Skip to main content

NLRB: Bright Line Rule Will Control Dual Marked Ballots


Providence Health & Services - Oregon d/b/a Providence Portland Medical Center - NLRB


Facts:  Service Employees International Union Local 49 (“Union”) sought to organize and represent a group of employees at Providence Health & Services (“Providence”).  Following an election, three ballots were declared void.  One void ballot in particular included an “X” in the “Yes” square and a diagonal line in the “No” square.  Objections were timely filed thereafter and an administrative law judge held that the previously mentioned ballot with multiple markings should be counted as a vote for representation.  The final results of the election resulted in 384 votes for representation by the Union and 38 votes against representation.  Providence filed exceptions and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) reviewed the administrative law judge’s ruling.

Analysis:  The NLRB recognized prior decisions which had addressed how to interpret dual marked ballots.  As noted in the decision, the NLRB pointed out the prior decisions were complex and somewhat contradictory.  In doing so, the NLRB opined that because it had no expertise in judging marks on a ballot and trying to determine intent, any decision made in regard to a dual marked ballot would simply be speculation.  As a result, any speculation would be inconsistent with other NLRB precedent which stipulated that the NLRB should avoid speculation in regard to marks on ballots when determining the validity of a ballot.

The NLRB therefore determined that it should adopt a “bright line rule” in regard to dual marked ballots.  The rule provides that when a ballot includes markings in more than one box or square, the ballot will be void.  Notably, the NLRB held that the “bright line rule” would apply retroactively. Consequently, as to this case, the above mentioned ballot with multiple marks was declared void by the NLRB which meant that the final election results were 383 for representation by the Union and 383 votes against representation.  Therefore, as the Union was required to receive a majority of votes to be certified, the necessary majority was not obtained.

The Takeaway:  I commend the NLRB for attempting to clarify the standard used when considering dual marked ballots.  As the NLRB wrote in its order, there had been a long and confusing group of prior decisions that addressed how dual marked ballots should be handled.  The NLRB smartly came to the conclusion that it was not in a position to determine intent when reviewing dual marked ballots.  Rather than getting into a guessing game every time it was confronted with a dual marked ballot, adopting the “bright line rule” provides clarity on how to handle dual marked ballots going forward.  I would tally this order as a win for employers as it takes away a lot of the ambiguity and guessing that had been previously involved with dual marked ballots.

Date:  May 13, 2020

Order:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45830e3fe3

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more