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

Heading: Board Review of Initial Election

Text: A hearing officer conducted a hearing on the Union’s objection on March 4, 2003. Thereafter, he issued a report and recommendation in which he found merit to the Union’s objection and recommended that the result of the election be set aside. In reaching that conclusion, he found that Question 22 was objectionable because it reasonably would have led employees to believe that receipt of the 2002 bonus was in jeopardy if they voted to unionize. He rejected Cooper’s arguments 2 The evidence as to the exact date of the facility-wide meeting is mixed. Given the state of the record, the hearing officer declined to determine when the meeting occurred. Similarly, in its 2003 Order, the Board did not make a finding on the question of when the meeting took place, concluding that the answer to that question was not material to the outcome of the case. 3 The Union initially filed two objections to the election but withdrew one on February 20, 2003. 5 that employees could only understand the statement in the January 27 memorandum as referring to future bonuses (i.e. those earned in 2003 and thereafter), rather than all ROAM bonuses (including the 2002 bonus). He concluded that the Union was not required to introduce evidence that employees actually believed that their 2002 ROAM bonus was contingent on the outcome of the election, noting that “[t]he test is whether employees reasonably would believe that they could lose an existing benefits as a result of unionization, not the actual effect on the employees.” Furthermore, the hearing officer found that Lemke’s statement to employees at the facility-wide meeting concerning the 2002 bonus did not repudiate or clarify the objectionable conduct because it “did not clearly indicate that the bonus would be paid to the unit employees regardless of the election.” Finally, the hearing officer found that “although [Cooper] explicitly informed 1 unit employee that the 2002 ROAM bonus would be paid to employees regardless of the outcome of the election, this left the remaining 11 unit employees unclear as to what would happen, in circumstances where a single-vote shift could have affected the outcome of the election.” Cooper sought Board review of the hearing officer’s report and recommendation. On October 28, 2003, the Board adopted the hearing officer’s finding of employer interference and directed a second election.4 In accordance with its 2003 Order, the Board conducted a second election on December 3, 2003. This time, the Union prevailed by a vote of seven to four, with one challenged ballot going uncounted. Shortly thereafter, in the absence of any objections to the second 4 Chairman Battista dissented, disagreeing with the majority’s findings that Question 22, taken in context, was sufficiently coercive to have a reasonable tendency to interfere with the employees’ free choice. On the contrary, he found that “the employees reasonably understood that they definitely would receive a bonus for 2002, and that if the Union were selected future bonuses would not necessarily be given.” 6 election, the Regional Director certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of Cooper’s Cedar Rapids facility warehouse employees. D. Board Review of Cooper’s Refusal to Bargain After Second Election After its certification, the Union requested that Cooper commence bargaining. Cooper refused and the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge. On March 25, 2004, the Board issued a second Decision and Order, finding that Cooper’s refusal to bargain with the Union violated Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Board concluded that all representation issues raised by Cooper in the unfair labor practice proceeding were, or could have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding. This timely appeal followed.