Representation Elections, Anti-Semitism and The National Labor Relations Board

<p> <p id="x-x-docs-internal-guid-6e15d7da-2977-be57-5693-cac293d42014"> The use of anti-Jewish propaganda in labor representation elections undermines employee freedom and workplace democracy. This Judeopathic practice has proved to be a vexing problem for both the National Labor Relations Board (&ldquo;the Board&rdquo;) and the federal courts. The Board has been haphazard and lax in applying the doctrine of Sewell Manufacturing Co. in cases involving anti-Semitism, whereas the federal appellate courts have applied Sewell more consistently to purge elections of anti-Jewish misconduct. This divergence between the Board and reviewing courts may be the result of a pattern of nonacquiescence on the part of the Board. There are four fundamental flaws in the Board&rsquo;s reasoning that may account for its failures. First, the Board has dogmatically adhered to the misconception that some unspecified level of anti-Semitism is tolerable so long as it is sufficiently casual or isolated. Second, it has applied an unattainable standard for invalidating elections based on third-party hate tactics. Third, it ignores its own culpability and enables anti-Semites by certifying the results of racism-ridden elections. Fourth, the Board's lack of vigilance raises concerns over its commitment to both ethnic tolerance and shop-floor democracy. </p> <p> Where the employer or union is responsible for an ethnic slur, the solution is simple: it should suffer the automatic, per se invalidation of any election it wins. Such a flat, prophylactic rule would clarify the Sewell doctrine, reduce litigation, and send the most potent message that anti-Jewish appeals are intolerable. No fair system of representation can exist if the underlying process is corrupted by ethnic or religious hatred. </p></p>