The Union has appealed to the NLRB to set aside the election results.
If I were on NLRB, I would set aside the elections because of the provisions of Taft-Hartley labor act. While the act allows employers the right to interact with employees with the aim of influencing union activities and actions, expressions into the interactions must not pose threats of reprisal. The case, however, identifies potential threats of reprisal, from the management, which could have intimidated union members and led to restraint from participation in the elections. From the supervisor’s repeated appearance in the vicinity, the union members had all the reasons to fear intimidation and harsh treatment from the management if the union won in the elections. It was also normal for the union members to believe that the supervisor was acting in his normal capacity as an agent of the management because that is his regular position. These arguments identify implied the threat of reprisal and mean that the employer, through its supervisor, breached provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act.