College Bound Dorchester, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jun 25, 2021

01-RC-261667 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 25, 2021)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
COLLEGE BOUND DORCHESTER, INC.
Employer
and Case 01-RC-261667
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 888
Petitioner
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER REMANDING
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and
Order is granted as it raises substantial issues warranting review. On review, we find that the
Employer’s challenge to the ballot of Alberto Quesada raises substantial and material issues as to
whether the ballot was cast by an eligible employee that must be resolved at a hearing. In all
other respects, the Request for Review is denied.1
The election in this case was conducted by mail ballot, with the count held by
videoconference on August 24, 2020. The tally of ballots resulted in a count of six votes for the
Union, six votes against, with seven challenged ballots, out of a unit of approximately 24 eligible
voters. Thereafter, the Acting Regional Director sustained the challenges to six of the ballots,
and no party has requested review of that determination. The remaining determinative ballot of
Alberto Quesada was challenged by the Employer on the grounds that the signature on the
relevant ballot envelope was illegible and did not match known examples of Quesada’s
signature.
In support of this challenge, the Employer submitted seven documents from its files
bearing Quesada’s signature. The Petitioner also submitted examples of Quesada’s signature in
its possession, but the Acting Regional Director made no findings with respect to those
documents. The documents submitted by the Employer included Quesada’s IRS W-4 form, his
1 In denying the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s decision to
hold the election by mail ballot, we note that the parties in this case entered into a stipulated
election agreement in which they specifically agreed that the mechanics of the election, including
whether the election would be manual or by mail ballot, would be determined by the Regional
Director and did not contain any language indicating the Employer retained a right to seek
review of that determination. In these circumstances, we find that the Employer has waived its
right to object to a mail-ballot election, and that the analysis set forth in the Board’s decision in
Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (2020), does not apply.
2
bank direct deposit authorization, his I-9 employment eligibility verification, and criminal
background check authorization forms.
The Acting Regional Director nevertheless overruled this objection without a hearing. In
so ruling, he reasoned as follows:
In addition to the lack of evidence of fraud involved in the submission of
Quesada’s ballot, I also conclude that the signature on the ballot is that of
Quesada. Exemplars provided by parties of Quesada’s signature include
horizontal lines above and beneath his signatures on those items. Notwithstanding
the Employer’s assertion to the contrary, a horizontal line appears on the upper
portion of the signature on the envelope. An examination of the envelope also
demonstrates that the “Q” in Quesada’s typical signature and dots appear on the
signature on the envelope, albeit at the beginning of the signature. I also note that
the uneven terrain of the envelope likely contributed to the comparatively messier
signature than appears on the flatter contours of the documents provided by the
Employer.
For the following reasons, we think a hearing is necessary.
To safeguard the integrity of mail ballot elections, the Board has long required that
employees sign the outer envelope in which the ballot is returned to the regional office.
Northwest Packing Co., 65 NLRB 890, 891 (1946). The purpose of this requirement, the Board
has stated, is so that the ballot can be identified as cast by an eligible employee. Id. Consistent
with this principle, the Board will void a ballot if the employee’s name is printed on the envelope
rather than signed. Thompson Roofing, Inc., 291 NLRB 743, 743 fn. 1 (1988) (ballot voided
where printed name was compared to employee’s signatures on file, which showed that the
employee normally signed his name when so instructed). This is so, the Board stated, because the
signature requirement is necessary “to preserve the integrity of the election process.” Id.
Accordingly, evidence that the signature on a mail ballot envelope varies significantly
from known examples of the employee’s signature may, depending upon the circumstances, raise
substantial and material issues regarding the identity of the person who marked the ballot
enclosed within. The evidence presented by the Employer in this case clearly raises such issues
with respect to the ballot in question here.
The Acting Regional Director’s decision acknowledges that the signature on the envelope
varies from the examples provided by the Employer in that it has one horizontal line across the
body of the signature, whereas the seven known examples all have two horizontal lines, and in
the location of the “Q” of Quesada’s last name. The Acting Regional Director’s decision
nevertheless dismissed these differences, without any stated justification, despite their obviously
being two of the most distinctive elements of Quesada’s signature. The decision also suggested
that the envelope signature was “likely” messier due to the “uneven terrain of the envelope,” but
no evidence supports this speculation. Finally, although the decision does not note it, even a
cursory examination of the seven known signature examples shows that they are very similar to
each other, suggesting a high degree of consistency in the manner in which Quesada normally
signs his name.
3
In short, the Acting Regional Director’s determination that there was no significant
discrepancy between the signature on the ballot envelope and multiple, consistent exemplars of
the eligible employee’s signature was clearly erroneous. Under these circumstances, we find that
the Employer’s challenge raises substantial and material issues regarding whether the ballot of
Quesada was cast by an eligible voter. Accordingly, we shall remand this case to the Acting
Regional Director for further proceedings, consistent with this decision and order remanding.2
ORDER
The case is remanded to the Regional Director for further action consistent with this
Decision.
LAUREN McFERRAN, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
JOHN F. RING, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 25, 2021.
2 In light of our disposition of this case, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Employer’s
contention that it should have been granted more time in which to furnish an expert handwriting
analysis in support of its challenge.