Opinion ID: 185441
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Counting the Sima Ballots

Text: 53 According to the NLRB's statement of procedures, [c]ustomarily, the Board agents ... count and tabulate the ballots immediately after the closing of the polls. A complete tally of the ballots is made available to the parties upon the conclusion of the election. 29 C.F.R. 101.19(a)(3). Likewise, the Board's rules and regulations state that [u]pon the conclusion of the election the ballots will be counted and a tally of ballots prepared and immediately made available to the parties. 29 C.F.R. 102.69(a). The NLRB's Case Handling Manual for Representation Proceedings echoes these rules, providing that [t]he count should take place as soon after the close of voting as possible. 11340.1 (Sept. 1989 ed.). 54 In this case, following a request by the Union, the Regional Director decided to refrain from counting the Sima election ballots until after the completion of the multi-site election. He explained his decision by stating that [t]o count the ballots in both units simultaneously guarantees that neither party will enjoy an unfair advantage over the other based on the result of the election in the Sima unit. The Director also noted that waiting to count the Sima ballots fosters laboratory conditions for both elections. 55 After the elections, Katz filed an objection with the Regional Director, arguing that the decision to delay the Sima ballot count unreasonably deviated from normal Board procedures. The Director overruled the objection for two reasons. First, he found that Katz had failed to submit evidence establishing that the delayed count materially affected the results of the elections. Supplemental Decision at 15. Second, he concluded that Katz did not proffer evidence to show that the Director's decision was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 15-16. The Board summarily affirmed this ruling. In its petition, Katz renews its claim. 56 The Board maintains a wide degree of discretion in establishing the procedure and safeguards necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees. NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330 (1946). Nevertheless, neither the Board nor the Regional Director may abuse that discretion. Indeed, if they choose to depart from usual election procedures, they must provide a reasoned explanation. See Macmillian Publ'g Co. v. NLRB, 194 F.3d 165, 168 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 57 Here, the Regional Director's only reason for departing from the normal procedure of counting the ballots and revealing the results immediately after the Sima election was that it might give one of the parties an unfair advantage. Although the Board suggests that this casual conclusion is consistent with earlier election decisions, see Brief for the NLRB at 30 (citing Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc., 308 N.L.R.B. 933 (1992); Indep. Rice Mill, Inc., 111 N.L.R.B. 536 (1955)), it is not immediately apparent what is unfair about announcing the results of one election before another election commences--even when the two elections are closely related or include employees of the same company. Neither the Regional Director nor the Board offered any explanation. It is as if the Board has taken a page from the Bard: For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. William Shakespeare, Hamlet act 2, sc. 2. 58 In its brief and at oral argument, the Board primarily stresses only one rationale for upholding the Regional Director's decision in this case: the Director has broad discretion. This misses the point. The Board (and in turn the Director) has received from Congress a delegation of authority to act in certain circumstances. See Kwik Care Ltd. v. NLRB, 82 F.3d 1122, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1996). When it acts, however, Congress requires it to act in a reasoned fashion, not arbitrarily and capriciously. See BB&L, Inc. v. NLRB, 52 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (per curiam). If the Board cannot assign a reason for what it has done, then its actions are arbitrary and capricious. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). That the Board has broad discretion is of no import. To state the standard of review is not to offer a reason. If the Board chooses to exercise its discretion, it must explain its action, and its explanation must reflect reasoned decisionmaking. See Pittsburgh Press Co. v. NLRB, 977 F.2d 652, 655 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Just as simply stating that a procedure is unfair does not make it so, simply stating that the Director has broad discretion does not establish that he has exercised it properly. 59 Ultimately, to prevail, a party attempting to set aside a representation election must demonstrate that the conduct complained of interfered with the employees' exercise of free choice to such an extent that it materially affected the election. C.J. Krehbiel Co. v. NLRB, 844 F.2d 880, 882 (D.C. Cir. 1988). While the delay in tallying and releasing the results of the Sima vote might not itself be grounds for reversal, the Board's complete inability to explain how releasing the results prior to the multi-site election could be unfair makes a remand appropriate.