STATE OF MAINE MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. 99-EA-01 Issued: February 22, 1999 ___________________________ ) TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 340 ) ) and ) DECISION AND ORDER ) TOWN OF BOOTHBAY HARBOR ) ___________________________) The Town of Boothbay Harbor (hereinafter "the Town") filed an objection to certification of a mail-ballot election conducted by the Maine Labor Relations Board (the "Board"), wherein the Board certified Teamsters Local Union 340 ("the Teamsters") as the exclusive collective bargaining agent of a unit comprised of police, fire and medical dispatchers.[fn]1 The basis for the Town's objection to certification is that one of the three employees who voted submitted her resignation prior to the date that ballots were counted by the Board agent and was, therefore, not an eligible employee. Moreover, since it cannot be determined whether the ineligible employee voted for or against union representation and the vote was outcome- determinative, the results of the election are uncertain and a new election is required. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on January 29, 1999, Chair Peter T. Dawson presiding, with Employer Representative Karl Dornish, Jr., and Alternate Employee Representative Wayne Whitney. The parties were given an opportunity to submit prehearing memoranda of law, and to present evidence and oral argument at hearing. The Board granted the Town's request to submit post-hearing briefs; the briefs filed by the parties were considered by the Board prior to this decision. ____________________ 1 There were three dispatchers identified by the Town as eligible voters in this election. Of the three ballots cast and counted, two indicated a desire to be represented by the Teamsters and one indicated a desire for no representative. -1- We do not agree with the Town that the Board must conduct a new election in these circumstances and, for the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the certification of the results of the November 10, 1998, representation election. JURISDICTION The Board has jurisdiction to hear this matter and to issue a decision and order pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4) (1988 & Supp. 1998). Neither party has challenged the Board's jurisdiction. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the Board's file in the representation proceedings below, and of the record on appeal, the Board finds the following facts: 1. On September 18, 1998, Mr. Carl Guignard, a representative of the Teamsters, filed a unit determination petition proposing a bargaining unit which would consist of the Town's police, fire and medical dispatchers. The Town agreed to the appropriateness of a unit as proposed by the Teamsters. This agreement between the parties as to the composition of the unit eliminated the need for a unit determination hearing; thus, the Board began its election procedure. 2. The Board agent complied in every respect with the procedural rules for the conduct of an election. Accordingly, the agent issued a notice to Town employees on September 30, 1998, which informed them of the agreement between the parties and the upcoming secret ballot election. The Board agent also advised the Town that, pursuant to Rule 3.04(B), it was required to furnish to the Board and to the Teamsters a list of the names and addresses of the employees in the bargaining unit who were -2- eligible to vote.[fn]2 The Town submitted a list identifying three dispatchers eligible to vote, including Ms. Barbara Lorrain. 3. In keeping with the procedural rules, the Board agent issued a notice to employees on October 9, 1998, to advise that: (i) the election would be conducted by mail ballot; (ii) the ballots would be mailed to the home addresses of eligible voters on October 27, 1998; and (iii) in order to be counted, ballots had to be received by the Board by November 10, 1998. The Board agent also informed the parties that, pursuant to Rule 3.07(C), they were permitted to designate an election observer to attend the tabulation of ballots in the Board's hearing room on November 10, 1998. 4. On October 27, 1998, the Board agent mailed ballots to the three dispatchers identified by the Town as eligible to vote. On October 28, 1998, Ms. Lorrain marked her ballot and mailed it to the Board. On October 29, 1998, Ms. Lorrain submitted a letter of resignation to the police chief, effective that same date. Ms. Lorrain requested to be paid for her accumulated sick leave and vacation leave; she never returned to the dispatcher position. 5. The Town Manager, Ms. Laurie A. Smith, learned about Ms. Lorrain's resignation on November 5, 1998, when she returned to the town office from a convention. Ms. Smith contacted Ms. Lorrain to inform her that, in the case of employees who resigned, it was town policy to not compensate employees for accumulated leave unless the employee gives a two-week notice. Ms. Smith gave Ms. Lorrain the opportunity to come back to work and complete that notice period; however, Ms. Lorrain declined ____________________ 2 Rule 3.04(A) provides: The employees eligible to vote shall be those who were employed on the last pay date prior to the filing of the petition, who are employed on the date of the election, and meet the applicable requirements defining covered employees set forth [by statute]. Employees not working on election day because of illness, vacation, leave of absence or other reason are eligible to vote if they have a reasonable expectation of continued employment. -3- the invitation to return to work. 6. A mail ballot election is conducted in the following manner: Ballots and envelopes are mailed to employees identified as eligible to vote approximately two weeks prior to the date on which they will be counted. The voter marks his or her ballot and then places it inside an envelope marked "Secret Ballot Envelope." The secret ballot envelope is then placed inside another envelope marked "Mail Envelope." The mail envelope must be signed by the voter in a space provided. At the ballot count, the Board agent checks the name on the mail envelope against the list of names provided by the employer, in order to authenticate voter eligibility.[fn]3 Once confirmed as a ballot from an eligible employee, the secret ballot envelope is removed from the mail envelope; the mail envelope is set aside prior to the counting of ballots, in order to insure voter anonymity. The ballots are then tabulated. 7. The Board agent counted the ballots on November 10, 1998, as scheduled. Neither party designated an election observer or sent a representative to observe the ballot count. The Board agent certified that, as a result of the ballot tabulation, the Teamsters were duly elected as the exclusive representative of the Town of Boothbay's dispatchers unit. 8. On the same day as the date of the ballot count, the Board agent mailed a copy of the election certification to each of the parties. Ms. Smith received her copy of the certification on or about November 13, 1998. It was at this point in time that she contacted the Board's election agent to advise the Board that Ms. Lorrain had resigned prior to the ballot count. ____________________ 3 It is at this point in the process that either party's election observer may challenge the eligibility of a voter. Rule 3.07(B) provides in part: All challenges to mail ballots which are based on or concern the identity of the voter or voter eligibility . . . shall be raised prior to the removal of the "Secret Ballot Envelope" from the "Mail Envelope." -4- DISCUSSION This is a case of first impression for the Board. We have never addressed the issue whether it is appropriate for the Board to entertain a post-certification challenge to the eligibility of a person who voted in an election.[fn]4 We are presented with this issue in a case where the challenged voter, in hindsight, was clearly ineligible to vote.[fn]5 The ineligibility of the voter in question does not affect our analysis or our conclusion that we should not consider post-election challenges to voter eligibility. We begin our analysis with an examination of the Rules and Procedures of the Board concerning elections. The rules contemplate post-election objections to any action of the Board agent in conducting an election,[fn]6 and the rules permit a post-election objection to the conduct of any party to the election;[fn]7 however, the rules do not provide a procedure for post-election ____________________ 4 In 1971, the Public Employees Labor Relations Appeals Board, without discussion, refused to permit a post-election challenge by an employer to the eligibility of three voters included in their list of eligible voters. The Appeals Board simply stated that they agreed with the Deputy Commissioner that the balloting would stand since the point was not timely raised. Maine School Administrative District No. 1 and A.F.S.C.M.E., AFL- CIO, Pine Tree Council No. 74 and M.S.A.D. No. 1 Association of Bus Drivers, Custodians and Mechanics, No. 71-A-01 (P.E.L.R.A.B. January 22, 1971). 5 Ms. Lorrain resigned effective October 29, 1998, and the ballot count was on November 10, 1998. Even if Ms. Lorrain was entitled to accumulated leave which would have included the date of the ballot count, she did not have a "reasonable expectation of continued employment" on election day. See Rule 3.04 (A). 6 Rule 3.09 provides that any party who objects to the actions of Board staff in the conduct of an election shall file written objection with the Board within five working days after the results of the election are reported. The Town's objection here does not concern any impropriety on the part of the Board agent who conducted this election and we specifically find that the agent complied with every aspect of the election rules. 7 Rule 3.10 provides that any objection to the conduct of a party affecting the results of an election shall be by a prohibited practice complaint. -5- challenges to the eligibility of a voter. We conclude that the omission of a specific procedure for post-election challenges of this nature was purposeful and that such challenges may not be framed as "objections" to an election. Rule 3.07 (C) specifically provides that all challenges to mail ballots which are based on voter eligibility, and which are made pursuant to Rule 3.08, shall be raised prior to the removal of the secret ballot envelope from the mail envelope at the time the ballots are counted. Rule 3.08 permits challenges to the eligibility of prospective voters and elaborates a process for challenging a ballot prior to its being counted. From this we conclude that once a ballot is opened and counted, its validity can no longer be challenged. There are sound policy reasons and long-standing precedent in federal labor law for our conclusion.[fn]8 In 1946, the United States Supreme Court addressed the propriety of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) refusal to accept an employer's post-election challenge to the eligibility of a voter.[fn]9 In that case, as in the case before us now, the challenged voter had been included on the list of eligible voters supplied by the employer but, at the time of the election, was no longer employed. The Court approved the NLRB's requirement that challenges to the eligibility of voters be made prior to the actual casting of ballots. The Court determined that the NLRB's policy gives a desirable and necessary finality to elections, and is a justifiable and reasonable adjustment to the democratic process. In the A.J. Tower case, the Court enumerates sound policy reasons for its decision to deny post-election challenges to the ____________________ 8 In interpreting the Municipal Public Employees Labor Relations Act, it is reasonable for the Board to look for guidance to parallel federal law found in the National Labor Relations Act and decisions thereunder. Baker Bus Service v. Keith, et al., 428 A.2d 55, 56 n.3 (Me. 1981). 9 NLRB v. A.J. Tower Company, 329 U.S. 324, 19 LRRM 2128 (1946). -6- eligibility of voters which we find compelling. Such challenges would: invade the secrecy of the ballot, invite unwarranted and dilatory claims by defeated candidates, and perpetuate before the NLRB and the courts the "excitement, strife and animosities" which, for the sake of labor stability, ought to terminate with the close of the polls. NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co., 19 LRRM at 2131. In addition, the Court noted that its decision to deny such challenges in union elections is consistent with the general rule, universally recognized in political and corporate elections, that once a ballot is cast without challenge, and its identity lost, its validity cannot later be challenged. Id. We do not know why Town officials failed to challenge this voter's eligibility prior to the ballot count. The town manager and the police chief were aware of Ms. Lorrain's resignation days before the ballot count. They could have contacted the Board agent by telephone to raise the issue of Ms. Lorrain's ineligibility to vote, or they could have attended the ballot count and raised the issue at that time. Instead, the Board was not alerted to this problem until the town manager received the results of the election. While there is no evidence, or even a suggestion, that the Town of Boothbay intentionally waited for the results of the election to challenge the Board's certification, the Board's election rules, and our conclusion in this case, protect public sector bargaining agent elections from the danger of fraud and abuse and promote labor stability. ORDER Based on the foregoing findings of fact and discussion and by virtue of and pursuant to the powers granted to the Maine Labor Relations Board by the provisions of 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4), we hereby AFFIRM the certification of the results of the November 10, 1998, representation election and DISMISS the Town of Boothbay's objection to election. -7- Dated at Augusta, Maine, this 22nd day of February, 1999. MAINE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The parties are hereby advised of their right, pursuant to /s/___________________________ 26 M.R.S.A. 968(4) (Supp. Peter T. Dawson 1998), to seek review of this Chair decision and order by the Superior Court. To initiate such a review, an appealing party must file a complaint /s/__________________________ with the Superior Court within Karl Dornish, Jr. fifteen (15) days of the date Employer Representative of issuance hereof, and otherwise comply with the requirements of Rule 80B of the Maine Rules of Civil /s/___________________________ Procedure Wayne W. Whitney Alternate Employee Representative -8-