This paper analyzes a workplace scenario in which a supervisor called small groups of employees into his office prior to a union representation vote, presenting information in a way that implied they should vote against unionization. Drawing on established labor law precedent, the paper argues that the election results should be deemed invalid because supervisory influence — even when not explicitly coercive — compromises employees' ability to exercise free choice. The paper discusses the role of labor unions in protecting employee rights, the obligations employers have to remain neutral during union elections, and why the size of meeting groups and overall voter turnout do not mitigate the underlying unfairness of the pre-vote communications.
Based on the precedent that other cases have created, it does appear that the election results in this case should be deemed invalid. While these results may have truly represented what the employees wanted, it seems more likely that they were subtly encouraged to vote against the union. Because they wanted to keep their jobs and did not want to anger their supervisor, they voted the way that supervisor clearly wanted them to. Some employees would have likely voted that way regardless, but it is not possible to determine what percentage would have made that choice without any outside influence from their supervisor.
It is usually not a secret why a company does not want its employees voting for a union. Labor unions are focused on the best interests of the employees and are, as such, often at odds with company management. By suggesting that the employees vote against unionization, the supervisor was making an effort to protect the company. It is understandable that a supervisor would do this, but it also does not provide the proper level of fairness to employees, who should feel free to make their own choices.
The National Labor Relations Act and related legal precedent are grounded in the principle that employees must be able to vote in union elections free from employer interference. When a supervisor meets with workers immediately before a vote and presents information designed to steer their decision, that principle is compromised. Even without an explicit directive, the power dynamic between a supervisor and an employee creates an environment in which workers may feel they have little practical choice but to comply with what they perceive to be the supervisor's wishes. That dynamic, rather than any formal threat, is what makes the conduct legally problematic.
The size of the groups brought into the supervisor's office, along with the percentage of employees who ultimately voted, will not have a significant effect on the validity of the voting results. Whether the employees were spoken to all at once, one at a time, or in small groups, they were clearly given information they were largely expected to follow — information shaped by how their supervisor believed they should vote on a critically important issue. By voting in a way they felt their supervisor wanted, employees may have surrendered some of the rights and freedoms they would otherwise have had. That is unfortunate, and it can cause them problems later, because they will not have the protection of a union to guard against unfair treatment by their employer.
Unions are not perfect, but they can go a long way toward ensuring that employees are not mistreated. They can also be used to hold companies accountable for fair pay and proper working conditions. Not all employees favor unions, of course, but the majority generally consider them beneficial. This is part of the reason the voting results are suspect. It seems unusual that employees would turn out in such large numbers and that voting against the union would be the outcome. That is not to say such anomalies have never occurred, but only that they are genuinely uncommon.
If the supervisor had not spoken with the employees beforehand, it is very possible that the union would have received enough votes to move forward. It is not in the company's interest to allow unionization, but the company also cannot actively instruct employees how to vote — that would be illegal. Companies must therefore attempt to address the issue without crossing legal boundaries.
"Biased information presentation amounts to vote tampering"
When employees feel they must vote a particular way in order to keep a supervisor happy, they are not able to properly exercise their right to vote in their own best interests. Even though the supervisor did not explicitly tell them to vote against the union, it was certainly implied. Employee rights in the context of union elections exist precisely to protect workers from this kind of subtle but meaningful pressure. For that reason, the election results should not be allowed to stand.
You’re 79% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.