Court Opinion

ID: 9790067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:48.498876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.987362
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
The employer appears to have established that the well was poisoned. But we do not know how many persons drank from it.
*57It is a regrettable fact of democratic life that we seldom achieve laboratory purity in elections. Though I do not condone such activity, unfortunately there seem to be falsehoods, hyperbole and grossly exaggerated claims in almost every campaign. To invalidate an election on those grounds there must be a showing by substantial evidence that the offending conduct was likely to have had a significant coercive or intimidating effect on those engaged in the voting process. (J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 26 Cal.3d 1, 24 [160 Cal.Rptr. 710, 603 P.2d 1306].) The board did not conclude, as do the majority here, that the union activities “created an impermissible atmosphere of fear and coercion surrounding the balloting which rendered the election invalid.” (Ante, at p. 56.)
Therefore, while this court should disapprove the campaign tactics involved herein, I would not go as far as the majority in invalidating the election and certification—yet. I would annul and remand to the board with directions to take additional testimony to establish more convincingly whether the conduct of the union did or did not affect the election process, and to determine whether the circumstances dictate that a new election be held.