## Facts

- Zeiglers Refuse Collectors, Inc. operated a “Rear Load Division” in York, Pennsylvania.
- A union sought to represent rear-load drivers, and a Board-conducted election was held among 30 eligible voters.
- The union won the election 16–14.
- During the campaign, several pro-union employees threatened coworkers with physical violence if they did not support the union.
- The threats were made close to the election, in a small bargaining unit, and were directed at identifiable employees thought to oppose the union.
- Zeiglers filed election objections alleging coercion and a resulting atmosphere of fear that prevented a free election.
- A Hearing Officer credited employee testimony that the threats created an “atmosphere of fear and reprisal” and recommended setting aside the election and conducting a new one.
- The NLRB rejected the Hearing Officer’s credibility and factual findings, characterized the threats as “mere campaign bravado,” and certified the union.
- Zeiglers refused to bargain to obtain judicial review; the NLRB entered summary judgment in an unfair labor practice case and ordered Zeiglers to bargain.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s conclusion that pro-union threats constituted only “mere campaign bravado” and did not create an atmosphere of fear requiring the election to be set aside.
2. Whether the NLRB could enforce a bargaining order based on a certification upheld only by that conclusion, after the employer refused to bargain to challenge the election’s validity.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit granted Zeiglers’ petition for review and denied the NLRB’s cross-petition for enforcement.
- The court held the Board’s certification decision was unsupported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
- The court found the Board inadequately justified its rejection of the Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations and assessment of coercive atmosphere.
- Because the certification could not stand, the related refusal-to-bargain order also could not be enforced.

## Legal Principles

- Courts uphold NLRB findings only if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; the Board may not arbitrarily disregard significant evidence or supported credibility determinations by the hearing officer.
- Representation elections must be conducted under “laboratory conditions” that permit employee free choice; threats of physical violence by union adherents can invalidate an election if they reasonably create fear and interfere with voting.
- Context matters in assessing coercion, including the size of the unit, the closeness of the vote, the proximity of threats to the election, and whether threats were directed at identifiable employees.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit refused to enforce a bargaining order predicated on a union certification where credited evidence showed pro-union threats created a coercive atmosphere in a small, closely decided election, and where the NLRB’s contrary conclusion lacked substantial evidentiary support.


Zeiglers Refuse Collectors, Inc. v. NLRB, 639 F.2d 1000 (3d Cir. 1981)