Opinion ID: 766037
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Five Factor Mitchellace Test

Text: 19 Four of the five factors articulated in Mitchellace cut in favor of Gormac. The first factor, timing, cuts heavily in favor of Gormac. The flyer at issue was made public a mere two to three hours before the election, and few cases deal with such a late alleged misrepresentation. Indeed, a per se rule requiring a new election has been adopted by the Board in cases where party representatives converse with prospective voters waiting in line to vote. See Milchem, Inc., 170 N.L.R.B. 363, 363 (1968); Dayton Hudson, 987 F.2d at 363-364. Furthermore, the closer the election that inappropriate conduct occurs, the more serious it becomes. We have held that a misrepresentation made two days before the election warranted a new election, see Hub Plastics, 52 F.3d at 612-13,we have also so held, where there was a misrepresentation made seven hours before the polls opened, see NLRB v. Superior Coatings, Inc., 839 F.2d 1178, 1182-83 (6th Cir. 1988), or even the morning of the election, see Mitchellace, 90 F.3d at 1156. Timing by itself is not determinative, and all three of the aforementioned cases ultimately turned on the other factors. 20 Interrelated to the first factor is the second factor, whether the employer was aware of the communication and had an opportunity to respond. It is doubtful that Gormac even knew about the flyer at all before the election, considering it was posted just a couple of hours prior to the opening of the polls. In any event, it is clear that Gormac did not know that the flyer contained misrepresentations until the three employees came forward a few days after the election and told what they knew. This factor is significant because in a number of recent cases where this court upheld the Board's decision not to grant a new hearing, the employer did have a chance to respond. See Maremount, 177 F.3d at 579 (Because Maremount had a chance to respond to the rumor, its allegedly misleading effects were reduced.); Mitchellace, 90 F.3d at 1156 (Mitchellace knew about the fliers, and was able to distribute an effective counter-flier of its own.); Superior Coatings, 839 F.2d at 1182-83 (employer was aware of the representations and had an opportunity to dispel whatever misconception resulted). Thus, this factor cuts in favor of Gormac as well. 21 Probably the most important factor is the third one, the extent of the misrepresentation. We hold that the extent of the misrepresentation here is serious because not one, but two misrepresentations were allegedly made by the union's representatives. The first misrepresentation was made to the three employees, when the union promised that their names would be kept confidential and that their signatures would be used only for the purpose of getting an election. Indeed, their signatures ended up being used for a much different purpose than they had envisioned. Though the three employees signed an authorization card which gave the NLRB permission to use their names on flyers, at no time did they agree to vote yes for the union or to allow their signatures to be used to encourage others to vote yes.. The recent cases of Maremont and Keeler Die Case v. NLRB, 185 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 1999), are distinguishable in this way, since in both of those cases, employees did explicitly agree to vote yes (non-binding though it was) and to have their signatures used in a leaflet to let others know that they would vote yes. 7 Even if the employees had signed this without the alleged promises of confidentiality, this action of using their signatures for purposes which they had not authorized would be highly suspect. Combined with the alleged promises of confidentiality,which we take as true for the purposes of this appeal, the serious nature of the misrepresentations becomes clear. 22 The second misrepresentation was made to the electorate when the flyer with the three employees' names was posted stating that each of the signatories would vote yes. The significance of this misrepresentation is that it created a false sense of the extent of Union support, which we have found before to be precisely the sort of pervasive misrepresentation and artful deception that . . . could . . . be the basis for setting aside an election. Dayton Hudson, supra at 367. Indeed, the Supreme Court has previously denounced actions that paint a false portrait of employee support during its election campaign.NLRB v. Savair Manufacturing Co., 414 U.S. 270, 277 (1973), quoted in Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 66, 69 (6th Cir. 1976). 8 Thus, this second misrepresentation of creating a false sense of the extent of Union support is serious as well. 9 This third factor cuts in favor of Gormac. The fourth factor, whether the source of the misrepresentation was identified, cuts in favor of the union, since the flyer did state, albeit in small print, that the USWA was responsible for it. 23 The final factor, whether there is evidence that employees were affected by the misrepresentations, favors Gormac. As for the first misrepresentation, the three employees were obviously affected in that their signatures, which they had been promised would be confidential, were made public. As for the second misrepresentation, the false picture of the extent of Union support that was created in all probability had an impact on the election. In a stipulation for the election in this case before the union fired its late and unexpected vote Yes broadside, the first agreement of the parties was specifically: 24 1. SECRET BALLOT. A secret-ballot election shall be held under the supervision of the Regional Director in the unit defined below at the agreed time and place, under the Board's Rules and Regulations. 25 JA 24. Why a secret ballot, and why was this of first importance? Simply because the integrity and confidentiality of secret voting is at the heart of a democratic society, and this includes industrial democracy as well. The revelation that a majority of identified employees will be voting a certain way in an election seems to us to be of substantial adverse effect in a secret ballot election, especially if the revelation is untrue. 10 The flyer represented, in effect, that the election was only a matter of verifying a demonstrated large union majority who were voting yes as evidenced by their own signatures--thirty-one out of an eligible voter total of forty-five. This indication that thirty-one of forty-five votes were committed to vote yesmay well have influenced the six employees who did not vote. It is quite possible that these six voters saw the flyer, concluded that their vote would not matter since it was already a foregone conclusion that the Union would win, and decided not to vote. We also note that the sixth factor articulated in Hub Plastics, the closeness of the election, is significant. 11 Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing should have been granted to Gormac.