Yes, I would definitely set aside the election, if I were on the NLRB or the National Labor Relations Board. This is because the supervisor’s actions clearly point to intent as to find out who the attendees of the meeting were. This action on his behalf is an indication of his attempt at gathering information regarding the meeting and possibly a future disruptive action from his end that could seriously jeopardize the result of the election. This recce by the supervisor may be initiated by the employer with an end to influencing the election result. The supervisor has no business whatsoever in trying to gauge the strength of the attendance at the union meet happening at the crucial juncture of an union election, which is clearly an employee initiative aimed at their proper union representation in their workplace. The supervisor’s assertion that he was driving on his own will and not at the behest of his higher-ups does not hold water as usually such actions are not done without any serious ramifications involved. The union is rightly justified in asking for the election to be set aside as when interpreted according to the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, the act of the supervisor tantamount to a “threat of reprisal” that is implicit.
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Taft-Hartley Act which deals with employer unfair labor practices clearly points out that spying or espionage on part of the employer against unions done at the behest of company officials or supervisors is a clear indication of the employer’s intent to restrain, interfere with or coerce employees from exercising their rights.
References
- Taft-Hartley Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nalc1414.org/Taft-Hartly.pdf
