Opinion ID: 617231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Edward’s Pre-Election Conduct

Text: The Company also claims that the Board erred in certifying the Union because the election was tainted by threats against Union opponents allegedly made by Lucy Edward, an employee of the Company who served as an observer for the Union at the representation election. Two other employees of the Company submitted sworn affidavits to the ALJ in which they alleged that Edward had entered an employee dining room the day before the election and had threatened anti-Union employees by announcing: “I does thank God I don‟t come to work with a gun because I will kill a lot of people and they will be sorry.” Edward flatly denied making any such statement. The Company relied on the testimony of employee Phyllis Blackman (not one of the two affiants) to corroborate its claim that Edward threatened Union opponents. In testimony before the ALJ, Blackman claimed that she and other employees in her department were threatened by Union supporters. But while Blackman implied that Edward was among the group of employees making threats and that Edward‟s later presence at the election was threatening, she also denied having had any conversations about the Union with Edward and denied even knowing prior to the election that Edward was affiliated with the Union. It is a labor law axiom that “[a] representation election should be „a laboratory in which an experiment may be conducted, under conditions as nearly ideal as possible, to determine the uninhibited desires of the employees.‟” Zeiglers Refuse Collectors, Inc. v. 7 NLRB, 639 F.2d 1000, 1004 (3d Cir. 1981) (quoting Gen. Shoe Corp., 77 N.L.R.B. 124, 127 (1948)). But we are persuaded in this instance that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board‟s conclusion that Edward did not make the alleged threats and thus did nothing to imperil the conditions of the election. The ALJ accurately described key portions of Blackman‟s testimony as “a bit of a muddle,” and the choice to credit Edward over both Blackman and the two affiants was a reasonable one. The affiants did not take any steps consistent with their claim that Edward had threatened violence; Blackman denied any specific conversations with Edward and attributed the alleged threats to a group of unnamed employees. The Company further argues that the ALJ erred in treating Edward as a Union supporter rather than a Union agent, but that distinction matters only if Edward in fact made the objectionable statements. The ALJ considered the question as an alternative holding, the Board declined to adopt that portion of his recommended decision, and we decline to discuss the matter superfluously.