## Facts

- Midland National Life Insurance Company was the employer in a union organizing campaign involving Local 304A, United Food and Commercial Workers.
- After an initial representation election was set aside, the NLRB directed a second, Board-supervised election.
- Shortly before the second election, Midland distributed campaign materials attacking the union.
- Midland asserted that Local 304A had struck another employer and that violence and the strike led to that plant’s closure; testimony indicated no strike was occurring when the plant closed.
- Midland circulated excerpts from the union’s LM-2 financial reports in a way that implied the union spent “nothing” on representing individual members while paying officers substantial amounts, without explaining the reporting limitations of the forms.
- The employer’s materials were distributed very close to the election, leaving the union little time to respond.
- The second election resulted in a tie vote, preventing union certification.
- A hearing officer found substantial misrepresentations timed to impede effective response and recommended setting aside the election.

## Issues

1. Whether a representation election should be set aside based on false or misleading campaign statements where employees could recognize the statements as partisan campaign advocacy.
2. Whether the Board should continue the “substantial misrepresentation/likely impact” approach associated with prior precedent or adopt a more limited rule focused on deception about authorship or source.

## Decision

- The NLRB rejected the hearing officer’s recommendation and declined to set aside the second election.
- The Board announced it would generally not evaluate the truth or falsity of campaign statements in representation elections.
- The Board held that misleading campaign claims typically do not warrant overturning an election if employees can identify them as campaign propaganda from a known source.
- Because Midland’s literature clearly identified the employer as the source and did not involve forgery or similar source-concealing tactics, the tie election result was allowed to stand and the union was not certified.

## Legal Principles

- The Board will not set aside representation elections merely because campaign statements are false or misleading.
- Election results may be set aside for campaign deception primarily when the deception prevents employees from recognizing material as partisan propaganda, such as:
  - forged documents or official-looking materials disguising the true source; or
  - misattribution that confuses who is speaking.
- Prior doctrine focused on “substantial misrepresentation” and timing/ability to respond was displaced in favor of a rule that emphasizes employee ability to assess advocacy when the source is apparent.

## Conclusion

The NLRB adopted a restrained standard for election propaganda, holding that most campaign misrepresentations—even if serious and made shortly before voting—do not justify overturning an election unless deceptive practices obscure the source or otherwise prevent employees from recognizing the statements as campaign advocacy.


Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Loc. 304A, United Food & Com. Workers, 263 N.L.R.B. 127 (1982)