Chicago Tribune

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 1057 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

CHICAGO TRIBUNE 1057
Chicago Tribune and Malissia Jenkins, Petitioner and
Chicago Local 458-3M, Graphic Communica-
tions International Union. Case 13–RD–2225
September 21, 1998
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FOX, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to a decertifica-
tion election held on December 17, 1997, and the hearing
officer’s report recommending disposition of them. The
election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election
Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 15 for the Union
and 18 against, with no challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the ex-
ceptions and briefs, and has, for the reasons set forth be-
low, adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recom-
mendations,1 and finds that the election must be set aside
and a new election held.
The Employer held a brunch at the Drake Hotel for
bargaining unit employees 3 days before the decertifica-
tion election. The invitation, sent by Federal Express,
included the unit employees’ spouses, children, or guests.
Upon receipt of each employee’s acceptance, an ac-
knowledgment letter was sent, via Federal Express, not-
ing that, although the brunch would end around 1 p.m.,
free parking and babysitting would be available until 3
p.m. The letter concluded by letting the employees know
that there would be an opportunity for the Employer at
the brunch to “answer any questions employees, and
more importantly spouses and friends, may have about
the decertification election scheduled for December 17.”
A total of 91 individuals attended the brunch, includ-
ing unit employees, members of management, and
spouses, guests, and children of both employees and
management. The children were served a different meal
in a separate room, were entertained by and photo-
graphed with a Santa Claus, and received a Christmas
stocking with candies and a small stuffed animal inside.
The adults dined in another room with poinsettias on the
table, and the employees were permitted to take the
flowers home with them afterwards. In addition, babysit-
ting, valet parking, and coat check were all provided by
the Employer. An antiunion speech was made by the
Employer. The total cost was $7,999.64.2 The hearing
officer divided this amount by 24, the number of unit
employees who attended, and concluded that the affair
cost the Employer $333.32 per unit employee. The hear-
ing officer went on to find that such a benefit would rea-
sonably tend to interfere with the employees’ free and
uncoerced choice in the election. He recommended sus-
taining that portion of Objection 1.

1 In light of our ruling with regard to Objection 1, we find it unnec-
essary to pass on the hearing officer’s recommendation with regard to
Objection 4.
We agree that providing a brunch costing approxi-
mately $8000, and holding it 3 days before a decertifica-
tion election, is a benefit which would reasonably tend to
interfere with employee free choice, and we agree that a
new election must be conducted.3
We do not pass on whether the hearing officer was
correct in dividing the total cost by the number of unit
employees. Arguably, the correct divisor should include
the unit employees and their spouses, guests, and chil-
dren.4 And, arguably, the correct dividend should in-
clude the cost of gifts and babysitters for such children,
and should exclude the cost inuring to the benefit of
management persons and their spouses, guests, and chil-
dren. However, in our view, we need not resolve these
issues or calculate a precise dollar figure. Nor does B &
D Plastics require such mathematical precision. Suffice
it to say that an $8000 affair, held primarily for unit em-
ployees and those associated with them, and held 3 days
before the election, is a benefit that is sufficiently large to
interfere with the laboratory conditions for a fair election.
Accordingly, we adopt the hearing officer’s recommen-
dation to set aside the election, based on this portion of
the Union’s Objection 1.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
2 This amount does not include the expense for babysitters and the
gifts for the children.
3 B & D Plastics, Inc., 302 NLRB 245 (1991).
4 This number is approximately 59. Member Brame finds that the
hearing officer correctly divided the total cost by the number of unit
employees, since service for spouses, guests, and children directly
inures to the unit employees’ benefit.

326 NLRB No. 94