tte m pt to o bl i te r at e th e m arkingi n the Lo ca l 7 10 b o x, the vot erl eft a di sti nct, heav i l y- m ar ked “X” i n the Local70 5 bo x, made wi thmul ti p l e pens tr o k es . De spi te the bal l ot’ s i rr egul ar i ti es, the i ntent ofthe vot eri n f avo r ofLocal70 5 i s cl ear ; thus, the Board d i d not abuse i ts d isc re tio n w h en it co u n te d th e b allo t. See A m er iCo ld Logisti cs, Inc. , 21 4 F
. 3d at 939.

III
. For these r eas ons, we affi rm the Board’ s deci si on ce rtifyi ng Loc al 705 a s th e un ion repre sen tative of Ru an ’s em plo yee s. U nd erS ecti on 8 ( a) ( 5) a nd ( 1) o fthe N ati onal LaborRel at ion s A ct, Ruan i s r equi re d to bar gai n w i th Local70 5.10 N os. 11

- 1883 & 11

- 2058

APPEN DI X A

3- 19- 12