Opinion ID: 609103
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Election Day Activities

Text: 14 The Hearing Officer found that the voting was held from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. in the office conference room. At 2:00 p.m., Digitron called a meeting of the production analysts in Dick Racine's office. Racine was Digitron's Operations Manager. At the same time, seven production analysts came to the voting area and stood in line to vote. Racine testified that when he noticed that only five production analysts appeared for the 2:00 p.m. meeting, he concluded that the remaining production analysts had gone to vote. Racine then testified that he allowed the production analysts at the meeting to go and vote. 15 Talluto testified that while he was in line to vote he heard employees make comments to him and other production analysts who had attended the 2:00 p.m. meeting. Those comments indicated that those production analysts were sent to counteract the seven votes of the production analysts who had not attended the meeting before coming to vote. Talluto testified that Whitehurst began pointing at employees in line and stating that with these employees voting they did not have a chance. Id. at 16. 16 Holliday testified that he was asked by Racine to accompany another employee to the voting area because Racine was concerned that this employee would be intimidated. Holliday testified that this employee ducked behind him after seeing Whitehurst. Holliday also testified that he saw four production analysts in line to vote and that the employees seemed to be upset that the production analysts were voting. Holliday testified that while in line he did not hear the production analysts say anything about the Union or make any statements to employees as to how they should vote. 17 Robertson was one of the production analysts who did not go to the 2:00 p.m. meeting. Robertson stated that he was in line for about two minutes, voted, and then left the voting area. He denied speaking about the Union while waiting in line to vote. Sleeper testified that he and the six other production analysts who had not attended the meeting were in a group and that he was in line for about 45 minutes. 18 Toro testified that on the day of the election, Robertson and another production analyst, Dorothy Garrett, asked him how he was going to vote. Toro testified that Robertson did not ask this question in a threatening manner. Toro also stated that he did not see any production analysts attempting to influence employees on the day of the election. 19 In addition to noting the foregoing testimony, the Hearing Officer found that the production analysts were supervisory personnel within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 152(11) (1988) [hereinafter the Act]. In support of this finding, the Hearing Officer stated: 20 The record establishes that [production analysts] are the highest paid individuals in the production portion of the Employer's operation. They do not have a regular assigned work location on the production line but instead have their own standing work desks at the beginning of each line. They wear a green apron to distinguish them from the rest of the production employees, who wear regular street clothes. In addition to each secondary indicia of supervisory status, the credible record evidence establishes that the production analysts have some limited authority to transfer packers from one location on the line to another and orally warn employees regarding their work performance. Furthermore, there is evidence that the production analysts can check packers [sic] work and if not satisfied with the work have them redo it. I find such to be an exercise of responsible direction and indicative of a supervisor's use of independent discretion. 21 J.A. at 9. 22 After finding that the production analysts were supervisory personnel, the Hearing Officer found that the pre-election actions and comments, including the miscellaneous statements, attributed to the production analysts--namely Robertson and Sleeper--were not made to coerce the employees to vote for the Union or face retaliation. 2 As for the production analysts' election day actions, the Hearing Officer stated: 23 ... I would not find the actions of the production analysts in attempting to vote sufficient to constitute a basis for overturning the election. There was no testimony presented by any witness that the production analysts while in line attempted to even start a conversation with another employee other than Mable Whitehurst let alone attempt to coerce employees regarding their vote. 24 Id. at 17. The Hearing Officer also found that the Board Agent engaged in no improper action on the day of the election by allowing the production analysts to cast challenged ballots. 25 As a result, the Hearing Officer recommended that Digitron's objections be overruled. On September 30, 1991, the Board adopted the Hearing Officer's report and recommendation and certified the Union as the collective bargaining representative for the employees. Thereafter, Digitron refused to bargain with the Union. The Union filed a charge with the Board alleging that Digitron refused to bargain with the Union. The Board's General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that Digitron's refusal to bargain with the Union violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (5) (1988). In its answer, Digitron conceded that it refused to bargain. It alleged that the Union was not properly certified. The Board's General Counsel then filed a motion for summary judgment with the Board. 26 On February 21, 1992, the Board granted the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment, finding that Digitron was seeking only to relitigate issues determined in the representation proceeding. The Board found that Digitron's refusal to bargain violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (5). 27 The Board's accompanying order requires Digitron, among other things, to cease and desist from refusing to bargain. The order directs Digitron to bargain with the Union and furnish relevant information, to embody any understanding in a signed agreement, and to post a remedial notice.