05/20/2025: Illegally Fired Workers Can Still Vote in Union Election
The illegality (or not) of two workers termination will decide a union election.
Stallion Infrastructure Services, Ltd. F/K/a Stallion Oilfield Services, Ltd., 06-RC-358414 (Regional Election Decision)
On January 15, 2025, Teamsters Local Union 585 filed a petition for a representation election at Stallion Infrastructure Services' Washington, PA facility. Following an Amended Stipulated Election Agreement approved on February 3, 2025, an election was conducted on February 28, 2025, to determine whether drivers and technicians wished union representation.
The initial tally showed 1 vote for the union, 2 votes against, and 2 challenged ballots that were sufficient to affect the election results. These 2 challenged voters were former employees who had been discharged but were also alleged discriminatees in pending unfair labor practice charges.
On March 7, 2025, the Employer filed "Conditional Objections" arguing that if the challenged ballots were opened and counted, and if those votes resulted in the union prevailing, it would interfere with a fair election because the outcome would be determined by employees who had been discharged for just cause and had found employment elsewhere.
Legal Analysis
Regional Director Nancy Wilson determined that a hearing on the Employer's objections was unnecessary because even if substantiated, the objections would not constitute grounds for setting aside the election.
The Director cited longstanding Board precedent establishing that employees who are the subject of pending unfair labor practice proceedings alleging unlawful discharge are permitted to vote subject to challenge. The Board has consistently found that challenges to ballots of employees terminated in violation of the Act should be overruled and their ballots counted.
The Employer had cited language from the Amended Stipulated Election Agreement stating that employees "discharged for cause" after the designated payroll period are ineligible to vote. However, the Director noted this was standard language in stipulated election agreements and did not override established Board precedent regarding alleged discriminatees.
The Employer also referenced several Board decisions, but the Director found these actually supported the position that challenged ballots of employees who had been unlawfully terminated should be opened and counted.
The Director concluded that opening and counting ballots pursuant to findings in unfair labor practice cases would not constitute objectionable conduct but would be consistent with Board precedent and would properly enfranchise voters who may have been disenfranchised by unlawful termination.
The Employer’s objections were overruled in their entirety.
Significant Cases Cited
David Saxe Productions, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 103 (2021): Board ruled that challenges to ballots of employees terminated in violation of the Act should be overruled and their ballots counted.
Grand Lodge Int'l Association of Machinists, 159 NLRB 137 (1966): Established that employees who are subject of pending unfair labor practice proceedings alleging unlawful discharge are permitted to vote subject to challenge.
Community Action Commission of Fayette County, Inc., 338 NLRB 664 (2003): Case cited by Employer but distinguished by Director as not involving challenged voters alleged to have been unlawfully terminated.
Hamilton Plastic Products, Inc., 309 NLRB 678 (1992): Board upheld ALJ decisions that challenged ballots of unlawfully terminated employees should be opened and counted.
Computed Time Corporation, 228 NLRB 1243 (1977): Board upheld ALJ decisions that challenged ballots of unlawfully terminated employees should be opened and counted.