Opinion ID: 392983
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Union Payments to Employees

Text: 45 The Union asked certain Klingler employees to appear and testify at the pre-election representation hearing in June 1978. The Union then reimbursed at least three of these employees for a day's wages by presenting checks to them at a general employee meeting with the comment by the union representative that he had a little something for those people who had been at the hearing. Klingler maintains that these payments were excessive because it also paid the employees for those days. The acting regional director rejected that argument in his first supplemental opinion because Klingler had offered no evidence that it had paid the employees or that the payments were used to improperly influence employees. Subsequent to that opinion, Klingler did offer, in its appeal to the Board, payroll records showing that it had paid the employees for the days in question. 46 Assuming that these versions of the incident are correct, we agree that the coy remark that accompanied the Union's checks indicates something less than the most straightforward intent on the part of the Union representative. The checks certainly could have been distributed in a manner less likely to create a false impression of union largesse. But this court has held that (i)n determining whether an election should be invalidated, the focus should be on the effects of a particular act on the electorate rather than on the actor's intent. NLRB v. Gulf States Canners, Inc., 585 F.2d 757, 759 (5th Cir. 1978); Plastic Masters, Inc. v. NLRB, 512 F.2d 449, 450-51 (6th Cir. 1975). The acting regional director primarily looked to the Union's intent, which is never a controlling factor. But he also noted that Klingler had presented no evidence of objectionable effect, which is the proper focus of the inquiry. Of course, proof of subjective effect upon the minds of the employees is quite difficult to show without a hearing. For that reason, we have held that the employer may justify the need for a hearing by showing that the payments had a tendency to influence the outcome of the election when viewed in light of all the relevant facts, a somewhat more lenient standard than the evidence of objectionable effect that the acting regional director apparently required in this case. Gulf States Canners, 585 F.2d at 759. If this election had been a close one, Klingler might have introduced evidence sufficient to meet the more lenient standard. When the margin of an election result is narrow, the tendency to influence the outcome may be inferred from little more than the external facts. Id., 585 F.2d at 759. But when the margin is wide, a greater objective impact is required, which would appear to be more capable of proof because of its overwhelming nature. United Steelworkers of America v. NLRB, 496 F.2d 1342, 1347 n.11 (5th Cir. 1974). 47 In this case Klingler offered proof of nothing more than the incident itself, and it was simply not egregious enough to influence the outcome of an election decided by such a large margin, at least without more of a showing by Klingler of harmful effect. The acting regional director was, therefore, justified in overruling this objection.