Opinion ID: 379317
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Campaign Misconduct

Text: 7 An election must be set aside if campaign misconduct was so aggravated that a free expression of choice by employees was impossible. NLRB v. Aaron Brothers Corp., 563 F.2d 409, 412 (9th Cir. 1977). The Board will invalidate an election on the basis of inaccurate campaign propaganda 8 only where there has been a misrepresentation or similar campaign trickery, which involves a substantial departure from the truth, at a time which prevents the other party or parties from making an effective reply, so that the misrepresentation, whether deliberate or not, may reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on the election. 9 Hollywood Ceramics Co., 140 N.L.R.B. 221, 224 (1962); General Knit of California, Inc., 239 N.L.R.B. No. 101 (1978). 10 Masonic contends that the Union stated falsely that it is almost impossible for health care employees to have a legal strike and accused Masonic falsely of committing an unfair labor practice by questioning employees about their union sympathies. Both statements were misrepresentations. 1 11 The statement concerning strikes was distributed only two days before the election. 12 The combined impact of the misrepresentations may have been sufficient to taint the entire election. Cf. NLRB v. Winchell Processing Corp., 451 F.2d 306, 308-10 (9th Cir. 1971) (cumulative effect of misrepresentations invalidated election results). The Board should determine whether the alleged misrepresentations had a significant impact. 13 Masonic says that the Union and its supporters created an atmosphere of fear that prevented a free expression of choice. Where the Board has rejected challenges to campaign activity, a party on appeal carries a heavy burden in charging that . . . coercion prevented a fair election. Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc. v. NLRB, 586 F.2d 699, 702 (9th Cir. 1978) (quoting NLRB v. Sauk Valley Manufacturing Co., 486 F.2d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1973). The issue is whether the coercive conduct so influenced potential voters that a free choice by employees was impossible. NLRB v. Miramar of California, Inc., 601 F.2d 422, 424 (9th Cir. 1979). 14 One employee testified that the Union harassed her with telephone calls and one adherent prevented her from closing her front door when soliciting her vote. Several others expressed fear of reprisals from the Union but none of these fears was attributed to actions or statements by the Union. 2 Affidavits by company attorneys said that other employees had refused to give statements for fear of the Union. The Board should determine whether such coercive conduct made impossible a free expression of choice. 15 Masonic contends that Union observers improperly maintained a list of voters in the voting area while balloting was taking place. The Board has said that lists of voters are prohibited in that area. See Piggly Wiggly, # 011 and # 228 Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 168 N.L.R.B. 792 (1967). It has refused to set aside an election, however, where the violation has been de minimis. See Tom Brown Drilling Co., 172 N.L.R.B. 1267 (1968); Locust Industries, Inc. 218 N.L.R.B. 717 (1975). Contrary to Masonic's assertion, this court has not rejected the Board's de minimis theory. See Robert's Tours, Inc. v. NLRB, 578 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1978). On remand, the Board should determine whether the list had more than a de minimis effect. 16 Masonic contends that sample ballots on a company wall were marked with a vote for the Union, giving the impression that the Board favored it. The Board was within its discretion in rejecting this challenge. The defaced ballots were timely replaced with unmarked ones. We doubt that the Board's neutrality was placed in question and the Regional Director found no evidence that the Union or its supporters defaced the sample ballots. 17 Finally, Masonic contends that the Board agent improperly permitted a Union observer to leave the balloting room and enter a hall through which voters passed. Even if true the action would not warrant setting aside the election. There was no evidence of contact or conversation between voters and the Union observer. See Sonoco Products Co. v. NLRB, 443 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1971); Milchem Inc., 170 N.L.R.B. 362 (1968). We sustain the Board's findings with respect to this challenge.