Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

124 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. and Gonzalez, Petitioner and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2015. Case 39-RD-67 March 23, 1988 DECISION DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT By Order dated October 21, 1985, the Board denied the Employer's and the Union's requests for review of the Acting Regional Director's Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Repre- sentative. On November 1, 1985, the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration. We deny the motion for reconsideration on grounds it is lacking in merit and presents nothing not previously con- sidered. 1 In doing so, we make the following ob- servations. The election was conducted August 1, 1984, and the ballots were impounded. On January 14, 1985, the ballots cast were opened and counted. The tally of ballots, issued January 21, 1985, showed, that of approximately 235 voters, there were 6 void ballots; 66 were cast for the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers; 138 were cast for Bridgeport Fittings Employees Association; 6 were cast against the participating labor organizations; and there were no challenged ballots. The Employer's objections alleged, inter alia, that the ballot utilized at the election, which was printed in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, and handwritten in Laotian, contributed to "widespread confusion among employees eligible to vote as to the choices available to the employees in the elec- tion," citing in support the Board's decision in Kraft, Inc., 273 NLRB 1484 (1985). 2 The Employer asserted that, like the ballot in Kraft, the instant ballot is confusing in organization and appearance, contains line-by-line translations which created arti- ficial phrasing, is flawed because the handwritten Laotian characters overshadow the preprinted English, Spanish, and Portuguese versions, and in- cludes substantial errors in the foreign language With respect to the Employer's request that its motion for reconsid- eration be considered by the full Board, it is the Board's established prac- tice to refer such motions to the original panel members for disposition. In this case, former Chairman Dotson and Member Dennis, along with Member Johansen, composed the original panel which considered the Employer's request for review of the Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative. Because of the departure of Chairman Dotson and Member Dennis, the Board has delegated its authority to a three-member panel of Chairman Stephens and Members Johansen and Cracraft. That panel has considered the Employer's request that the full Board review the motion for reconsideration, and denies it See Enterprise Industrial Piping Co, 118 NLRB 1(1959). 2 A copy of the Kraft ballot is attached as App A [omitted from publi- cation] 288 NLRB No. 25 translation. Finally, the Employer argued that the failure to include a translation of the Unions' names further contributed to the confusion among the em- ployees. In support of its contentions, the Employ- er submitted an affidavit from a professional trans- lator regarding the translations appearing on the ballot, in which the translator indicated several errors in the translation. Thereafter, the Acting Regional Director con- ducted an investigation of these allegations. Based on his investigation, the Acting Regional Director issued his decision in which he found that the Spanish and Portuguese errors alleged by the Em- ployer were minor and there was no evidence that these errors caused confusion. 3 He also found that the errors in the Laotian translation did not cause significant confusion among the Laotian-speaking voters. Additionally, he determined that the ballot used here was not so seriously defective on its face as to interfere with the employees' ability to exer- cise their free choice in the election. In so finding, he noted that the preprinted translations were not lost or overshadowed by the handwritten Laotian translation, and that the layout of the ballot did not make it difficult for English-reading voters to un- derstand. 4 Finally, in refusing to set the election aside, the Acting Regional Director relied on the fact that there were only three Laotian-speaking employees who could have potentially been affect- ed by the Laotian translation in an election decided by 72 voters. For all these reasons, he found the in- stant case distinguishable from Kraft. We agree.5 We find that the ballot in question is not facially defective and that its layout does not make the ballot unreasonably difficult for either English- reading or foreign-language reading voters to un- derstand. The ballot is well organized, orderly in appearance, and not difficult to read. Unlike the ballot in Kraft, the writing is within the lines, the printing is lined up in an orderly fashion, and the Unions' names and the election choices are clearly set forth in English. Although the handwritten translation of the Laotian language is larger, with thicker and bolder print than the other printing on the ballot, it does not overshadow the other three languages. Nor are we of the opinion that the mul- tiple alphabets, with three printed languages and one handwritten, caused voter confusion. Indeed, the ballot is a marked improvement over that used 3 We agree with the Acting Regional Director that the grammatical, typographical, and spelling errors in the Spanish and Portuguese transla- tions were minor, and did not warrant a new election. 4 A copy of the ballot used in the election here is attached as App. B [omitted from publication] 5 Because we agree that Kraft is distinguishable, we find it unnecessary to pass on the validity of that decision BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS 125 in Kraft, in which the English and its translations ran into each other or were placed without appar- ent connection. We do not believe that the employ- ees here would have had unreasonable difficulty in locating their own languages. Further, the imperfections in the translation of the Laotian portion of the ballot were not signifi- cant. Essentially, there were two translation errors in Laotian. In the first, the phrase "Mark An 'X' In the Square Of Your Choice," literally reads, "Mark An 'X" In The Two Squares Of Your Choice." 6 In the second, the final paragraph of the ballot, which should read, "Do Not Sign This Ballot. Fold and Drop Into the Ballot Box. If you Spoil This Ballot, Return It To The Board Agent For A New One," reads in Laotian, "Do not sign this. Fold and drop into ballot. If you spoil this ballot by use, cannot please return to Agent already you will have re- ceived a new one instead." While not condoning these errors in the Laotian translation (or any other foreign language errors), we do not believe that these errors were sufficient to confuse the Laotian- speaking voters. The relevant inquiry is whether the translation provided those who do not read English with the information necessary to cast an informed vote. See Tanforan Pack Food Purveyors Council v. NLRB, 656 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9th Cir. 1981) (Judge Fletch- er, concurring). We believe that, under the circum- stances present here, it did. Thus, we note that the Laotian-speaking voters had lived and worked for the Employer in the United States for anywhere from 3 to 5 years and, with one possible exception, understood some Eng- lish. 7 In three of the four affidavits submitted by the Employer, the Laotian-speaking employees stated they understood they were to mark one of the three boxes for one of the two unions or for 6 However, we note that even the Employer's translator Initially viewed the Board translation as acceptable. 7 The Employer did not except to the Acting Regional Director's find- ing that there were only three employees in the unit who spoke Laotian, although It attached affidavits of four Laotian-speaking employees with its brief. In its brief in support of exceptions, the Employer noted that "about the same percentage" of voters was involved . here as in Kraft 0 e, a total of three). neither. None of the affiants—either those made available by the Employer or those interviewed by the Region—indicated that they understood that they should "mark an 'X' in the two squares of their choice," nor was it alleged or shown that any of their ballots were voided by reason of marking more than one square. In any event, we agree with the Acting Regional Director that the fact that only three (or four) em- ployees were possibly affected by the defects in the Laotian translation is a relevant consideration in deciding whether to run a new election. It is undis- puted that the number of Laotian voters could not have affected the outcome of the election because the election was decided by a margin of 72 votes. Thus, whatever errors existed in the Laotian trans- lation, they were not sufficient to undermine the Board's processes. Kraft, supra, is not to the con- trary. There, the Board did not address the Acting Regional Director's findings that the translation problem involved only a small percentage of the voters insufficient in number to affect the results of the election, because it found the ballot itself so se- riously inadequate as to confuse even the English- reading majority as wel1. 8 Kraft, supra, 273 NLRB at 1484-1485. As noted previously, however, we have rejected the contention that the ballot here was so seriously defective. Finally, we conclude that the ballot was not ob- jectionable simply because certain proper names were not translated. Our experience shows that certain words and phrases such as the name and address of the employer, names of the unions, and unit descriptions, do not lend themselves to transla- tion. In our opinion, the Region did not commit objectionable error by using English titles for the Unions, i.e., the Unions' actual names. We there- fore conclude that the ballot used by the Region in this election was not so seriously defective in its format or content to require that the election be overturned. Accordingly, we deny the motion for reconsideration. 8 Further, the Board majority noted in Kraft that there was insufficient record evidence from which to determine the number of employees unable to read English Kraft, supra