* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not b e published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances

set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-60079

Summary Calendar

_______________

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

BORDEN, INC.,

Respondent.

_________________________

Application for Enforcement of an Order of

the National Labor Relations Board

(16-CA-17467)

_________________________

August 1, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: *

The National Labo r Relations Board (the "Board") seeks

enforcement of its order requiring that Borden, Inc., recognize the

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union as the

exclusive bargaining agent for Borden’s production, maintenance,

vault, an d warehouse employees (“the unit”) at Borden’s Sulphur2

Springs, Texas, facility. We grant the application and enforce the

order.

I.

On March 8, 1995, the Board conducted an election at the

facility to determine whether the unit wished to be represented by

the union for collective bargaining purposes. On the morning of

the election, the Board agent responsible for supervising the

election arrived at the polling area without the standard portable

voting booth. Rather than postponing the election, the agent had

Borden construct a makeshift voting booth.

Borden constructed the booth by placing a piece of cardboard

on a chair and then placing the chair against a wall near a corner

of the room. This formed a three-sided voting booth: The booth

was enclosed on two sides by the walls of the room, enclosed on the

third side by the cardboard partition, and open on the fourth side.

A table was placed inside the booth to allow voters to mark their

ballots.

The room also contained an observers’ table. Observers from

the Board, Borden, and the uni on sat at the table, and voters

awaiting their turn at the ballot box stood beside the table. The

observers’ table was located at least eight feet behind the open

side of the voting booth and six feet from the adjacent wall.

Those seated at the table thus were able to see into the booth at

a forty-five-degree angle, making the interior of the booth1 This was a hotly disputed issue at the hearing. Borden contended that

the table took up the entire voting booth and that voters therefore were unable

to vote in private. Borden does not challenge this finding on appeal.

2 In fact, three of Borden’s witnesses SS one an observer and the other two

voters SS testified that they could not see how any voter had marked his ballot.

3 partially visible to observers and those waiting to vote.

The union won the election by two votes. Borden challenged

the election, claiming that it was not conducted with the necessary

secrecy because the voting booth was not completely enclosed. The

Board ordered a hearing to resolve the challenge.

The hearing officer found that the election was satisfactory.

The officer determined that the table inside the voting booth did

not occupy the entire booth and that vo ters were able to walk

around the table to a completely conce aled part of the booth to

ensure privacy when marking their ballots. 1 Furthermore, the

officer noted that none of Borden’s witnesses had testified that

they observed how any employee had voted. 2 One of Borden’s

witnesses testified that he could see only the arms and back of a

person standing in the voting booth, while a second witness

testified that he could see the whole person in the booth but did

not believe that he could see the ballot. Based on this evidence

and the physical layout of the voting area, the officer recommended

that the Board reject Borden’s challenge.

The Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings and certified

the union as the exclusive ba rgaining representative. To obtain

judicial review, Borden refused to recognize the union. The union3 Congress has given the Board wide discretion in the

conduct and supervision of representation elections, and

the Board’s decision warrants considerable respect from

reviewing courts. Our review is limited to determining

whether the Boa rd has reasonably exercised its

discretion, and if the Board’s decision is reasonable

and based upon substant ial evidence in the record

considered as a whole, our inq uiry is at an end.

Representation elections are not lightly set aside.

NLRB v. Hood Furniture Mfg. Co.

, 941 F.2d 325, 328 (5 th Cir. 1991) (citations

omitted); see also NLRB v. Heavy Lift Serv., Inc.

, 607 F.2d 1121, 1123, (5th Cir.

1979) (“[T]he Board's long experience in representation matters requires us to

give special deference to its decisions regarding the effect of challenged

conduct on the results of an election.”), cert. denied

, 449 U.S. 822 (1980); NLRB

v. W.R. Grace & Co., 571 F.2d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 1978) (“[T]he Board has been

vested with wide discretion in representation matters, and its decision warrants

special respect by reviewing courts.”).

4 The Board’s own regulations also require that “[a]ll elections shall be

by secret ballot.” 29 C.F.R. § 102.69(a).

4 then filed a complaint with the Board, which ordered Borden to

extend recognition. The Board filed this application for enforcement of its order.

II.

Borden argues that the Board erred by upholding the election

despite the absence of a completely enclosed voting booth. We

review the Board’s decisions pertaining to representation elections

only for abuse of discretion. 3

In representation elections, the board must take “a secret

ballot of the employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 159(e)(1). 4 The Board did

not abuse its discret ion in finding that the election satisfied

this requirement. The recommendations of the hearing officer,

adopted by the Board, were based on consideration of the physical5 Although Local 3489 involved an election for union officers rather than

a representation election, it is not distinguishable on that basis. Both types

of elections must be conducted by “secret ballots,” though the secret ballot

requirements are located in different statutes. Compare 29 U.S.C. § 159(e)(1)

(requiring the board to take “a secret ballot of the employees” ) with id. at

§ 481(b) (requiring that unions elect officers “by secret ballot”). There is no

basis for reading the two secret ballot requirements differently.

5 layout of the voting booth, the location of the observer table, and

the absence of testimony that anyone was able to see how any voter

marked his ballot.

Borden calls our attention to B rennan v. Local 3489, United

Steelworkers of Am. , 520 F.2d 516 (7th Cir. 1975), aff’d on other

grounds

, 429 U.S. 305 (1977), in which the court found that a union

election failed to meet the secret ballot requirement. L ocal 3489

is easily distinguished on its facts, 5 however:

A small table for marking ballots was placed three feet

in front of an elevated officers’ bench. Two members of

the Election Committee were present throughout the 6:00

a.m. to 6:00 p.m. election. Most of the voting occurred

during the last two hours of the day, when the voters

were “jammed together * * * elbow to elbow.” Up to 50

voters were in the room at one time. Many voters marked

their ballots at the aforesaid table and could see each

other’s ballots as they were marked. Others marked their

ballots against the walls, and their markings could also

be observed by voters several feet away. No one was seen

carrying a ballot to the back of the hall to vote, and

some members deliberately “flaunted their votes.” There

was no encouragement of any members to take steps to

prevent others from seeing their ballots.

Id. at 521-22. The voters in the Borden election unquestionably

enjoyed far greater privacy than did voters in the Local 3489

election. Furthermore, while some voters in the L ocal 3489

election “deliberately flaunted their votes,” there was no6

testimony that anyone had seen how a single voter marked his ballot

in the Borden election.

The order of the National Labor Relations Board is ENFORCED.