Gleason Plant Security, Inc.

I)[(CISI()NS ()F NAII()NAI. I.AI()R RELATI)NS B)OARL) Gleason Plant Security, Inc. and Federation of Spe- cial Police and Law Enforcement Officers, Peti- tioner. Case 2-RC-18501 September 30, 1980 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MIMBII RS JI NKINS ANI) P NI.I.O Pursuant to authority granted it by the National Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three- member panel has considered objections to an elec- tion held between November 28 and December 19, 1980,1 and the Regional Director's report recom- mending disposition of same. The Board has re- viewed the record in light of the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommendations only to the extent consistent herewith. We find merit in the Employer's exception to the Regional Director's finding that the Petitioner did not interfere with the election by mailing sample ballots to employees 2 days before the mail ballot election began. The document distributed by the Union contains an exact reproduction of the Board's sample ballot and voting instructions. Di- rectly above the reproduced ballot are the hand- written words "Vote 'Yes' Federation," with an arrow pointing to the "Yes" box, which has an "X" in it. The document does not refer to the Union as the source of the altered sample ballot. The Regional Director, relying on Clark Equip- ment Company, 242 NLRB 1166 (1979); A. Brandt Company. Inc., 199 NLRB 459 (1972); and Associat- ed Lerner Shops of America, Inc., 207 NLRB 348 (1973), found that the handwritten notations were clearly discernible as additions made by the Union and sufficiently distinct from the printed ballot so as to preclude the suggestion that the Board was endorsing the Petitioner. However, we find Clark Equipment and A. Brandt to be inapposite in that they involved reproductions of the "Rights of Em- ' The election Aas conducted pursuant t a Stipulation For Certifica- rion Upon Consent t lecion 1he lalls was 24 for. and I1 against, the Petitioter, there were 5 challenged hallots, an ll sufficen number to affect the results ployees" portion of an election notice and a region- al director's decision, not an official ballot. We also find Associated Lerner Shops to be distinguishable on the ground that the sample ballot therein clearly identified the employer as the author and was dis- tributed for use in a mock voting demonstration. Rather, we agree with the Employer's contention that the Union's reproduction and alteration of the sample ballot was objectionable under the doctrine first set forth in Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109 NLRB 1270 (1954), and reiterated in several recent decisions. 2 In Allied Electric the Board expressed its strong concern that no participant in an election be per- mitted to misuse Board processes to create the im- pression that the Board endorses a particular choice. The Board found in Allied Electric that the reproduction of a document purporting to be a copy of the Board's official secret ballot, which has been altered for partisan purposes, must tend to suggest to its reader that the message appearing on the document bears this Agency's approval. Here, the Union's ballot is an exact reproduction of the Board's sample ballot and contains no indication that the Union was responsible for the alterations. Accordingly, we find that the Union's use of a ballot bearing a partisan message creates the ap- pearance that the Board endorsed the Union and therefore tends to mislead voters. We shall set aside the election and direct that a second election be conducted. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the election held be- tween November 28 and December 19, 1980, be, and the same hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] ' Sec. e.g., Si/co Inc. 4las Division, 231 NLRB 110 (19771; Mcrtury Industries. In., 238 NLRB 896 (1978) (Member Penello dissenting); Building .eaing Corporation 239 NLRB 13 (1978) EDM of ixas, Div. of Chromalloy .4merican Corp., 245 NL.RB 934 (1979); Pacific Motel Corp. d/h/I Brst Wuviern Motel, 248 NLRB 1319 (1980); 4rmstrong Cork Com- puny, 250( NLRB 10064 (1980) Memlhber Penello agrees with his colleagues that the election should be sel aside because the source of the altered ballot was not s identified as to preclude any impression ont the part of he voters that the Agency has sponsored r aplo'ed the partisan additions to the ballot. See his dis- seilltig opinion in MerurF Induoriev. Inc., 23 NI.RB 896. * 252 NLRB No. 125