The unionized employees of Duo-Fast Corporation were scheduled to vote in a decertification election on June 15 to determine whether Teamsters Local 210 would continue to be their bargaining representative. At a June 7 meeting with the represented employees, a Duo-Fast manager distributed a leaflet signed by him that compared the health benefits of the unionized employees with the benefits provided to Duo-Fast’s nonunion employees. The benefits received by the nonunion employees were generally better. The leaflet stated, “I’m not promising you better medical benefits if you vote ‘No’ on June 15, but you should know our nonunion employees’ medical benefits.” The leaflet concluded: “[G]ive me and Duo-Fast a chance to show you that you don’t need Local 210. Vote ‘No’ on June 15.” When he distributed the leaflet, the manager stated that if the union was voted out, the employees would receive “basically this type of coverage.” The manager answered employees’ questions at other meetings held on June 9, 13, and 14. When he was asked when the medical coverage would go into effect, the manager responded “immediately” or “most likely right away.” At some of the meetings, however, the manager stated that he was not promising anything.

On June 15, Local 210 lost the decertification election. The union filed a complaint with the NLRB charging the employer with interfering with the election by promising the employees better health benefits if they voted the union out. Local 210 asked for a new election.
Should another election be held? Decide. [Duo-Fast Corp., 122 LRRM 1136 (NLRB)]