Opinion ID: 489592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Union Certification.

Text: 31 The petitioner argues that the NLRB should have had a hearing on MTC's objections that government officials interfered in the election proceedings and that voters were improperly given monetary inducements. 32 The NLRB has broad discretion to determine the propriety of the union representation election process, NLRB v. Island Film Processing Co., 784 F.2d 1446, 1450 (9th Cir.1986); see also NLRB v. Best Products Co., 765 F.2d 903, 906-07 (9th Cir.1985), and we will not overturn a Board decision to certify a union unless the Board has abused that discretion. NLRB v. All-Weather Architectural Aluminum, Inc., 692 F.2d 76, 78 (9th Cir.1982); NLRB v. Big Three Industries, Inc., 602 F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir.1979). 33 1. Governmental Interference. MTC states that Ponciano C. Rasa, the President of the Northern Marianas Senate, and Herman Manglona, the Mayor of Tinian, actively campaigned on behalf of the Union. It argues that these government officials improperly interfered with the election, and that the Board should have held a hearing to determine whether improper governmental influence tainted the election. 34 MTC states that Columbia Tanning Corp., 238 NLRB 899 (1978), holds that an employees' exercise of free choice is impaired when one party misleads voters to believe that that party's position has official governmental imprimatur. MTC gives Columbia Tanning an overly broad reading. 35 In Columbia Tanning the Commissioner of Labor for the State of Massachusetts sent a letter to employees advocating union membership. The letter was written in Greek and printed on official stationary, and most of the employees were recent immigrants who in all likelihood were not familiar with the complexities of state and federal jurisdiction over labor relations. Id. at 900. The Board invalidated the election, concluding that [t]he potential for confusion eliminated the Board's appearance of impartiality and thereby interferes with the exercise of a free choice in the election. Id. at 900. 36 The Columbia Tanning election was not invalidated by the Board merely because a state officer expressed support for the union, but because it could have easily appeared that the Board favored one side or the other. In this election, MTC did not claim that it appeared that the NLRB favored one side or the other, nor did it otherwise demonstrate that the alleged misconduct interfered with the employees' exercise of free choice. 37 The Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that MTC did not make a prima facie showing that the actions of the local officials constituted interference with the election. 38 2. Monetary inducements. MTC also argues that improper monetary inducements were offered to three voting employees, and that the election should be invalidated for that reason, or in the alternative, the Board should have held a hearing on this matter prior to union certification. 39 A hearing is unnecessary where if all the facts contended for by the objecting party [are] credited, no ground is shown which would warrant setting aside the election. NLRB v. Aaron Brothers Corp., 563 F.2d 409, 411 (9th Cir.1977) (quoting NLRB v. Smith Industries, 403 F.2d 889, 892 (5th Cir.1968)). 40 The Board assumed the truth of the petitioner's allegations, and canceled one of the votes in favor of the union as a result. 4 However, the Board concluded that there were no other improper inducements, and invalidating one vote could not affect the outcome of the election. 41 MTC alleges that there were other inducements that required the election results to be invalidated. 42 Jose Reyes was visited at his home by Oscar Rasa and given an envelope containing a letter from Ponciano C. Rasa, the Marianas Senate President. Rasa stated that the envelope contained $50, but in fact, the envelope contained no money, only a letter from Ponciano C. Rasa. Reyes did not allege that he was told he would receive money if he voted for the union, but stated that Oscar thought if he gave me $50 I would support the union. Reyes' statement about what was going through Rasa's mind is speculative, and Rasa's actions do not amount to an improper inducement. The Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this was not an improper inducement. 43 On another occasion, a nonvoting supervisory employee was buying a half case of beer at a local store when he met Oscar Rasa. Rasa asked him to have his crew vote for the union, asked him to attend a breakfast with a union representative, and paid the cashier for the beer purchase. This incident involved an employee that was not eligible to vote, and this action does not rise to the level of an improper inducement. 44 The Board accepted MTC's allegations as true, and did not abuse its discretion in holding that MTC failed to establish a prima facie case that improper inducements had an impact on the outcome of the election. IV