Ziegler’s Refuse Case decided under “lab conditions” doctrine Objection to election No need to find UFLP Focus is on perception of employees, rather than responsibility of union Court said Board erred by rejecting objection to election based on absence of union responsibility Laboratory conditions More weight given to union or er threats than to 3rd party threats Court agreed with HO Threatening statements made Nothing in the record suggest that they would not be carried out

Factors in Considering Impact of “Threats” During Election on Employee Choice Number of threats Severity of threats Perceptions of those “threatened” Number of workers threatened Proximity to election Closeness of Election Management threats offsetting union threats

Criteria and HO Analysis Number of threats Severity of threats Perceptions of those “threatened” Number of workers threatened Proximity to election Closeness of Election Management threats offsetting union threats At least five Physical harm, job loss Fear created “Numerous” Within a week or so of election One vote margin (16-14) None in record