Opinion ID: 712067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Temporary Employees.

Text: 95 Eligibility to vote in a union organizing election depends on whether an employee is sufficiently concerned with the terms and conditions of employment in a unit to warrant his participation in the selection of a collective bargaining agent. Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v. NLRB, 262 F.2d 933, 944 (5th Cir.1959). Conversely, persons employed in a bargaining unit during the eligibility period and on the date of the election are eligible to vote. NLRB v. S.R.D.C., Inc., 45 F.3d 328, 331 (9th Cir.1995). This general rule does not, however, confer voting rights on most temporary employees. Because a worker whose anticipated tenure is short and definite is unlikely to share a community of interests with regular permanent workers, courts generally deem these temporary employees ineligible to be included in the bargaining unit. Pen Mar Packaging Corp, 261 NLRB 874, 874, 1982 WL 24502 (1982); see also S.R.D.C., 45 F.3d at 331; NLRB v. New England Lithographic Co., 589 F.2d 29, 32 (1st Cir.1978). 96 The NLRB and the federal courts have had some difficulty designing a consistent test to be used for this purpose. [A]n employee is ineligible to vote as a 'temporary employee' only if a definite termination date has been established. United States Aluminum Corp., 305 N.L.R.B. 719, 719, 1991 WL 256141 (1991). Under the most recent Board precedent, this definite date may be fixed either by a calendar date or by reference to the completion of a specific task or project. Caribbean Communications Corp., 309 NLRB 712, 713, 1992 WL 363320 (1992) (termination tied to the completion of a special filing project); see also Emco Steel Inc., 227 NLRB 989, 991, 1977 WL 8218 (1977) (temporary employees include those hired with definite terminal dates, hired for a set term, or hired to perform a specific project or series of tasks), enforced without published opinion sub. nom., Local 810, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. NLRB, 562 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.1977). This date certain test has been endorsed, albeit in a somewhat modified form, by the First Circuit, see New England Lithographic, 589 F.2d at 32, and by the Ninth Circuit. See S.R.D.C., 45 F.3d at 331-32. Historically, this date certain test has been contrasted with the NLRB's consideration of an employee's reasonable expectations of permanent employment within the bargaining unit. S.R.D.C., 45 F.3d at 331. Under this reasonable expectations approach an employee whose term of employment remains uncertain is eligible to vote. Id. The First and Ninth Circuits have rejected the reasonable expectations test when the employee in question is still employed by the company during the election. Id.; New England Lithographic, 589 F.2d at 34. In this case, the NLRB made passing reference to both the reasonable expectations test and the date certain test. Although the First and Ninth Circuits treat these considerations as competing tests and apply only the date certain test, we conclude, with the NLRB, that both considerations are relevant to the temporary employee issue. 97 On appeal, Kinney points to factual findings that Kinney hired the contested employees for the purpose of assisting with the added work caused by the IBM automation project (a project of finite duration), paid them less than the permanent employees, gave them no fringe benefits, and listed them in the company's personnel files as temporary. 8 Nevertheless, the NLRB found that this limitation of employment was not expressed directly to the six employees, and that therefore Kinney could not rely upon the existence of the IBM project to cast these employees as temporary workers: 98 At no time prior to the election, did the Employer ever see fit to inform the disputed employees that their employment was anything short of indefinite. In these circumstances, it is fair to conclude that the challenged voters possessed a reasonable expectancy of continued employment into the indefinite future. 99 A. at 114. An employee's expectation of future employment certainly has bearing on whether or not the employee in question shares a community of interests with others in the bargaining unit. The Board erred, however, in disregarding evidence that was unrebutted and that the Board itself credited. Specifically, the NLRB disregarded the pre-election eligibility list prepared by Kinney, which omitted the six employees who cast the votes challenged on this appeal, and which was not challenged by the union. That is particularly telling in light of Kinney's offer of proof, accepted by the ALJ, that the union had initially sought the exclusion of temporary employees from the bargaining unit. The Board argues on appeal that the absence of the six disputed names from the eligibility list does not preclude the Board's consideration of whether they are included in the designated unit. But the Board offers no reason for completely disregarding this evidence as a result of that consideration. In light of this circumstance, and after reviewing the evidence bearing upon the status of the six employees who cast disputed ballots, we conclude, as to four of them, that the Board's classification of the employees in question as other than temporary was not supported by substantial evidence. 100 Sheila Wollman and Diane Fairbanks. Wollman and Fairbanks were both hired on August 22, 1991. Kinney argues that these hires were part of an effort to ensure that the company would have sufficient temporary labor to see it through the continuation of the IBM renovation project, then scheduled to be completed in January 1992. At the hearing, Wollman testified concerning her job interview with Kirk McCaffrey, the warehouse foreman: 101 Q. Did [McCaffrey] tell you whether or not you would be full-time or part-time? 102 A. He said I'd be a regular part-time. 103 Q. Did he use the word regular? 104 A. I am not sure if he did. I had asked him whether I would be--if this was just, you know, for part-time and I was going to be laid off, I didn't need a job like that. And he said no, I would be regular. 105 A. at 328 (emphasis added). The NLRB specifically credited this testimony. The Board's rejection of Kinney's challenge to Wollman's ballot is thus supported by substantial evidence. 106 Similarly, Fairbanks testified that she too was hired with the prospect of an indefinite period of employment: 107 Q. What did you discuss during this initial interview? 108 A. [McCaffrey] ... explained ... what I would be doing and how many hours I would get a week. 109 Q. How many hours did he say you would get a week? 110 A. He said ... thirty to thirty-four. 111 Q. What else did he say? 112 A. And sometimes we would probably get over-time and that later on, probably by next September, I'd be full-time. 113 A. at 320-321 (emphasis added). The NLRB credited this testimony along with its implication that Fairbanks would still be employed in September 1992, long after the scheduled completion of the IBM project. Notwithstanding the omission of these names from Kinney's eligibility list, and the union's acceptance of that list, the Board's rejection of the challenge to her ballot was thus supported by substantial evidence. 114 Paula Fleming, James McCrea, Andrew Netto and Carol Ormasen. The Board's conclusions regarding the remaining four employees are not supported by substantial evidence under either of the relevant tests. First, we apply the date certain test. Kinney's personnel documents provide substantial evidence that they were hired on a temporary basis while work was being done on the IBM project, that they received no benefits, and that they were classified as temporary in Kinney's files. This is the only evidence as to why they were hired, and it admits only one conclusion: Fleming, McCrea, Netto, and Ormasen were hired solely to make up for the inefficiencies caused by the IBM project. Thus, at the time of the election, their term of employment was certain to end when the IBM project was completed. This makes them temporary employees under the date certain test. See S.R.D.C., 45 F.3d at 331 (Under the [date certain] approach, an employee whose term of employment remains uncertain is eligible to vote.); Caribbean Communications, 309 NLRB at 712 (employee hired as a clerk until the filing backlog was completed ruled a temporary employee under date certain test); Emco Steel, 227 NLRB at 991 (employee was not a temporary employee because not hired to perform a specific project or series of tasks). 115 Second, we apply the reasonable expectations test. Once again, there is no evidence that would support a reasonable expectation by the four employees that they were permanent employees. Of the four, only Fleming, Netto and Ormasen testified at the hearing before the ALJ. True, they testified that at no point during their job interviews were they specifically told that they were being hired solely in connection with the IBM project. But they never testified that they were actually given assurances of indefinite employment, as Wollman and Fairbanks did. And the fact that they did not learn of their temporary status during their job interviews says nothing about information they may have received later, about which they did not testify and apparently were never asked. There is simply no record evidence to support the affirmative conclusion that it would have been reasonable for these employees to think that they were permanent employees. In addition, there is some evidence that they should have known they had been hired only in connection with the IBM project. As Cognetti's October 25, 1991 speech demonstrates, the news had been disseminated at the warehouse that a group of employees had been hired to assist until the completion of the IBM project. 116 To summarize, substantial evidence under the date certain test supports the conclusion that the four employees were hired as temporary employees, and no evidence supports the opposite conclusion; there is no evidence under the reasonable expectations test to support the Board's conclusion that the four employees reasonably thought they were permanent, and there is some evidence to support a conclusion that they should have realized they were temporary. When we add to this analysis the exclusion of the challenged names from Kinney's eligibility list and the union's acceptance of that list, we conclude that these employees were temporary at the time of the November 1991 union election, and that their ballots should not have been counted. 9 117 We therefore remand to the Board for purposes of determining the outcome of the election on the basis of the 34 uncontested ballots plus the ballots of employees Wollman and Fairbanks and George Erdman (the employee whose ballot was originally challenged by the union). If the Board can ascertain the outcome of the election on the basis that the ballots of Wollman, Fairbanks and Erdman are valid and that the ballots of Fleming, McCrea, Netto and Ormasen are invalid, we direct the Board to certify that result. If not, we direct the Board to order a new election.