Home/Eleventh Circuit/The Wackenhut Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

The Wackenhut Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

666 F.2d 464, 109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2498, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22425
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJanuary 22, 1982
Docket80-5705
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 666 F.2d 464 (The Wackenhut Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Wackenhut Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 666 F.2d 464, 109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2498, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22425 (11th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

CLARK, Circuit Judge:

The Wackenhut Corporation (Wackenhut) petitions this court for review of the order of the National Labor Relations Board finding that Wackenhut violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act 1 by refusing to bargain with its employees’ duly certified representative. The Board has cross-applied for enforcement of its order. The unit consists of Wackenhut’s guards in Puerto Rico. The certified représentative is Sindicato Puertorriquero de Guardias de Seguridad (Sindicato). Wackenhut admittedly refuses to bargain with *466 the union in order to test the validity of the certification runoff election conducted by the Board on November 27 and 28, 1978.

In balloting, which took place on August 31 and September 1,1977, neither Sindicato, a rival union, nor “no union” won a majority. A runoff election between Sindicato and “no union” conducted on March 20 and 21, 1978 resulted in a “no union” decision, but was set aside by the Board. On November 27 and 28, a new runoff was held.

After challenged ballots had been counted, the tally from the new election stood at 550 votes for Sindicato and 548 votes against it. In addition, there were ten void ballots, two of which Wackenhut disputed. The Board ruled for Wackenhut with respect to one of the ballots which was counted as a valid vote against the union, but against it with respect to the other which was held to be void. If the latter ballot had been counted as a valid vote against the union, the vote would have been a 550 to 550 tie, the union would have failed to win a majority and the company would have won. The voiding of the single ballot resulted in certification of Sindicato.

Wackenhut makes two arguments in this court: (1) that the Board improperly set aside the first runoff election of March 20 and 21, 1978 which it won, and (2) that the Board improperly failed to count the ballot that would have resulted in a 550 to 550 tie.

The Runoff Election

Two actions by Wackenhut caused the Board to set aside the first runoff election. In a leaflet published two weeks before the election and in a letter to all employees four days later, Wackenhut announced “a better medical plan” for its employees at increased cost which would be fully absorbed by Wackenhut. In the letter Wackenhut said that the Burns Detective Agency was no longer in business in Puerto Rico and that it had been unable to stay in business because it was unionized. The announcement of a new medical plan brought into play the principle that an employer may not grant new benefits or change existing conditions of employment during an election campaign for the purpose of influencing the employees’ choice in the election. See NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409, 84 S.Ct. 457, 460, 11 L.Ed.2d 435 (1964); NLRB v. Dothan Eagle, Inc., 434 F.2d 93, 96 (5th Cir. 1970). The statement concerning Burns could be regarded as implying that Burns had left Puerto Rico ip retaliation of the employees voting for a union and that Wackenhut would do the' same thing. Such an implication was found in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 1942, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969) to violate section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

The determination as to whether an election has been conducted fairly or unfairly and whether it should or should not be set aside is primarily the responsibility of the Board. Neuhoff Brothers Packers, Inc. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 611, 614 (5th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 956, 87 S.Ct. 1027, 18 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967). This court looks only to see whether the Board has reasonably exercised its discretion. Gould, Inc. Electrical Components Division v. NLRB, 610 F.2d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 1980); Pepperell Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 403 F.2d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 1774, 23 L.Ed.2d 238 (1969). The Board’s decision was true to the principles of Exchange Parts and Gissel; Wackenhut’s challenge of the Board’s action with respect to the first runoff election is clearly without substance.

A Struck Ballot — Clearly Unambiguous

The ballot in question was in standard form but printed in English and Spanish. See Appendix. It posed the question “Do you wish to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Sindicato .... ” and instructed “mark an ‘X’ in the square of your choice.” On one side a square was provided above which was written “Yes” and “Si.” On the other side was written *467 “No” and “No.” The two sides were separated by a vertical line. On the ballot in question, the employee had placed an “X” above but not in both the “Yes” and the “No” squares. In addition, the employee had written the word “No” in the “No” square and also written what appears to be the word “No” in the “Yes” square.

Congress has entrusted the Board with a wide degree of discretion in establishing the procedures and safeguards necessary to ensure the fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees. NLRB v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330-31, 67 S.Ct. 324, 328, 91 L.Ed. 322 (1946). A court will generally not interfere except in cases of glaring discrimination or abuse. NLRB v. Olson Bodies, Inc., 420 F.2d 1187, 1189 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954, 91 S.Ct. 966, 28 L.Ed.2d 237 (1971). The Fifth Circuit has twice reversed the Board’s finding that a ballot was ambiguous in circumstances which were similar to those here. See, e. g., NLRB v. Manhattan Corporation, 620 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 916, 101 S.Ct. 3050, 69 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981) (ballot with the word “no” written on the back should not be voided but should have been counted as a vote against representation by the union); NLRB v. Titche-Goettinger Co., 433 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1970) (where ballots had contained no marking on their faces but only the word “no” on their backs, the ballots were not void but were counted as votes against representation).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tci West, Inc. San Leandro Cable Television, Inc., D/B/A Tci Cablevision of Hayward Tci Cablevision of California, Inc. United Cable Television, D/B/A Tci Cablevision of Hayward ("Tci") v. National Labor Relations Board, Teamsters Local 856, Nonaligned Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner v. Tci West, Inc. San Leandro Cable Television, Inc., D/B/A Tci Cablevision of Hayward Tci Cablevision of California, Inc. United Cable Television, D/B/A Tci Cablevision of Hayward ("Tci"), Petitioners/cross-Respondents. Teamsters Local 856 v. National Labor Relations Board, Tci West, Inc. San Leandro Cable Television, Inc., D/B/A Tci Cablevision of Hayward Tci Cablevision of California, Inc. United Cable Television, D/B/A Tci Cablevision of Hayward ("Tci"), Intervenors
145 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
TCI West, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
145 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
National Labor Relations Board v. The Duriron Company, Inc.
978 F.2d 254 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
666 F.2d 464, 109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2498, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-wackenhut-corporation-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca11-1982.