Professor Drotning of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State University of New York at Buffalo describes the available National Labor Relations Board election case files, what information they contain, and how they are built up. He presents a technique for sampling the files and gives some population data and sample statistics obtained by this technique.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Case files also exist for unfair labor practice charges by employers or unions, in addition to the unfair labor practice charges aris ng out of pre-election campaign conduct.
2.
For example, see Bernard Samoff, "The Impact of Taft-Hartley Job Discrimination Victories," Industrial Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, May 1965
3.
and Philip Ross, The Government as a Source of Union Power (Providence, R.I., Brown University Press), 1965 .
4.
For example, see John E. Drotning, "The Union Representation Election ," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 88, No. 8, August 1965, pp. 938-943.
5.
Case files for "landmark" cases between 1948 and 1958 are maintained.
6.
This strategy has recently been altered by the NLRB's decision in Bernel Foam Products.
7.
Based on the sampling illustration of election case files for 1956-1962 described later, approximately 62% of elections with objections have case files in Washingion.
8.
The Regional Director directed elections which were instituted in 1960 allows the Regional Director to make decisions m cases which were formerly considered by the Board. This delegation of decision making power in the area of representation proceedings "was a new procedural step—and one of the most important in Board History—made possible by the 1959 Amendments to the Act" according to the 26th Annual Report of the NLRB (Washington, D.C. 1962) p. 11. It was hoped that this innovation would reduce the backlog of cases as well as the time between an election petition and the election.
9.
John E. Drotning , pp. 938-943.
10.
In about 93% of the first elections, the loser does not object and the results are final—the union is certified or it is not certified. It seems safe to assume that in most of these cases, both sides probably feel that nothing can be done about the results. However, the fact of not objecting does not allow the presumption that these elections are "good" elections or that they were carried out under "laboratory conditions." The loser might not object because. 1) it cannot raise objections which have merit, although it does not accept defeat; 2) it lacks funds to hire legal services; or 3) it anticipates defeat if it enters a re-run. Certainly some elections involving campaigns of questionable legitimacy are not objected to.
11.
This technique was suggested to me by Harry Roberts, Professor of Statistics at the Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago. It proved extremely useful for my research, and I am indebted to him for this help.
12.
These "no response" cases, i.e., those without case files, should be considered as a possible source of bias.
13.
John E. Drotning , "NLRB Policy Toward Employer Objections to Election Misconduct," Labor Law Journal, June 1965, pp. 370-377.
