Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Teamsters' NLRB Objections to Organizers Unionizing

Teamsters' NLRB Objections to Organizers Unionizing

Ratings: (0)|Views: 88 |Likes:

More info:

Published by: LaborUnionReport.com on Sep 25, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/29/2012

pdf

text

original

 
UNITEDSTATES
OF
AMERICA
BEFORETHE
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
BOARD
REGION
5INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD
OF
TEAMSTERS,
AFL-CIO
Employer
andCase
05-RC-078154
FEDERATION
OF
AGENTS
AND
INTERNATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVES
(FAIR)
Petitioner
REPORT
ON
OBJECTIONS
1
2
Pursuant
to
a
Stipulated Election Agreementapproved
on
April
16,
2012,
a
secret-ballotelection
was
conducted,
by
mail,
under
my
supervision.
The mail ballotswere sent
to
eligible voters
on
May
14.
The ballots
were
commingled
and
counted
on
May
29
withthe
following results:Approximatenumber
of
eligible voters
40
Void
ballots
0
Votes castfor
Petitioner
18
Votes
cast
against participating
labor
organization
16
Valid votes
counted
34
Challengedballots
I
Valid votes countedpluschallenged ballots
35
The
challengedballot
did
not
affect
the
election
results.
The
unit
is:
"All
full-timeInternational Organizers employed
by
the
Employer;
but
exclud
I
ig
a]
project organizers,officeclerical employees,professional employees,guards,
and
supervisors
as
defined
in
the Act."
The
eligibility
period
is
the payroll period
ending
March
30,
2012.Unless
otherwise specified,
all
dates
are 2012.
 
On
June
4,
the
Petitioner
filed
timelyobjections
to
conduct affecting
the
results
of
the
election,which
are
attached
as
Exhibit
A.
3
THE
OBJECTIONS
Objection
I
Disenfranchised
voters:
...
t
the
ballot count,
the
Employer announced
that
severalemployees whose votes
were
not received
by
the
NLRB hadstated
that
they hadmailed ballots
by
priority
mail
and
had
tracking numberswhichdemonstrated that their ballots
had
been
received
by
the
United States PostalService
on
or before
May
18
and
delivered
to
the
Post Office
in
Washington,
D.C.
and
should have been delivered
to
the
Resident Office
well
beforethe
ballot
count
on
May
29.
In
addition,
three
employees
...
ho
had
mailed
ballots
on
or
about
May
18,
flew
to
Washington
to
vote
in
person because
they weretold
that theirballots
had
not been received
yet....
[F]ouremployees
...
ailed ballots which
the
Postal Service statesshould
have
been
delivered
to
the
Resident Office
well
before the ballot counton
May
29
....
hen
employees
are
given the opportunity
to
vote
by
mail,
they should
not
be
deniedthe
right
to
vote
because
of
provenerrors
by
the
Postal Service
or
the
interface between
the
Board
and
PostalService....
In
support
of
Objection
1,
Employer provided
Postal
Servicewebsitematerialdescribingprioritymail service, affidavitsfrom Employees
A,
B
(notarizedbutunsigned
by
the
employee),
C,
and
D;
apparentlyself-composedstatementsfromEmployees
B,
C,D,
F,
and
G;
PostalServicetrack
and
confirmprintoutsforEmployees
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
F,
and
G;
a
Postal Serviceresponse
to
request
for
delivery informationforEmployee
A;
and
a
delivery
confirmation
receipt
for
Employee
D.
According
to
the
affidavits
and
trackingprintouts,
the
four employees(Employees
A,C,
D,
and
E)
whoseballots
were
notreceived
at
the
time
of
the
count
(and
who
did
not
3
Thepetitionwasfiled
on
April
5.1
will
consider
on
its
meritsonly
thatallegedinterference
which
occurredduringthe criticalperiod
whichbegins
on
and
includes
the
date
of
the
filing
of
the petition
and
extendsthrough
the
election.
Goodyear
Tire
&
Rubber
Co.,
138
NLRB
453
(1962).
2
 
cast ballots
in
person)
mailedtheir ballots between
May
18
and
22
via
priority
mail'
from
locations
throughout
theUnitedStates.
The
ResidentOffice
did
not receive
any
of
these
ballots
prior
to
the
count
on May
29.
Two
were
received
on
May
3 1,
one wasreceived
on
June
8,
and one was
never delivered.
With respect
to
the
three
employees
(Employees
B,
F,
and
G)
who
flew
to
Washington
to
vote
in
person
and
whosevotes were counted
in
the
tally, theysent
their
ballots
via
priority
mail
between
May
21
and
23).
The Resident Office
received
theseballots
on
May
3 1,
June
4,
and
June
8.
Three
additional ballots
were returned
to
the
Resident Office after
the
tally
of
ballots
thatwerenot
mentioned
in
the
Employer's
objection.Two ballots
of
eligiblevoterswere
received
on June
4
and
June
5.
The
date
these
ballots
were mailed
is
unknown.The
third ballot
was
cast
by
an
individual
who
did
not
appear
on
the
Excelsior
list,
and
it
was
received
on
May
30.
The Boardwill issue
certifications
wherethere
is
adequatenotice
and
opportunity
to
vote
and
employees
are not
preventedfromvoting
by
the
conduct
of
a
party or
by
unfairness
in
the
scheduling
or
mechanics
of
the
election.
Lenico
Construction,
nc.,
283
NLRB
459,
460
(1987).
Employees'opportunity
to
vote
is
not
compromised
by
mail
delivery
problems
that
prevent
the
timelyreceipt
of
potentially-determ
i
native ballots.
See
Antelope
Valley
Bus Co.
v.
NLRB,
275
F.3d
1089,
1094-96
(D.C.
Cir.
2002)
(upholdingcertification
wherefouremployees
did
notreceive
mail
ballots
and
electiondecided
by
three
votes).
J
Ray
McDermott
and
Company
v.
NLRB
571
F.2d
850
(5th
'
The
affidavit
of
Employee
C
states
that
the ballot
was
sent "certified
mail
withtrackiiig"
but
tile
accompailyii-ig
Track
&
Coiifirmpriiitoutshows
it
was
mailed
by
priority
mail.
The
affidavit
of
Employee
D
statesthat
lie
"expressed
mailed
tile
ballotbackwith
a
deliverycolifirmation
receipt."Theaccornpariying
delivery
coiifirrnatiojireceipt
has
thepriority
mailbox
cliecked.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->