Opinion ID: 2972707
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pre-election Activity

Text: On December 22, 2002, the Union filed a petition to represent the full-time regular and parttime warehouse employees at Cooper’s Cedar Rapids facility. Pursuant to a stipulated election agreement, the Board-conducted election was scheduled for January 31, 2003. During the preelection period, employees questioned Cooper’s management about the effect union representation would have on their wages and benefits, including the ROAM bonus. For example, in mid-January, 2003, one employee asked the general manager, Todd Lemke, if employees would receive the 2002 ROAM bonus if the Union gained majority support. Lemke privately assured the employee that all those eligible would receive the 2002 bonus regardless of the outcome of the election. Subsequently, in response to this and other questions, Cooper prepared two question-and-answer 1 Cooper calculates the ROAM by adding Cooper’s pretax profit and income on interest, subtracting state and local taxes, and dividing that number by Cooper’s average controllable assets. 3 memoranda for distribution to all eligible voters. One memo was distributed on January 17, 2003; the other on January 27, 2003. According to Cooper, the memoranda addressed the major concerns expressed by its employees about the impending election. The January 17 memorandum included questions and answers pertaining to the voting and bargaining processes, and the potential effect of unionization on job security, work schedules and the number of sick days allowed. One of the questions asked whether employees could lose benefits if the Union won the election. In response, Cooper stated that although wages and benefits could not be cut “simply because you voted in a union,” employees could “end up with lower wages or elimination of benefits or privileges because of collective bargaining.” The January 27 memorandum contained twelve additional questions and answers dealing with such topics as who would negotiate for the unionized employees, what a steward’s role would be, and how long collective bargaining for the first contract might take. The final question (“Question 22) addressed eligibility for the ROAM bonus. Specifically, the question and answer read as follows: Question 22: If the IBEW gets in here, will we still be eligible for the ROAM bonus? Answer: I don’t know. Cooper has some unionized workers at other facilities and none of them participate in the ROAM bonus program. Cooper expects to announce the amount of the ROAM bonus for this year early next month. Early indications show that the ROAM bonus looks very promising this year. When Cooper distributed the January 27 memorandum, although Cooper’s employees had earned the 2002 ROAM bonus, the employees had not received the bonus, nor had Cooper’s Board of Directors given its final approval to the amount of that bonus. 4 Shortly either before or after the issuance of the January 27 memorandum, but before the January 31, 2003 election,2 Lemke held a meeting of Cedar Rapids warehouse employees during which he informed the voting employees that the 2002 ROAM bonus was expected to be around 6.2%, subject to the Board of Directors’ approval. Specifically, Lemke stated “you can count on 6- ish payable . . . mid- to late February.” Lemke made no statements with respect to the affect of the Union vote on receipt of the 2002 bonus. On January 31, 2003, the Board conducted the election. Six Cedar Rapids employees voted for unionization and six against, with no challenged ballots. Because the Union failed to attain majority support, the Board did not certify it as the collective bargaining representative. The Union filed an objection to the voting results, contending that a new election should be held for the Cedar Rapids facility because Cooper unduly influenced the result of the first election by threatening voting employees with the loss of the 2002 ROAM bonus if they elected to unionize.3