1. 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

2. 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

3. 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