The National Labor Relations Board has reaffirmed it will apply a “potential-disenfranchisement” test, not an “actual-disenfranchisement” test, in determining whether employees were affected by a late opening of the polls at an NLRB-conducted election. Bronx Lobster Place LLC, Case 02-RC-191753 (Feb. 2, 2018) (unpublished).

The employer had lost the election 14-12; there was one challenged ballot. Four eligible voters did not vote. In the second of two voting sessions, the NLRB Agent assigned to supervise the election opened the polls seven minutes late. Since the number of eligible voters who did not vote (four) was more than the union’s margin of victory, the NLRB found that the number of voters potentially disenfranchised were thus enough to affect the election outcome. Consequently, sufficient basis existed for conducting a new election.

Rejecting Member Mark Gaston Pearce’s dissenting opinion, which advocated setting aside an election only where objective evidence showed a determinative number of eligible employees were actually prevented from voting because of the late opening of the polls, the NLRB followed the Board’s reasoning in Pea Ridge Iron Ore Co., 335 NLRB 161 (2001). In that case, the polls also were opened seven minutes late and a determinative number of employees did not cast ballots. According to the Board:

[w]hen election polls are not opened at their scheduled times, the proper standard for determining whether a new election should be held is whether the number of employees possibly disenfranchised thereby is sufficient to affect the election outcome, not whether those voters, or any voters at all, were actually disenfranchised.

The NLRB’s decision underscores how closely the Board guards the integrity of the elections it conducts. Although the four eligible voters who did not cast ballots may have done so voluntarily, there was a possibility they tried to vote and could not because the polls were not open when they should have been. Therefore, the Board decided a new election had to be conducted.

Surprisingly, the pro-employer majority in this case was formed by an odd couple: NLRB Members William Emanuel, a Republican, and Lauren McFerran, a Democrat. Union-friendly Pearce, a Democrat, dissented. Could the decision be a sign of good NLRB times ahead for employers? Time will tell.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Jonathan A. Siegel Jonathan A. Siegel

Jonathan A. Siegel is one of the founding Principals of the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He practices before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board, state and federal agencies and courts.

Mr. Siegel also provides advice and…

Jonathan A. Siegel is one of the founding Principals of the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He practices before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board, state and federal agencies and courts.

Mr. Siegel also provides advice and counsel regarding labor and employment law with respect to various issues ranging from wage and hour law, reduction in force, WARN Act, discipline, leave management and harassment and discrimination issues. Mr. Siegel defends employers regarding different varieties of wrongful termination and discrimination claims.

Mr. Siegel has represented management in union organizing drives and regularly defends employers in unfair labor practice proceedings as well as in collective bargaining and arbitrations. He also has extensive experience conducting wage and hour preventive audits. He conducts single location and multi-location audits for employers. The scope of such audits can range from examining specific issues, i.e., exempt status under federal law and California, to comprehensive FLSA and California Labor Code audits. Mr. Siegel has conducted audits for a wide range of industries including, but not limited to manufacturing, retail, transportation, various service industries, defense contractors and healthcare.

Mr. Siegel regularly speaks on a variety of topics including wage and hour, harassment/discrimination, national and California employment trends, Workers’ Compensation, EEO, managing leaves of absence under FMLA and state leave laws and union avoidance. He has moderated numerous programs and is featured as a keynote speaker for several different organizations.

Photo of Philip B. Rosen Philip B. Rosen

Philip B. Rosen is a Principal in the New York City office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the Firm’s Management Committee. Mr. Rosen also leads the firm’s Labor Practice Group. He joined the Firm in 1979 and served as Managing…

Philip B. Rosen is a Principal in the New York City office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the Firm’s Management Committee. Mr. Rosen also leads the firm’s Labor Practice Group. He joined the Firm in 1979 and served as Managing Partner of the New York City office from 1989 to 2009.

Mr. Rosen lectures extensively, conducts management training, and advises clients with respect to legislative and regulatory initiatives, corporate strategies, business ethics, social media, reorganizations and reductions-in-force, purchase/sale transactions, sexual harassment and other workplace conduct rules, compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, wrongful discharge and other workplace litigation, corporate campaigns and union organizing matters, collective bargaining, arbitration and National Labor Relations Board proceedings. He has been quoted by the press on many labor matters, including the National Labor Relations Board’s recent initiatives on protected concerted activity and the proposed Notice Posting requirements.