Opinion ID: 566342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Religious Objector

Text: 19 Following the election, the Company presented an affidavit of an employee, Marshall, who was precluded from casting a formal ballot because of his religious convictions. Marshall is a Jehovah's Witness. Marshall's affidavit indicated that if he could have voted, he would have voted against the Union. The Company argues that the Board should accept this affirmation and count Marshall's intent, as evidenced in his affidavit, as a no vote to tie the election. The Regional Director overruled this objection based on the Board's long-standing statutory policy enunciated in § 9(c) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 159(c)) that employee choice of representation must be made by secret ballot. To begin accepting signed affidavits as valid ballots would completely undermine the Board's statutory policy of secrecy. 2 Furthermore, while Marshall expressed in his affidavit how he would have voted, nowhere did he indicate a desire that his affidavit be counted as a vote against the Union. 20 The Company complains that to ignore Marshall's desire not to be represented by the Union solely because his religious convictions prevented him from voting contradicts Board policy. This court views it as contrary to Board policy to count as valid the vote of one who comes forward after the results of an election are known, claiming that he would have voted for the losing party and that his vote should now be counted in the official tally, especially where one vote would change the outcome of the election. The Board found no basis in this case for deviating from its established voting practices, and we believe its decision not to count Marshall's affirmation as a valid vote was reasonable.