NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,524, CROSS-POINTE CORPORATION and UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC., (Dec. 09, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 9, 1994)

CROSS-POINTE CORPORATION and UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC.

315 NLRB No. 102.Case No. 13-RC-18774. December 9, 1994

Before Stephens, Devaney and Cohen.

Election Objections--Union Interference--Keeping List of Voters.--An employer’s union representation election objection, based upon allegations that the employer’s election observer and two other employees saw one of the union’s election observers write something unknown on a piece of paper, was overruled. In this instance, the conduct of the observer was not objectionable because it did not constitute openly maintaining a voter list by the union. Section 9(c).

Back reference: ¶2792.59.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 44 for and 38 againt the Petitioner, with 7 challenged ballots, a sufficient number to affect the results.

The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and brief, and adopts the Regional Director’s findings and recommendations. [1]

[Partial Dissent]

Member Cohen, dissenting in part: Contrary to my collegaues, I find that Objection 5 raises genuine issues of fact. Objection 5 alleges that an observer for the Petitioner engaged in objectionable conduct by keeping a list of those who voted in the election. Thus, if a revised tally shows that the Petitioner won the election, I would direct a hearing on whether the Petitioner’s observer kept a list of employees and whether employees were aware of any such conduct. See, e.g., Days Inn Management Co., 299 NLRB 735, 736 (1990).

In my view, the employer has offered sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing. My colleagues say that the Employer’s affidavits state only that the Petitioner’s observer wrote “something unknown” on a piece of paper as each employee voted. In fact, one affidavit said that the observer wrote “several words,” and another affidavit said that the writing occurred when an employee stated his name. The observer says that he only made hash marks. In these circumstances, there is a critical question, factual to its core, as to the precise content of the observer’s writing. I would hold a hearing to resolve that factual question.

Textile Service Industries, 284 NLRB 1108 (1987), cited by my colleagues, is distinguishable. In that case, after a hearing was held, there was no evidence that names of voters were recorded. In the instant case, a hearing has not been held. Such a hearing could produce evidence that names were recorded. In any event, even if only words were written, I agree with former Member Babson’s observations, dissenting in Textile Service Industries, that words alone can be used to identify a voter.