NLRB REPORT ON OBJECTIONS

The following report was published by the NLRB on their web site Sunday March 11th, 2007. At this time no ruling has been announced regarding the election at the Los Angeles Times.

This Report contains my recommendations regarding the Employer’s objections to the election conducted on January 4 and 5, 2007. The Employer’s objections allege that 1) a Petitioner observer campaigned in the polling area, while the polls were open, 2) a Petitioner observer communicated with unit employees, while the polls were open, 3) on or about December 27, 2006, two Petitioner agents threatened a unit employee, 4) Petitioner agents asserted that a particular unit employee had signed a union authorization card, which that employee denied, and 5) Petitioner agents told unit employees, "We know we are going to lose again, but you should vote for the Union just to make the results close and to send a message to the [Employer]." As described below, I conclude that the Employer’s objections shall be considered at a hearing, and herein Order and give Notice of such hearing.

Procedural History

The petition in this matter was filed on December 4, 2006. The tally of ballots served on the parties at the ballot count conducted on January 6, 2007 showed that of approximately 288 eligible voters, 140 cast ballots for, and 131 against, the Petitioner. There were zero void ballots and four challenged ballots, which were insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. The Employer timely filed objections to the conduct of the election, a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment A. The Objections were timely served upon the Petitioner.

The Objections and Analysis

Objection No. 1

During scheduled voting time and in the polling area, a Union Observer engaged in objectionable conduct by campaigning on behalf of the Union, contrary to Board rules and regulations, and contrary to the explicit instructions of the Board Agent conducting the election. Such conduct interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and interfered with their ability to make a free and reasoned choice in the election.

Objection No. 2

During scheduled voting time, a Union Observer engaged in objectionable conduct by communicating with eligible voters while he was assigned by the Board Agent to walk through the workplace with a sign that informed voters that the polls were open and that they were free to vote, and by continuing to communicate with eligible voters in the immediate vicinity of the polling place at a time after he was supposed to return to the polling place to perform his responsibilities as an Observer. Such conduct violated the explicit instructions of the Board Agent who was conducting the election, it conveyed the impression that the Union Observers were not subject to the rules that otherwise applied to the Employer Observers and it created the impression that, during the voting, the Union Observer was giving to Union supporters information about the employees who voted and the events occurring in the polling area that the Union Observer had no right to convey, thereby interfering with, coercing, and restraining employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and interfering with their ability to make a free and reasoned choice in the election.

Inasmuch as they are related, I will consider Employer’s Objections Nos. 1 and 2 together. The Employer asserts that two unit employees, hereinafter referred to as Witness A and Witness B, would testify in support of Employer’s Objections Nos. 1 and 2.

Evidence has been presented that while Witness A served as an Employer election observer in the polling area, he observed Petitioner election observer Ron Pineda make numerous pro-union campaign statements, complain about reductions in the number of employees on each press crew, and complain about increases in employees’ share of insurance premiums. Witness A and Witness B observed Board Agent John Hatem ask Pineda to talk about something else.

Evidence has been presented that while Witness B served as an Employer election observer, he and Petitioner election observer Dan Berumen released unit employees to vote at designated times. Witness B observed Berumen communicating with eligible voters, including employee Berry Tillage, by winking, giving a thumbs-up sign, and signaling them. Witness A and Witness B further observed Berumen talk to Tillage directly outside the polling area, while the polls were open. The Employer contends that these acts created the impression that the Petitioner election observers were "above the law," and that they were reporting to known Petitioner supporters about events that were occurring in the polling area.

Objection No. 3

On or about December 27, 2006, two self-identified Union supporters and agents threatened a bargaining unit employee who was wearing a hat that contained the words, "Vote No". Among other things, one or both of these Union supporters, on behalf of the Union, said that the bargaining unit employee was "sending mixed messages" by wearing the hat, and said that "In L.A., sending mixed messages can be dangerous." These statements made the employee think of reports he had heard that in previous campaigns by the Union and its predecessors, the cars of bargaining unit employees who supported the "Vote No" option at the Employer's Olympic (or "LA") pressroom had been vandalized. The bargaining unit employee therefore understood the statements to constitute threats that his new vehicle would be vandalized if he continued to wear the "Vote No" hat, or if he otherwise sent "mixed messages" that he supported the "Vote No" option in the election. Such conduct interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and interfered with their ability to exercise a free and reasoned choice in the election.

The Employer asserts that Supervisor Gary DeVine and one unit employee, hereinafter referred to as Witness C, would testify in support of Employer’s Objection No. 3. The Employer asserts that the relevant evidence in support of Employer’s Objection No. 3 was presented in the objection itself. The Employer asserts that Witness C reported the incident to Supervisor Gary DeVine shortly after it occurred.

Objection No. 5

The Union and its predecessors have filed a series of Representation Cases in which they have attempted to represent the Employer's pressroom employees, but the employees historically have rejected the Union's attempts, in most cases by wide margins. During this campaign, Union agents on more than one occasion told bargaining unit employees that, "We know we are going to lose again, but you should vote for the Union just to make the results close and to send a message to the [Employer]." Such conduct interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and interfered with their ability to exercise a free and reasoned choice in the election. As a result, a number of bargaining unit employees have expressed a strong desire that the Board hold another election that is free of such coercive, misleading statements and conduct as alleged herein, and in which all employees can vote their true preferences without such interference.

The Employer asserts that one unit employee, hereinafter referred to as Witness D, would testify in support of Employer’s Objection No. 5 and that the relevant evidence in support of Employer’s Objection No. 5 was presented in the objection itself. The Employer argues that the close results of this election make this objection more significant.

For its part, the Petitioner contends that the Employer’s objections do not establish a substantial basis for holding a hearing on objections, let alone overturning the election, and the Employer’s objections should be dismissed without further proceedings.

Conclusion

In view of the conflicting positions of the parties and the substantial and material factual and legal issues raised by the above-noted objections, I conclude that Employer’s Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 can best be resolved by a hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 102.69(d) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, I shall direct a hearing on Employer’s Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

The remainder of the transcript can be read by following this link.