Opinion ID: 442901
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Closing of Polling Place

Text: 15 The evidence shows that the poll was closed for approximately 10 minutes. Relying on Kerona Plastics Extrusion Co., 196 N.L.R.B. 1120 (1972), Cassidy contends that this incident was grounds for overturning the election regardless of whether any voters were excluded. 16 In Kerona Plastics, the polls were closed twenty minutes early during the morning session of a split-session election. The agent closed the polls in the presence of employees waiting to vote, and the Board held that the early closing, coupled with the employees' knowledge of the closing, mandated that the election be set aside, stating that it was impossible ... to determine whether the ... irregularity affected the outcome of the election. Id. 17 Cassidy concedes that there is no evidence in this case that any voter was excluded, or that any voter knew that the poll had been closed for a period before 5:00 p.m. 2 Nor does it dispute the fact that all eligible voters but one had voted before the absence. Nevertheless, it argues that the agent's absence from the polling place impugned the integrity of the election process, Appellant's Brief at 13, and thus the election must be set aside. However, we agree with the Regional Director that Cassidy has not shown that the election's outcome was affected by the agent's brief absence: 18 If an election is to be set aside because of a deviation from the scheduled voting times, it must be affirmatively shown that eligible voters, in sufficient numbers to affect the result of the election, were disenfranchised as a result of the change. 19 NLRB v. McFarland Co., 572 F.2d 256, 260 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 280, 58 L.Ed.2d 257 (1978); accord, NLRB v. Fenway Cambridge Motor Hotel, 601 F.2d 33, 38 (1st Cir.1979); NLRB v. Smith, 438 F.2d 17, 20 (5th Cir.1971). Because Cassidy has not even attempted to make a showing that the election outcome was affected by the agent's absence, and there is no evidence that it was, we find that the Regional Director's conclusion that no prejudice resulted is supported by substantial evidence. 3