Brink'S Armored Car

BRINK'S ARMORED CAR Brink's Armored Car and Armored Car Employees Union Local No. 1, Petitioner. Case 20-RC- 15839 22 January 1986 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 20 May 1985 the Acting Regional Director for Region 20 issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative in which she over- ruled the Employer's objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the election.' Thereafter, pursu- ant to the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely re- quest for review of the Acting Regional Director's supplemental decision. By mailgram dated 12 August 1985 the National Labor Relations Board granted the Employer's request for review. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and concludes that there were no improprieties warranting the setting aside of the election. How- ever, the Board takes this opportunity to clarify the proper handling of mail ballots in this case.2 On 12 April 19853 the Regional Office mailed to the employees on the eligibility list a voting pack- age containing mail ballots with instructions that -the ballots be returned to the Regional office by 5 p.m. on 19 April. The Employer's Objection 2 al- leged that David Silvey was disenfranchised be- cause of the Board agent's failure to mail him a package containing his mail ballot. In support of this objection the Employer relied on the assertions of its representative that at the time of the ballot count he observed in the Board agent's possession a voting package with Silvey's name written on the envelope. The facts reveal that, contrary to the Employer's contention, on 12 April the Regional Office mailed Silvey a voting package. Silvey's ballot was re- turned to the Regional Office prior to the 19 April deadline for receipt of the mail ballots. Upon re- ceipt of the ballot, Silvey's name was checked off the eligibility list and his ballot was counted. I The tally of ballots shows seven for and two against the Petitioner There were four challenged ballots which were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election 2 For the reasons stated by the Acting Regional Director in her deci- sion, we find no ment in the Employer's objections and adopt the Acting Regional Director's conclusion that they be overruled. 2 Unless otherwise stated all dates are 1985. 141 According to the Acting Regional Director's de- cision, the voting package observed by the Em- ployer's representative contained a mail ballot for James Sanders. On 18 April, Sanders, whose name was not on the eligibility list, contacted the Re- gional Office requesting an opportunity to vote in the election. The Board agent 'informed him that he could vote if he appeared in person to cast a chal- lenged ballot because the time constraints would not allow for the timely mailing and receipt of a voting package. Sanders then requested that his voting package be given to Silvey, who he thought would be going to the Regional Office that day. The Board agent agreed to Sanders' request, rea- soning that only Sanders could sign the mail ballot envelope. It appears that, as it was Silvey who was to deliver the voting package to Sanders, Silvey's name rather than Sanders' was on the outside enve- lope observed by the Employer's representative at the time of the ballot count. It is undisputed that Silvey did not appear at the Regional Office and that the voting package to be picked up by Silvey but intended for Sanders was never picked up. Sanders did not vote in the election and there is no contention that he was an eligible voter. We do not approve of permitting one individual to pick up a mail ballot for another potential voter.4 In assuring the integrity of the election process the Board goes to great lengths to ensure that the manner in which elections are conducted raises no reasonable doubt as to their fairness or validity. Peoples Drug Stores, 202 NLRB 1145 (1973); Polymers, Inc., 174 NLRB 282 (1969). Ac- tions by Board personnel which tend to destroy confidence in the Board's election process are to be avoided rigorously and, in appropriate circum- stances, are a sufficient basis for setting aside an election.5 The danger that the laboratory condi- tions surrounding an election may be destroyed are greater in mail balloting situations than in manual elections because of the absence of direct Board su- pervision over the employees' voting. Had the package here been up picked by Silvey, the Board would have had no way of determining with any degree of certainty that Sanders was the one who received the ballot and ultimately voted it. The normal presumption of accurate mail delivery or, altrnatively, delivery in person at a Regional Office to a voter with proper identification, would not have been available. However, as the voting pack- 4 The Acting Regional Director concluded that as Sanders never re- ceived the voting package it was unnecessary to decide whether it would have been appropriate for Silvey to deliver Sanders' voting package 5 Athbro Engineering Corp, 166 NLRB 966 (1967), vacated sub nom Electrical Workers IUE v. NLRB, 67 LRRM 2361 (D C. Cir. 1968), acqui- esced in 171 NLRB 21 (1968), enfd 423 F.2d 573 (1st Cir. 1970) 278 NLRB No. 16 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD age never left the Board agent 's possession, we sion that the Employer's objections be overruled conclude in the circumstances of this case that the and that a Certification of Representative issue is integrity of the election was not compromised. Ac- affirmed. cordingly, the Acting Regional Director's conclu-