What Are The Objections?

After winning the union election at the Los Angeles Times the company filed five objections with the NLRB, and a ruling in favor of the employees was handed down on March 16th, 2007. The company filed an appeal with the Washington D.C. NLRB in March, 2007 and everyone awaits the outcome. Below are the objections to the election, and to view the complete report click on the title of this post.

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.

Objections Nos. 1 and 2 will be considered together, inasmuch as they involve like or related conduct.

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.

Objection No. 4

On January 25, 2007, the Employer, with the Regional Director’s approval, withdrew Objection
No. 4.

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.

Conclusion

Having made the above findings and conclusions, viewing the alleged conduct individually and cumulatively, and upon the record as a whole, I recommend that Employer’s Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 be overruled in their entirety. Based upon my recommendation that Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 be overruled, I further recommend that the Petitioner should be certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.

DATED at Los Angeles, California, this 16th day of March, 2007.

Jessica A. Toton
Hearing Officer
NLRB, Region 21