Ill-3. The Preelection Poli Contest Company: Glamorise Foundations, Inc., Williamsport, Pennsylvania Union: Local No. 306, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO BACKGROUND A representational election was to be held among employees at the Williamsport plant of Glamorise Foundations, Inc. The election was scheduled to be held during the last week of July 1971. On June 30, 1971, about a month before the scheduled election, company management sent a notice to the em- ployees announcing a contest. This contest was one in which employees were invited to guess the num- ber of "no" votes which would be cast in the forthcoming union representational election. Supervisory personnel helped distribute flyers captioned in large letters as follows to employees: "IT IS IMPORTANT TO VOTE. HERE'S A CONTEST TO INTEREST. YOU TO VOTE ON ELECTION." Among other things, the flyer also stated, "We all know that the employees will reject the International Ladies' Garment Work- ers Union. But who can give us the score?" The winning entry was to be identified by a numbered re- ceipt which the employee was to retain, and employees were told that it was not necessary for them to sign their names. The employees were given until the close of the following day to deposit their entries in a box placed near the plant's time clocks. After the end of the next day, the box was sealed, and it was not to be opened until after the election results were known. A $50 U.S. savings bond and a $25 bond were to be given to the two employees who came closest to guessing the total of "no" votes cast in the election. Upon announcement of this contest, the union immediately protested the contest as being illegally Inter- fering with and trying to influence the outcome of the election. Subsequently, the company decided not to open the sealed box in which the contest entries were placed because a union representative stated at the conclusion of the union representation voting in late July that he was filing objections to the election outcome because of the company-sponsored con- est. Management decided to keep the contest entries sealed pending a ruling by the NLRB. The union did lose the election and immediately filed unfair labor practice charges against the company relating to the preelection contest. POSITION OF THE UNION The union filed exceptions to the outcome of the election under Section 9(c) of the LMRA, claiming that the company contest was illegal interference in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The union claimed that the company contest essentially was a poll of employee sentiment concerning the outcome of the election. This type of poll, in the union's opinion, was a type of straw ballot which was aimed at influencing employees in their decision conceming union representation. Further, the union claimed that the poll was designed to help the company obtain information concerning union sentiments, since em- ployees would talk about the various votes that would be taken, and a general discussion of estimates was sure to come to the attention of the company. The union argued that the poll was a very signifi- cant factor in the results of the election, and it requested that the results of the election be set aside and that a new election be held free of any illegal employer Interference.POSITION OF THE COMPANY The company contended that the contest which it sponsored was not a private poll of employee sentiment. The company claimed that it was merely a type of raffle intended to stimulate interest in the election, and therefore the election should be permitted to stand on its merits. No employee was coerced to participate in the poll, and safeguards were included to guard the identity of any employee until after the actual representational election was held. There was no intent on the part of the com- pany to interfere Illegally with the free choice of the employees concerning the matter of union represen- tation. The company claimed that the union was simply using this issue as a means to obtain another election. The company requested that the unfair labor practice charges be dismissed, and that the elec- tion results be certified. III-3. 155 QUESTIONS Was the company poll a type of straw ballot aimed at influencing employees in their decision con- coming union representation? Why, or why not? 2. Evaluate the union charge that such a poll might help the company obtain information concerning union sentiments, even though the poil itself was secret and results would not be available until after the election. 3. Evaluate the company's argument that the poll was merely a type of raffle, and that the union was simply using the issue as a device to obtain another election. Is there a difference In the legal right of a union to try to measure employee sentiments concerning union representation prior to an election as compared to management's right in this regard? Discuss. 5. If the Board should rule that the company preelection poll was illegal interference, was the interfer- ence of sufficient magnitude to justify a new election? Why, or why not