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

Heading: Conduct of the Election

Text: 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.