Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

46 Fifty-Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Boardemployer, as it was prepared on the employer's stationery. Thismemorandum directed employees' attention to the attachedsample ballot as demonstrating a "no" vote and urged employeesto vote no. Based on the above, the majority concluded that thealtered ballot would appear to employees to be part of the employer'selection campaign material, which was clearly identifiedas such, and not an official communication from the Board.In dissent, Member Johansen contended that the sample ballotfailed to indicate on its face, nor was it obvious, that it was altered,what the alterations were, and who made them. Further,he stated that these factors "could mislead employees into believingthat the ballot was prepared by the Board."In a dissent in Professional Care Centers," Member Johansenstated that he did not believe a per se rule that permits a party toalter official Board documents and ignores whether or not voterswould be aware the document was altered furthers the objectivesof the statute. He noted that the party responsible for the "x" ona sample ballot is not clear from the face of the document. Theimplication is that the Board is endorsing a specific vote. Thefailure to note that alterations were made, and what the alterationswere, should result in the sample ballot being found objectionableand require a new election.3. Ballot SecrecyIn Sorenson Lighted Controls," the Board majority held thatthe secrecy of a ballot was destroyed when the . voter handed hisunfolded ballot to another voter who looked at it before droppingit in the ballot box.The record showed that the voter in question emerged fromthe voting booth with his unfolded ballot in his hand and, as hewalked toward the door leading out of the voting area, handedhis unfolded ballot to another voter. The latter voter glanced atthe ballot, folded it, and dropped it in the ballot box. The recordalso showed that the disputed ballot was commingled with allother ballots the instant it was deposited in the ballot box. Therewas no indication that the parties' designated election observersor the Board agent challenged or objected to the ballot before itwas placed in the ballot box.In not counting this disputed ballot, the majority applied awell-established Board and court rule that a ballot that revealsthe identity of the voter is void. This same rule has been appliedwhere the marking is on the ballot itself or, as here, the voter'sconduct reveals the vote. Thus, the majority ruled that the secrecyof the employee's vote was destroyed when he handed his unfoldedballot to another voter who looked at it before droppingit in the ballot box. Because this ballot was commingled with all14 279 NLRB 814.15 286 NLRB No. 108 (Chairman Dotson and Member Johansen; Member Stephens dissenting inPart).