Opinion ID: 392983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Klingler's Objections

Text: 34 If Klingler's leadpersons are supervisory staff, they should not have been included in the bargaining unit and, under certain conditions, their advocacy of the union might invalidate the election. The Board's decision held, first, that the leadpersons are not supervisory personnel and, second, that even if they were supervisors, their participation could not have affected the outcome of the election, based on the few allegations of objectionable conduct raised by Klingler. If the Board's second conclusion is adequately supported, we need not deal with the first. We will, therefore, assume that the leadpersons are supervisors for the purposes of this discussion. 35 First, we note that the Union won by a margin of 32 to 15 even when the 9 votes of the leadpersons were excluded. The validity of the election is thus not undermined merely by the votes of the leadpersons, and Klingler bears a heavy task in identifying specific conduct of the leadpersons that would tend to influence enough other votes to affect that outcome. In attempting to meet that burden, Klingler first alleges that the leadpersons were active in the organization and election campaigns. But pro-union activities by supervisors are merely an expression of personal preference and are not enough, by themselves, to invalidate an election. NLRB v. Alamo Express, Inc., 430 F.2d 1032, 1035 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021, 91 S.Ct. 584, 27 L.Ed.2d 633 (1971). Klingler must show that the activities 36 created an environment of tension or coercion such as to preclude employees from exercising a free choice. For conduct to warrant setting aside an election, not only must that conduct be coercive, but it must be so related to the election as to have had a probable effect upon the employee's actions at the polls. 37 Singleton Packing, 418 F.2d at 281 (quoting NLRB v. Zelrich Co., 344 F.2d 1011, 1015 (5th Cir. 1965)). 38 The only evidence that Klingler offered of actual coercive conduct by the leadpersons was that two leadpersons made isolated and relatively mild threats of economic reprisals against fellow employees who did not support the union. The first of these statements was merely a misrepresentation that the union would not represent all employees equally in the distribution of benefits after the election, but would favor those who had supported the union. 12 The employee to whom the statement was made asked the union organizer privately about the statement and he publicly corrected the misinformation at an employee meeting immediately thereafter. Klingler offered no indication how this incident could have influenced other employees. The second incident was merely the comment, she'll be the grease monkey directed at an anti-union employee by a leadperson standing with several other employees. Nothing further was made of the remark, and it was never even connected directly to the election issue. Clearly, these two incidents standing by themselves are not sufficient to indicate that there was an atmosphere of tension or coercion such as to preclude employees from exercising a free choice, Singleton Packing, 418 F.2d at 281, and the acting regional director was justified in finding that they would not warrant setting the election aside. 13 39 Klingler also claims that the leadpersons signed and solicited union authorization cards, thereby tainting the showing of employee interest that the Board requires prior to directing an election. 29 C.F.R. §§ 101.17 & 101.18. But the second supplemental decision specifically found that the union's showing of interest was sufficient to warrant processing of the petition even if all of the cards signed and solicited by the leadpersons were excluded. Because Klingler does not dispute that finding, the point of error fails. 40 Klingler does not offer any other evidence that the participation of the leadpersons in the election, even if they are supervisors, tended to influence the outcome of the election. The acting regional director therefore properly overruled the objection.
41 Klingler makes several weak allegations that certain aspects of the conduct of the election prejudiced the results. First, Klingler argues that the Board should have stayed the election pending resolution of the leadperson supervisory issue, rather than allow the leadpersons to vote under challenge. Klingler raises no specific facts to support this point of error, other than a vague implication that some leadpersons might have been recruited to campaign on behalf of the company if they had been labeled as supervisors prior to the election. But Klingler does not identify any specific leadperson willing to so campaign or offer any evidence that such an effort could have affected the outcome of the election. This allegation is insufficiently specific to require a hearing. Birmingham Ornamental Iron, 615 F.2d at 666-67. 42 The second point of error based on the conduct of the election is that the Board's agent acted so as to allow a bitter but brief confrontation between a pro-union employee and one of Klingler's observers. When one of the leadpersons approached the ballot box, the company's observer noted to the Board's observer that the company wished to challenge her vote. The leadperson reacted by calling the observer a bitch. When the Board's representative intervened and asked the leadperson's employment position, she replied that she was just a general flunkie, that all the employees were just general flunkies. Even if the conduct of the Board agent did precipitate the incident, which we doubt, it was neither explosive nor likely to influence a significant number of votes. One of the participants acknowledged that the issues between the two employees were essentially personal, and the remarks did not have a substantial connection to the election issue. Klingler offered absolutely no evidence of the incident's effect on the election, and the Board was therefore justified in concluding that the allegation was not sufficient to invalidate the election. 43 Klingler also alleged that this confrontation amounted to a violation of the rule established by the Board in Milchem, Inc., 170 NLRB 362 (1968). In Milchem, the Board prohibited prolonged conversations between representatives from any party to the election and voters waiting to cast ballots, because the final minutes before an employee casts his vote should be his own, as free from interference as possible. 170 NLRB at 362. The acting regional director dispensed with this objection solely on the basis that there was no evidence that the leadperson was acting as an agent or representative of the Union. 14 In addition, we note that the comments were not prolonged, or even a conversation. The Board clearly had substantial evidence to conclude that the Milchem rule had not been violated. 44 The third point of error is that the Board's agent departed from the schedule of the election by opening the election 17 minutes late and closing it 15 minutes late. But only two employees out of the 58 eligible employees failed to vote, and Klingler does not offer the slightest indication how this minor departure from the election schedule could have influenced the election. Without such evidence, the Board was justified in overruling Klingler's objection.
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.