Opinion ID: 186271
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voter Intimidation

Text: 24 Finally, the company argues that the union impaired the fairness of the election by the unlawful intimidation of nonunion supporters. The company's evidence in support of this allegation is — in its entirety — as follows: 25 [A]t the change of shifts at 4 pm [conduct occurred that was] directed at the no voters — me, Gary Metros, and Jeff Brolmsa. It happened about 3 times. It was about 2 weeks prior to the election. As the swing shift came in, there was obvious yes voters. As they came into the shop, Marty Torrez would shout: it's time to light them up fellas. The other yes voters that we were aware of (Ray ___, and Albert ___,) would start laughing.... That was it as far as that goes. (Sanchez Affidavit). 26 The company argues, on the basis of this scant evidence, that the Board should have set aside the election or held a hearing to determine the extent of the intimidation. We disagree. 27 That employee's conduct does not satisfy the standard for intimidation that applies to conduct not attributable to the union. His single cited comment was not so aggravated as to create a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free election impossible. Overnite Transp. Co. v. NLRB, 140 F.3d 259, 264 (D.C.Cir.1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The Board therefore did not abuse its discretion in overruling this objection without an evidentiary hearing.