Opinion ID: 2978165
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Third-party standard of review is proper

Text: Multi-Flow asserts that the Board improperly used the third-party standard of review. It asserts that Tom Rembowski, a Multi-Flow employee, acting as an agent of Local No. 20, was responsible for spreading pre-election rumors. As such, Rembowski’s conduct should have been attributable to the Union. Thus, Multi-Flow asserts that the Board should have given greater weight to such conduct in evaluating its impact on the fairness of the election—specifically, reviewing his conduct for whether it reasonably tended to interfere with the employees’ free and uncoerced choice. Multi-Flow’s argument fails because the record is devoid of evidence showing that Rembowski acted as a Union agent. The general rule is that a union is not responsible for the acts of an employee, unless the employee is an agent of the union. See Kitchen Fresh, Inc. v. NLRB, 716 F.2d 351, 355 (6th Cir. 1983). “The party seeking to prove that an employee is a union agent must show that the union ‘instigated, authorized, solicited, ratified, condoned or adopted’ the employee’s actions or statements.” Id. (quoting NLRB v. Miramar of Cal., 601 F.2d 422, 425 (9th Cir. 1979) and citing Worley Mills, Inc. v. NLRB, 685 F.2d 362, 366 (10th Cir. 1982)). Multi-Flow has not met - 10 - Multi-Flow Dispensers of Toledo, Inc. v. NLRB No(s) 08-2360/2446 that burden. We agree with the Regional Director’s conclusion that there “is no evidence that the Union originated or circulated the rumor,” (Report on Objections 2, JA Vol. II 53) or that it “was involved in the circulation of this rumor, nor is there any evidence the Union was aware of the rumor prior to the election.” (Report on Objections 2 n.2, JA Vol. II 53.) Multi-Flow’s mere assertion that Rembowski was an agent is not enough. In the absence of such evidence, the Board properly used the third-party standard of review. 2. Pay-off rumor spread by third party does not necessitate setting aside election Multi-Flow argues that a new election is required because Rembowski and other employees made a substantial misrepresentation at a time that precluded Multi-Flow from effectively replying. Specifically, it alleges that a rumor was spread that Multi-Flow had paid an employee, Paul Morris, $3500 to change his vote and to convince other employees to vote against the Union. Multi-Flow contends that the company did not have a sufficient opportunity to respond since the rumor was spread on the eve of the election. Thus, this rumor unfairly interfered with the conduct of the election, which should be set aside. Even accepting Multi-Flow’s allegations as true, the Board determined that this third-party conduct was not so egregious as to render a free election impossible. We agree with the Board that the alleged rumors did not taint the entire election. It is not unusual for propaganda to circulate during fiercely contested union campaigns, and “neither unions nor employers can [be expected to] prevent misdeeds . . . by persons over whom they have no control.” NLRB v. Griffith Oldsmobile, Inc., 455 F.2d 867, 870 (8th Cir. 1972) (citations omitted). At worst, the alleged conduct consisted of misrepresentations by a third party, which could easily have been weighed and evaluated by - 11 - Multi-Flow Dispensers of Toledo, Inc. v. NLRB No(s) 08-2360/2446 employees. This hardly rises to the level of conduct creating “a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free election impossible.” Precision Indoor Comfort, 456 F.3d at 639. 3. Ambiguity in reduction of initiation-fees does not require a new election Multi-Flow also alleges that the Union promised employees that “initiation fees would be reduced if the [Union] won the election, although not for everyone in the bargaining unit.” In support of its assertion, Multi-Flow offered to produce an employee statement that a Local No. 20 organizer told employees that initiation fees would be $250 to anyone who was previously a member, but only $5 for all other employees. It argues that the meaning of this offer to reduce initiation fees is unclear, or ambiguous. Because of this ambiguity, it contends employees were free to attach their own meaning to the offer. Multi-Flow alleges that one employee, Josh Pawloski, understood the Union’s offer to be that initiation fees would be reduced for those who approached the Union or supported the Union prior to the election. Multi-Flow argues that such an offer by the Union would materially interfere with free choice in the election and thus requires a new election. In NLRB v. Savair Manufacturing Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1973), the Supreme Court held that it was impermissible for a union to offer to waive initiation fees only for those employees who manifested support for the union before the election. The Court reasoned that permitting such a practice would allow the union “to buy endorsements and paint a false portrait of employee support during its election campaign.” Id. at 277. In an unpublished opinion, Vanden Brink Meat Co. v. NLRB, we recognized that “[t]his prohibition against ‘bought’ union endorsements applies to union offers to reduce initiation fees in exchange for employee support.” 831 F.2d 298, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12682, at  (6th Cir. Oct. 9, 1987) (citing NLRB v. Aladdin Hotel Corp., 584 F.2d 891 (9th - 12 - Multi-Flow Dispensers of Toledo, Inc. v. NLRB No(s) 08-2360/2446 Cir. 1978)). Further, “if a union initiation fee offer is ambiguous, and one reasonable construction of that ambiguity violates Savair, the union must clarify its offer or the election will be set aside.” Id. (citing Inland Shoe Mfg. Co., 211 N.L.R.B. 724 (1974)). We conclude that the purported union fee waiver in this case does not violate Savair and does not require a new election. The challenged statements merely demonstrate that Local No. 20 was offering to reduce initiation fees. The statements do not imply that the fee reduction was limited to employees who supported the Union, voted for the Union, or joined the Union before the election. In order to implicate Savair, the employee’s interpretation of a union initiation fee offer must be reasonable. See Vanden Brink Meat Co., 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12682, at ; see also ATR Wire & Cable Co. v. NLRB, 752 F.2d 201, 201 (6th Cir. 1985). We believe that Pawloski’s interpretation is not supported by a fair reading of the Union’s offer. To the extent that Pawloski’s interpretation was shaped by conversations with fellow Multi-Flow employees, these third-party statements are not attributable to the union. See Kitchen Fresh, Inc., 716 F.2d at 355. There is no reason to believe that Local No. 20’s initiation fee offer interfered with a the exercise of free choice. 4. The close outcome of this election does not compel setting aside its results Finally, Multi-Flow correctly points out that the closeness of a representation election is an important consideration in determining whether the misconduct at issue warrants setting it aside. See Colquest Energy, Inc. v. NLRB, 965 F.2d 116, 122 (6th Cir. 1992). Even so, “we must nevertheless weigh this factor in connection with the ‘severity of the [alleged misconduct].’” Precision Indoor Comfort, 456 F.3d at 640 (citing Colquest Energy, 965 F.2d at 122). The closeness of a union election “does not warrant setting aside the election results where, as here, ‘the company’s - 13 - Multi-Flow Dispensers of Toledo, Inc. v. NLRB No(s) 08-2360/2446 objections go to a handful of isolated incidents.’” Id. (quoting NLRB v. Bostik Div., USM Corp., 517 F.2d 971, 975 & n.5 (6th Cir. 1975)). The isolated incidents raised by Multi-Flow are not so severe to give us pause in upholding the NLRB’s decision in this close election.