Abstract
Should the National Labor Relations Board' set aside representation elections because one or more parties has tried to influence the voting with misrepresentation of facts or law? Although the Board is responsible for ensuring fair elections, in Midland National Life Insurance Co. it embraced a rule inconsistent with this statutory responsibility, rejecting the Hollywood Ceramics Co. rule and narrowly limiting Board review of campaign misrepresentations. This Article examines the Midland standard in light of the Board's statutory duty to protect the right of employees to a free and fair choice of collective bargaining representatives. The Article reviews the historical development of the Board's approach to the regulation of election campaign misrepresentations, criticizes the Board's abnegation of its duty to ensure an employee's free choice by its adoption of the Midland rule, and suggests a more flexible standard to be used in the review of campaign misrepresentations that would protect the rights of employees without involving the Board in the minutiae of representative election campaigning.
Recommended Citation
Mary Ellen Krug and Michele Gammer, Should Representation Elections Be Governed by Principles or Expediency?, 9 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 469 (1986).
