3 ms·
the standard for the NLRB requires that the scale of the wrongdoing could potentially have changed the result: "The labor board has the authority to invalidate
by AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
the standard for the NLRB requires that the scale of the wrongdoing could potentially have changed the result:
"The labor board has the authority to invalidate election results in response to conduct that could have changed the outcome"
If a single amazon manager who wasn't eligible to vote submitted a single vote, it isn't reasonable to redo the whole election over that. You would be in a never-ending cycle of voting with each side finding tiny errors and demanding revotes.
- ashtonkem 5y agoI think proven cheating by the losing party shouldn’t require a re-vote, because logically the cheating didn’t change the outcome. Perhaps a fine would be sufficient, or criminal prosecution of the individuals would be enough. It’s only when the winning side cheated that the prospect of the outcome having changed appears and must be dealt with. I’d be curious how they decide whether or not any given bad acting potentially changed the outcome. I can certainly say that firing Union activists and monitoring voting activity would have a chilling effect, but proving the magnitude of that would be hard to do.