In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 01-2887

National Labor Relations Board,

Petitioner,

and

International Union of Elevator Constructors,

AFL-CIO,

Intervening-Petitioner,

v.

River City Elevator Company, Inc.,

Respondent.

On Application for Enforcement of an Order

of the National Labor Relations Board.

Argued April 5, 2002--Decided May 13, 2002

 Before Flaum, Chief Judge, and Posner and

Rovner, Circuit Judges.

 Flaum, Chief Judge. The National Labor

Relations Board ("NLRB") seeks the entry

of an enforcement order requiring River

City Elevator Company, Inc. ("River

City") to bargain with the International

Union of Elevator Constructors ("the

Union"). River City argues that, during

the election to determine whether the

Union would represent River City

employees, it sought to influence the

election outcome by promising employees

certain benefits. For the reasons stated

below, we deny the Board’s application to

enforce its order and reverse any finding

by the Board that River City committed an

unfair labor practice.

I. BACKGROUND

 In October of 1999, the Union filed a

petition with the NLRB seeking

certification as the collective

bargaining representative of River City’s

elevator mechanics and helpers. On

November 18, 1999, an election was

conducted among seven River City
employees to determine whether they

wished to be represented by the Union.

The results of the secret ballot election

were very close--with four out of seven

employees choosing Union representation.

 On November 24, 1999, River City filed

objections to the election. According to

River City, the Union interfered with

election conditions by promising certain

benefits to the voting employees. An NLRB

hearing officer and subsequently the

Board itself denied River City’s

objections. The Union was then certified

as the bargaining representative for

River City’s employees. Shortly after

this certification, the Union sent River

City a request to enter into collective

bargaining./1 River City refused this

request and, as a result, the Union filed

an unfair labor practice charge against

it for its failure to recognize and

negotiate with the Union. Pursuant to the

Union’s complaint, the General Counsel of

the NLRB filed a motion with the Board

requesting that River City be compelled

to enter into negotiations with the

Union. The NLRB granted that motion. This

appeal, on application for the

enforcement of the order compelling River

City to bargain, has ensued.

 The allegations contained in River

City’s objections to the results of the

Union election also form the gravamen of

its appeal. Specifically, River City

contends that, by offering reductions in

initiation fees and union dues, as well

as by giving River City employees

Mechanic’s cards (when those employees

had not completed the requisite course

work and examinations), the Union

intended to interfere with the laboratory

conditions of the election./2

 During the period leading up to the

election, representatives of the Union

met with River City employees. During

these meetings, Union representatives

informed the employees that, normally,

new members were charged an initiation

fee of $440. However, the Union told the

employees that, because of the organizing

drive, it would reduce the initiation

fees that they would be required to pay

to $50./3 The Union’s offer to reduce

initiation fees and dues was made to all

employees and was not conditioned

uponemployee support for the Union at the

ballot box.
 Representatives from the Union also

offered all of the River City employees

Mechanic’s cards, even though they had

not completed the requisite training

programs./4 The National Elevator

Industry Educational Program (NEIEP) was

established in 1967. Pursuant to

collective bargaining entered into

between the Union and the National

Elevator Industry, the NEIEP prescribes

the course of training individuals must

undertake in order to qualify as a

Mechanic. According to the Union’s

Standard Agreement, no individual "may

qualify or be raised to the Capacity of

Mechanic until he has worked for a period

of three (3) years in the elevator

industry, has successfully completed the

required NEIEP courses, and has passed a

Mechanic’s Examination administered by

the NEIEP Director’s Office." IUEC

Standard Agreement, p. 51. In the period

leading up to the election, the Union

promised River City employees Mechanic’s

cards based upon their experience (as

determined by Union representatives)

regardless of whether they had completed

NEIEP requirements.

II. DISCUSSION

 Because River City refused to enter into

collective bargaining with the Union, the

issue presented in this appeal is whether

the Board acted reasonably in certifying

the Union as the employees’

representative. If we determine that the

Board’s action was reasonable, the Board

is entitled to the enforcement of its

order compelling River City to enter into

collective bargaining. See National ByProducts, Inc. v. NLRB, 931 F.2d 445, 448

(7th Cir. 1991).

 In reviewing the factual findings of the

NLRB, we examine them to see if there is

substantial evidence in the record as a

whole to support the Board’s conclusions.

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S.

474, 488 (1951); Overnite Transp. Co. v.

NLRB, 104 F.3d 109, 112 (7th Cir. 1997).

When an objecting party disputes the

result of a Board supervised election,

there is a formidable burden upon the

objecting party to prove that it was not

valid. NLRB v. Service American Corp.,

841 F.2d 191, 195 (7th Cir. 1988).

Indeed, the objecting party must

demonstrate that misconduct occurred and
that such misconduct "damaged the

fairness of the election." Clearwater

Transport, Inc. v. NLRB, 133 F.3d 1004,

1010 (7th Cir. 1998). When we examine the

tactics leading up to the election in the

instant case, we find that Union

misconduct occurred "to such an extent

that [it] materially affected the results

of the election." Overnite Transp. Co.,

104 F.3d at 113.

 The seminal case in assessing whether a

Union has improperly furnished benefits

to influence the outcome of an election

is NLRB v. Savair Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 270

(1973). In Savair, the Supreme Court held

that a union’s offer to waive initiation

fees, conditioned upon employees joining

the union prior to an election, was

improper conduct that allowed the union

to effectively "buy endorsements and

paint a false portrait of employee

support during its election campaign."

Id. at 277. The Court in Savair did not,

however, categorically prohibit unions

from waiving initiation fees. Rather,

Savair has been interpreted to hold that

a union’s waiver of initiation fees is

permissible in an election campaign, when

the waiver is available to all employees

and is not conditioned upon a

demonstration of pre-election support for

the union. See, e.g., NLRB v. WFMT, 997

F.2d 269, 277 (7th Cir. 1993); Deming

Division, Crane Co., 225 N.L.R.B. 657,

659 (1976). Under such circumstances, a

union may waive fees "because employees

otherwise sympathetic to the union might

well have been reluctant to pay out money

before the union had done anything for

them. Waiver of the [fees] would remove

this artificial obstacle to their

endorsement of the union." Savair, 414

U.S. at 273 n.4. (internal citations

omitted).

 A. Initiation Fees and Union Dues

 In the instant case, we find that the

Union’s offer to reduce initiation fees

and dues for River City employees does

not offend the principles set forth by

Savair. The Union’s offer was extended to

all employees unconditionally "without

distinction between [employees] joining

the union before or after the election."

Deming Division, Crane Co., 225 N.L.R.B.

at 659. Furthermore, the reduction of

union fees and dues operated as a removal
of an artificial obstacle to River City

employees joining the Union, rather than

as an affirmative attempt to influence

voting (e.g., providing cash or in-kind

items to employees during an election

campaign). See, e.g., Owens-Illinois,

Inc., 271 N.L.R.B. 1235 (1984) (union’s

gift of jackets to employees, between

voting sessions on election day, amounted

to objectionable conduct which could have

appeared as a reward or an inducement to

vote for the union).

 B. Mechanic’s Cards

 We find that, unlike the Union’s

unconditional reduction of initiation

fees and dues, its offer of Mechanic’s

cards to River City employees, when

several (if not all) of those employees

had not completed the requisite courses

or exams, violated the dictates of Savair

and effectively bought employee

endorsements during its election

campaign. 414 U.S. at 277. The Union’s

Standard Agreement is unambiguous. In

order to become a fully qualified

Mechanic (and receive a Mechanic’s Card),

an individual must have "successfully

completed the required NEIEP courses, and

[have] passed a Mechanic’s Examination

administered by the NEIEP Director’s

Office." IUEC Standard Agreement, p. 51.

 While it is difficult to quantify the

value of receiving a Mechanic’s card

without having to attend classes or take

an exam, we ask "[a]re the articles

sufficiently valuable and desirable in

the eyes of the person to whom they are

offered, to have the potential to

influence that person’s vote?" Nestle Ice

Cream Co. v. NLRB, 46 F.3d 578, 583 (6th

Cir. 1995). The NLRB has refused to

certify elections where, during the

course of an election campaign, the

benefit offered to employees appeared to

be of far less value. See, e.g., OwensIllinois, Inc., 271 N.L.R.B. 1235, 1236-

37 (gift of union jackets); Wagner Elec.

Corp., 167 N.L.R.B. 532, 533 (1967)

(union’s "gift of life insurance coverage

is a tangible economic benefit and is

most ’unusual’"); Mailing Services, Inc.,

293 N.L.R.B. 565 (1989) (free medical

screenings given by union to employees

during the election campaign found to be

impermissible).
 In this case, the NLRB hearing officer,

whose findings were subsequently adopted

by the Board, determined that no election

violation had occurred because the

benefits the Union extended to River City

employees were not conditioned upon their

support of the Union. This finding fails

to consider the fact that the "gift" in

this case was far different from removing

a barrier to employees joining the Union.

By granting the River City employees the

immediate privileges attendant upon a

Mechanic’s card (i.e., ability to work as

a full Mechanic in practically any IUEC

controlled site), the Union opened up an

entire class of jobs to these

individuals. In this sense, the extension

of Mechanic’s cards, without the

obligation to fulfill training and

examination requirements, moves beyond

the reduction of initiation fees or dues.

River City employees were affirmatively

given access to more lucrative jobs at a

far lesser cost. At the very least, this

gift, in the context of a hotly contested

election campaign, "smacked of a

’purchase’ of votes because the Union[ ]

had no responsibility to provide" these

Mechanic’s cards. Nestle Ice Cream Co.,

46 F.3d at 584. Furthermore, it appears

that River City employees could have

perceived (quite rightly) that "they were

receiving ’something for nothing,’ and

[that] the ’something’ was quite

valuable." Id. (internal citations

omitted).

 The Board has consistently stated that,

during an election to determine

representation, voting is to occur in a

"laboratory in which an experiment may be

conducted, under conditions as nearly

ideal as possible, to determine the

uninhibited desires of employees." In re

General Shoe Corp., 77 N.L.R.B. 124, 127

(1948). In the instant case, where

representation was decided by one vote

and gifts of substantial value were

offered by the Union as part of its

campaign, we find that laboratory

conditions did not exist. In light of the

above, we conclude that the NLRB did not

act reasonably in certifying the Union as

the bargaining agent of River City’s

employees. Furthermore, we find that the

Board’s factual findings that the Union

did not interfere with employees’ free

choice in the election by improperly

offering gifts is not supported by

substantial evidence in the record as a
whole.

III. CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the

Board’s application to enforce its

bargaining order and REVERSE any finding

by the Board that River City committed an

unfair labor practice.

FOOTNOTES

/1 In addition, the Union requested certain information related to its proposed collective bargaining solicitation.

/2 A Mechanic’s card enables an individual to work

as a full Mechanic in the elevator industry.

/3 In addition, the Union offered to reduce monthly

dues to $20 a month, until the employees began

working under covered employment conditions.

/4 From the record, it appears that all seven of the

River City employees had worked for considerable

time in the elevator industry.