Opinion ID: 185441
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Election Interference by Union Agents

Text: 41 The multi-unit election was held at a single, central location: a classroom in a Lutheran church. According to Katz, [t]o reach the polling place, voters needed to open a gate at the edge of the 41st Avenue sidewalk and walk about ten feet to the side door of the Church building, open the door and enter the building. Brief for Petitioners at 10-11. Two of Katz's managers and several of its employees alleged that during the election two Union agents were in a car parked within twenty feet of the church's side door. According to Katz's managers and employees, the Union agents motioned, gestured, and honked at the employees as they passed the car. 42 After the election, Katz filed an objection based on these incidents. In its objection, Katz alleged that the Board Agent had established a 25-yard no-electioneering zone outside the entrance of the church. Katz argued that the Union agents' presence and actions in the no-electioneering zone constituted objectionable conduct that justified setting aside the election. The Regional Director overruled Katz's objection, concluding that the allegations--even if true--were insufficient to demonstrate that the Union had interfered with the exercise of the employees' free choice. Nathan Katz Realty, LLC, No. 29-RC-9265, slip op. at 9 (Sept. 8, 1999) (Supplemental Decision). The Board summarily affirmed the Director's conclusion. 43 We will uphold Board decisions concerning election objections if they are the product of reasoned decisionmaking and supported by substantial evidence. See Family Serv. Agency S.F. v. NLRB, 163 F.3d 1369, 1377 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In Board proceedings, the party seeking to overturn a representation election maintains the burden of establishing that the election was not fairly conducted. Id. 44 In previous cases, we have recognized the NLRB's Milchem rule, which prohibits prolonged conversations between representatives of any party to the election and voters waiting to cast ballots, regardless of the content of the remarks. Milchem, Inc., 170 N.L.R.B. 362, 362 (1968). When this rule is violated, the Board will order a new election. Family Serv. Agency, 163 F.3d at 1381. 45 When an employer objects to electioneering not encompassed within the Milchem rule--that is, when the alleged objectionable conduct occurs at a time other than while voters are waiting to cast ballots in the designated voting area--the Board will overturn the election only if the electioneering substantially impaired the exercise of free choice. Overnite Transp. Co. v. NLRB, 140 F.3d 259, 270 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (internal quotation omitted). In conducting this inquiry, the Board considers a range of factors, including the nature and extent of the electioneering, whether it happened within a designated 'no electioneering' area, whether it was contrary to the instructions of the Board's election agent, whether a party to the election objected to it, and whether a party to the election engaged in it. Id. 46 In this case, the Regional Director assumed that all of the allegations contained in Katz's election objection were true. Accordingly, Katz's allegations establish that (1) the Union agents' conduct occurred in a no-electioneering zone; (2) their presence and actions were contrary to the instructions of the Board Agent; (3) Katz objected to the Union agents' conduct; and (4) the people who engaged in the conduct were agents of a party to the election. The Regional Director concluded that [a]lthough the [Union agents] may have been stationed within the designated no-electioneering zone area for a portion of the polling period, there is no suggestion that they actually engaged in any electioneering nor that they engaged in objectionable conduct sufficient to set aside the election. Supplemental Decision at 9-10. The Director is correct that Katz has not introduced evidence of direct electioneering by the Union agents; however, in previous cases, the Board has stated that a party's mere presence may be sufficient to justify setting aside an election. Katz cites two such cases: Performance Measurements Co., 148 N.L.R.B. 1657 (1964), and Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 262 N.L.R.B. 186 (1982). 47 In Electric Hose, the Union lodged two election objections directly relevant to the case now before us. First, it objected to the presence of a company supervisor within ten or fifteen feet of the entrance to the voting area. See Elec. Hose, 262 N.L.R.B. at 216. Second, the Union objected to the presence of two supervisors who stood in areas where employees had to pass in order to vote. Id. The Administrative Law Judge not only found that the first supervisor had engaged in objectionable conduct, but she also concluded that the two supervisors' unexplained presence alone was coercive evidence of such a nature as to have destroyed the laboratory conditions necessary for the conduct of a free and fair election. Id. According to the ALJ, the only plausible purpose for the supervisors' presence, like the lone supervisor's presence near the entrance to the voting area, was to convey to [the voting] employees the impression that they were being watched. Id. The Board adopted these conclusions. See id. at 186. 48 The Regional Director attempted to distinguish Electric Hose from this case by noting that here the Union agents were stationed in a car outside the church, not immediately outside of the actual polling area. Supplemental Decision at 10 n.12. This distinction is manifestly inadequate. In Electric Hose, only one of the supervisors stood immediately outside the polling area. The other two supervisors simply stood in an area where employees had to pass in order to vote. Nothing in the Electric Hose decision indicates that these two supervisors were anywhere near the actual polling place. Katz alleges that, like the employees in Electric Hose, the multi-site employees had to pass the Union agents on their way to vote. In Katz's election objection, it specifically alleged that [a] voter approaching the Church entrance on the sidewalk (the only means of access) would have to walk within a few feet of the car. Similarly, several Katz managers stated in their affidavits that [a]nyone in the car could easily watch the side doorway to the Church and the sidewalk along 41st Avenue leading to that entrance used for the NLRB election. The Regional Director simply did not attempt to explain why the presence of the Union agents should be treated differently than the unexplained presence of the two Electric Hose supervisors. 49 In Performance Measurements, the employer's president stood by the door to the election area so that it was necessary for each employee who voted to pass within 2 feet of him to gain access to the polls. 148 N.L.R.B. at 1659. The Regional Director in that case found that there was no evidence that the president engaged in any electioneering. Nevertheless, the Board held that the president's continued presence constituted improper conduct that interfered with employees' freedom of choice in the election. Id. 50 In this case, the Regional Director distinguished the Union agents' actions by stating that they were stationed near the outside entrance to the building, not the entrance to the church basement classroom where the actual voting took place. Supplemental Decision at 10 n.12. This is a hollow distinction. After all, according to Katz's election objection, which the Regional Director assumed to be true, the Board Agent established a no-electioneering zone. No such zone existed in Performance Measurements. The Director did not explain why the Union agents' continued presence in a noelectioneering zone by the entrance to the site of the election (where employees had to pass) is different from standing outside the room in which employees actually vote. Standing in either place could interfere with the employees' freedom of choice--particularly if the Board Agent enacted a noelectioneering zone, presumably to prevent the parties from interfering with that freedom. 51 The Regional Director also distinguished Performance Measurements by stating that there is no evidence to suggest that employees were required to pass the [Union agents] in order to enter the building. Id. As we explained above, this statement is simply false. The Director purported to assume that Katz's allegations were true, yet discounted-without explanation--its allegation that employees were required to pass the Union agents. 52 Together, Electric Hose and Performance Measurements seem to stand for the proposition that a party engages in objectionable conduct sufficient to set aside an election if one of its agents is continually present in a place where employees have to pass in order to vote. In light of these cases, Katz's allegations appear to establish that the Union agents' presence outside the church's entrance constitutes conduct of such a nature that it substantially impaired the multi-site employees' exercise of free choice--even if the agents did not actually talk to any employee. The Board, however, came to the opposite conclusion. It is axiomatic that an agency adjudication must either be consistent with prior adjudications or offer a reasoned basis for its departure from precedent. ConAgra, Inc. v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 1435, 1443 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal citation omitted). The Board's decision in this case did neither. Accordingly, we vacate the Board's decision and remand the case for further proceedings.