Opinion ID: 799696
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Government Endorsement

Text: Trump Plaza first argues that the Unionacting in concert with numerous government officialssought to make voters believe that the NLRB (and the government generally) supported the Union and viewed unionization as a governmental objective. Trump Plaza points to the Union's distribution of the five letters from local, state and federal officials supporting the Union and unionization in general, which letters were included in the Union campaign leaflet mailed to the employees on March 22 and made available on the Union website. It also highlights repeated statements made in Union mailings and on its website that the Government and Legislators supported the Union's campaign. See, e.g., Employer's Ex. 4A (These are letters from our Government in Support of Exercising our Rights Under State and Federal Laws!); Employer's Ex. 2 (Legislators Sign-On in Support of Atlantic City Dealers). The Board maintains that, while the Union used governmental support as a central component of its campaign strategy, no reasonable voter would misinterpret the various letters and statements to suggest that the Board itself endorsed the Union. Resp't's Br. 17. A public official's involvement in an election campaign is not by itself objectionable. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc., 355 N.L.R.B. No. 163, 2010 WL 3446126, at  (Aug. 27, 2010). [P]ublic officials ..., like other third parties, are not required to remain neutral and may properly seek to persuade employees. Id. The Board will set aside a representation election because of a public official's endorsement only if the endorsement (1) create[s] a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free election impossible, Overnite Transp. Co. v. NLRB, 140 F.3d 259, 265 (D.C.Cir.1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted), or (2) reasonably suggests that the Board itself endorses a particular outcome, see Ursery Cos., 311 N.L.R.B. 399, 399 (1993) ([N]o participant in a Board election may ... suggest either directly or indirectly that this Government Agency endorses a particular choice in an election. (emphasis in original)). The letters distributed by the Union here are plainly the opinions of the various officials who wrote them. Congressman Andrews's letter, for example, recounts his personal experience working with the Union: I have had the privilege of working closely with the [Union] and... think very highly of them and what they represent. I am confident that the [Union] will continue to zealously represent its members to protect their rights. Employer's Ex. 4D. Although some of the letters suggest that the Government supported the Union's campaign, e.g., Employer's Ex. 4C (Government's advocacy for casino workers has been very successful, securing a stable workforce for casinos while protecting employees' rights....), nothing suggests that the officials' statements intended to speak for or otherwise indicate that the Board itself supported unionization. For this reason, Trump Plaza's reliance on Columbia Tanning Corp., 238 N.L.R.B. 899 (1978), is misplaced. In Columbia Tanning, a letter endorsing unionization was written in Greek on stationary with the Massachusetts Department of Labor letterhead and mailed to a group of twenty-six Greek employees, about half of whom did not speak English. Id. at 899. The next day, the union narrowly won the election. When Columbia Tanning challenged the election, the Board determined that, because the laborers were recent immigrants who in all likelihood were not familiar with the complexities of state and Federal jurisdiction over labor relations, the letter created a potential for confusion that threatened the  Board's appearance of impartiality and thereby interfere[d] with the exercise of a free choice in the election. Id. at 900 (emphasis added). Given the union's narrow margin of victory and the special circumstances, the Board set aside the election. Id. Since Columbia Tanning, however, the Board has repeatedly upheld union elections where a public official supported a particular election outcome but nothing in the record suggested that the voters could have reasonably believed the Board itself endorsed that outcome. See, e.g., Chipman Union, Inc., 316 N.L.R.B. 107, 107-08 (1995) ([T]he Employer [here] has not referred to any potential evidence which would show that its employees could not discern the difference between statements about labor relations by an individual member of Congress and statements by the Board and its representative.). Unlike the Greek immigrants in Columbia Tanning who could not be expected to discern readily the difference between [a letter from] the state `Department of Labor' and the Federal `National Labor Relations Board,' particularly in light of the fact that both contain the word `Labor' in their titles, 238 N.L.R.B. at 900, nothing in the record suggests that Trump Plaza dealers were similarly susceptible to confusion. See also Huntsville Mfg. Co., 240 N.L.R.B. 1220, 1223 (1979) (Our concern [after Columbia Tanning ] is ... with how closely a document mimics a Board publicationan[d] under what circumstances it can be said that employees might be susceptible to such mimicry. (emphasis added)); Ursery Cos., 311 N.L.R.B. at 399 n. 2 ([E]mployees are not so politically naïve that they would be unable to distinguish between a Connecticut State Representative and the NLRB....). Accordingly, we believe that the Trump Plaza dealers could not reasonably have read the leaflet or website to suggest that the Board endorsed unionization.