Skip to main content

NLRB Provides Guidance on Common Issues That Arise With Mail In Ballot Elections

 

XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. - NLRB


Facts:  A union election took place via mail in ballot in August of 2020.  The Regional Office sent approximately 132 ballots to eligible employees.  Each of the ballots were included in kits which had instructions for how to return the ballots.  The election had a deadline for ballots to be returned by August 17th.  Ultimately, four unsigned ballots were received, one ballot with an employee’s name printed but not signed, and one damaged ballot that had been torn in half.

The Regional Office voided all six of these ballots which resulted in a 54 to 60 vote against unionization.  After the union raised a series of objections, the Regional Director held that the Regional Office had potentially disenfranchised some of the employees by not sending them duplicative voter kits so they could fix any issues with their initial ballots.  The Regional Director also held that the ballot that was torn in half (but had a “yes” vote) should have been counted.  The matter then went before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).

Analysis:  The NLRB looked at one particular ballot that was returned unsigned on August 14th.  While the Regional Director held that there was “sufficient time” for the Regional Office to mail the employee a duplicative voter kit, the NLRB disagreed.  Despite the fact that this employee lived near the Regional Office, August 14th to August 17th (when the first ballot was received and when the election ended) was not enough time for the employee to receive a return a second ballot.  Consequently, the NLRB held that because there was insufficient time for the Regional Office to send the employee the duplicative voter kit, the employee was not disenfranchised when the ballot was thrown out and a new one was not provided.

In regard to the ballot that had a “yes” vote but was returned torn in half, the NLRB disagreed with the Regional Director.  Relying upon a prior decision, Midland Steamship Line, Inc., the NLRB held that the Regional Director had to resort to speculation as to the possible meaning of the ballot being torn in half such that the ballot should be voided despite it having a “yes” vote.

The Takeaway:  This is a timely decision from the NLRB, in part given the ongoing vote count in the mail in election at the Amazon facility in Alabama.  This decision is a good reminder that while mail in elections might be favored by some (for ease of access to vote rather than having to do so in person), it also shows the risks that can arise if ballots are not properly completed or are damaged.  Had these ballots in question been counted, that would have impacted the final outcome of the election.  I am not necessarily saying that an in person election would have alleviated all issues...but the issues addressed in this decision would not have been a problem if the election had occurred in person.

Date:  March 23, 2021

Order:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45833cea06

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more