Full opinion text
Opinion MOSK, J. In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA or Act). (Lab. Code, § 1140 et seq.) The Legislature modeled the Act in large part after the comprehensive federal labor relations statutes, the National Labor Relations Act and the Taft-Hartley Act (NLRA), and it established the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or Board), which possesses authority and responsibilities comparable to those exercised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), as the agency in charge of the Act’s implementation and administration. In accordance with the policies expressed in the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 151), the ALRA declares inter alia that “It is hereby stated to be the policy of the State of California to encourage and protect the right of agricultural employees to full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing... for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” (Lab. Code, § 1140.2.) A central feature in the promotion of this policy is the Act’s procedure for agricultural employees to elect representatives “for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.” (Id., § 1156 et seq.) This case arises from a challenge to the validity of a representation election. Two principal issues are presented. The first concerns the scope of the Board’s discretion to dismiss summarily objections to the election of a representative labor organization under Labor Code section 1156.3, subdivision (c). That section provides that “Upon receipt of” a petition objecting to the conduct of an election, the Board “shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the election shall be certified.” The second issue requires us to examine the circumstances in which Labor Code section 1160.3 authorizes the Board to impose the “make-whole” remedy when it dismisses an employer’s objections to the conduct of an election, and the employer subsequently refuses to bargain with the elected labor organization in order to obtain judicial review of the Board’s action. We hold that the Legislature did not intend section 1156.3, subdivision (c), to be construed so broadly that it requires the Board to hold a full evidentiary hearing in cases in which the objecting party has failed to establish a prima facie case for setting an election aside. And, after examining the declarations provided by the party challenging the representation election in this case, we conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing its objections for failure to set forth a prima facie claim. We further hold that section 1160.3 does not authorize the Board to impose the make-whole remedy as a matter of course in cases in which an employer has refused to bargain in order to obtain judicial review of the Board’s dismissal of his challenge to an election certification. As explained below, the make-whole remedy serves an important compensatory objective when an employer, claiming he is merely challenging the validity of an election, refuses to bargain as a dilatory tactic designed to stifle self-organization by his employees. Blanket imposition of such relief, however, unduly emphasizes compensation by ignoring the important interest in ensuring that legitimate objections to election misconduct are pursued. It thus may ultimately undermine the employees’ right to select “representatives of their own choosing” in many cases, because it has a strong potential for deterring the prosecution of legitimate claims in which a reasonable basis exists for contending that an election does not truly express the will of the employees, despite the Board’s ruling to the contrary. As a result, we hold that a per se rule requiring make-whole relief whenever an employer ultimately does not prevail in its election challenge is an abuse of the ALRB’s discretion. Facts On January 30, 1976, the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) filed a petition with the ALRB, seeking certification as the bargaining representative for agricultural employees of petitioner J.R. Norton Company (Norton). An election was held on February 6, 1976, and the UFW emerged as the clear winner. Norton subsequently filed a timely petition pursuant to Labor Code section 1156.3, subdivision (c), and the applicable ALRB regulation (Cal.Admin. Code, tit. 8, § 20365). The petition set forth 17 objections that Norton alleged warranted setting aside the election. Acting in compliance with the procedural regulations promulgated by the Board (id., § 20365, subd. (e)), the ALRB executive secretary reviewed the objections and accompanying declarations and determined, with respect to 15 of the 17 objections, that the employer had failed to satisfy the administrative requirements for establishing a prima facie case. (Id., subds. (a)-(d).) Accordingly, he summarily dismissed the 15 insufficient objections in a written order that stated the grounds for each dismissal (id., subd. (e)); the remaining 2 objections were scheduled for hearing (id., subd. (g)). Norton appealed to the ALRB from the executive secretary’s dismissal of the 15 objections. (Id., §§ 20365, subd. (h), 20393.) The Board, after examining the objections and supporting declarations, affirmed the action of the executive secretary. An investigative hearing was held soon thereafter concerning the employer’s two remaining objections. (Id., § 20370.) On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, the examiner concluded that the employer’s objections to the election were without merit and prepared an opinion recommending that the UFW be certified as the collective bargaining representative of Norton’s employees. Norton filed exceptions to the examiner’s conclusions and recommendations (id., § 20370, subd. (d)), but the Board affirmed those conclusions and certified the UFW as the exclusive bargaining representative of Norton’s employees. (J.R. Norton (May 23, 1977) 3 A.L.R.B. No. 66.) Rather than accede to the ALRB’s certification decision without judicial review, Norton refused to bargain with the UFW. The union consequently brought an unfair labor practice charge against Norton for refusal “to bargain collectively in good faith with [a certified] labor organization.” (Lab. Code, § 1153, subd. (e).) Norton explains that although the ALRB had rejected its challenge to the representation election, Norton retained “good faith” doubts as to the validity of the election and desired to challenge the Board’s decision in a judicial forum. Under the ALRA, as with the NLRA, an employer is afforded no right to obtain immediate judicial review of the Board’s decision certifying a union; he can obtain judicial review only after he has been found guilty of an unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain with the union. (See, e.g., Nishikawa Farms, Inc. v. Mahony (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 781 [136 Cal.Rptr. 233]; A. F. of L. v. Labor Board (1940) 308 U.S. 401 [84 L.Ed. 347, 60 S.Ct. 76]; Boire v. Greyhound Corp. (1964) 376 U.S. 473 [11 L.Ed.2d 849, 84 S.Ct. 894].) Norton claims it refused to bargain with the union simply because that course of action was the only means available to obtain judicial review of the ALRB certification decision. Pursuant to stipulation by all the parties, the unfair labor practice charge was transferred directly to the Board. The Board found Norton’s refusal to bargain was an unfair labor practice in violation of Labor Code section 1153, subdivision (e). (J.R. Norton Company (June 22, 1978) 4 A.L.R.B. No. 39, p. 2.) In its decision, the Board ordered Norton to take a variety of affirmative actions as remedial measures for its unlawful conduct. The principal remedial aspect of the order challenged in the instant proceeding is the provision embodying the make-whole remedy. On this point, the order reads: “In accordance with our Decision in Perry Farms, supra [4 A.L.R.B. (Apr. 26, 1978) No. 25], we shall order that the employer, rather than its employees, bear the costs of the delay, which has resulted from its failure and refusal to bargain with the union, by making its employees whole for any losses of pay and other economic benefits which they may have suffered as a result thereof....” Pursuant to its regular practice, however, the Board did not specify a definite damage award at this stage; rather, it remanded the matter to the regional director for an initial determination, subject to Board review, of the employer’s specific monetary obligation in this case. After the entry of the Board’s unfair labor practice order, the employer filed a petition for writ of review in the Court of Appeal. (Lab. Code, § 1160.8.) It urged the court to set aside the decision on two separate grounds. First, it claimed that by summarily dismissing eight of its objections to the election, the Board denied it its right to a full hearing as provided for in Labor Code section 1156.3, subdivision (c). Norton further argued that because of this error the certification of the UFW should be set aside and the matter remanded to the ALRB with directions to afford it a hearing on the eight objections; the setting aside of the UFW certification, of course, would absolve Norton of the unfair labor practice charge. Second, Norton maintained that even assuming the validity of the ALRB certification decision, the Board had nonetheless abused its discretion in applying the make-whole remedy in this case. After the Court of Appeal summarily denied Norton’s petition, we granted a hearing to address the important issues presented by this case. I Our inquiry initially entails an examination of the employer’s attack on the ALRB certification decision. Before addressing Norton’s contention that the ALRB erred in dismissing its objections, we consider the propriety of the Board’s administrative regulations for challenging an election. A Labor Code section 1156.3, subdivision (c), provides: “Within five days after an election, any person may file with the board a signed petition . . . objecting to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election. [1Í] Upon receipt of a petition under this subdivision, the board, upon due notice, shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the election shall be certified.” The ALRB has promulgated a detailed regulation for the implementation of section 1156.3, subdivision (c). (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 8, § 20365.) The regulation sets forth the threshold prerequisites that must be met before an objecting party will be entitled to a formal evidentiary hearing. Among these prerequisties is the provision that when a person “alleges that the election was not conducted properly or that misconduct occurred affecting the results of the election,” the petition objecting to the election must “be accompanied by a declaration or declarations setting forth facts whi'dh, if uncontroverted or unexplained, would constitute sufficient grounds for the Board to refuse to certify the election." (Italics added.) If the declarations do not establish a prima facie case with respect to some or all of the petition’s objections, the regulations directs the executive secretary of the ALRB to dismiss the insufficient objections without a hearing; in the event of a dismissal, the regulation explicitly permits the objecting party to appeal the executive secretary’s action to the Board. The above administrative requirements are clearly a permissible exercise of the Board’s authority to adopt “such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of [the ALRA].” (Lab. Code, § 1144.) Although the Labor Code itself does not explicitly condition the right to a hearing on the presentation of adequate supporting declarations or compliance with other administrative procedures, it is well established that a statutory hearing requirement does not preclude an agency from setting reasonable threshold standards that must be met before such a right is invoked. (U.S. v. Storer Broadcasting Co. (1956) 351 U.S. 192, 205 [100 L.Ed. 1081, 1092, 76 S.Ct. 763]; Denver Stock Yard v. Livestock Assn. (1958) 356 U.S. 282, 287 [2 L.Ed.2d 771, 775, 78 S.Ct. 738]; Federal Power Comm’n v. Texaco (1964) 377 U.S. 33, 39 [12 L.Ed.2d 112, 116-117, 84 S.Ct. 1105]; Dyestuffs and Chemicals, Inc. v. Flemming (8th Cir. 1959) 271 F.2d 281, 284-287; Pharmaceutical Manufactureres Ass’n v. Richardson (D.Del. 1970) 318 F.Supp. 301 311-313.) The rationale for this principle of statutory construction is that “The hearing is solely for the purpose of receiving evidence ‘relevant and material to the issues raised by such objections.’ Certainly, then, the objections, in order to be effective and necessitate the hearing requested, must be legally adequate so that, if true, the order complained of could not prevail.... Where the objections stated and the issues raised thereby are, even if true, legally insufficient, their effect is a nullity and no objections have been stated. [It is presumed that the Legislature] did not intend the governmental agencies created by it to perform useless or unfruitful tasks. If it is perfectly clear that petitioner’s appeal for a hearing contains nothing material and the objections stated do not abrogate the legality of the order attacked, no hearing is required by law.” (Dyestuffs and Chemicals, Inc. v. Flemming, supra, 271 F.2d at p. 286.) Thus, in construing a provision of the Natural Gas Act providing that on the submission of an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity the Federal Power Commission “shall set” such an application “for hearing,” the United States Supreme Court held that “the statutory requirement for a hearing ... does not preclude the Commission from particularizing statutory standards through the rule-making process and barring at the threshold those who [fail to] measure up to them.. . . ” (Federal Power Comm’n v. Texaco, supra, at p. 39 of 377 U.S. [at p. 117 of 12 L.Ed.2d].) The justifications for applying this principle of statutory construction in the present context are particularly compelling in light of the policies that underlie the ALRA. An important interest to be considered in evaluating administrative regulations for determining the validity of an election is the need for a newly formed labor organization to obtain legitimacy as quickly as practicable. As Archibald Cox has observed with respect to NLRA policy, “The denial of recognition is an effective means of breaking up a struggling young union too weak for a successful strike. After the enthusiasm of organization and the high hopes of successful negotiations, it is a devastating psychological blow to have the employer shut the office door in the union’s face. Imposing a legal duty to recognize the union would prevent such anti-union tactics and thereby contribute to the growth of strong labor organizations.” (Cox, The Duty to Bargain in Good Faith (1958) 71 Harv.L.Rev. 1401, 1408.) Thus, we are reluctant to conclude that an administrative regulation for summary dismissal of inadequate challenges to election certifications is not a reasonable exercise of the Board’s authority to adopt rules and regulations for the implementation of Labor Code section 1156.3, subdivision (c). Further support for sustaining the Board’s regulation can be found by an examination of comparable procedural requirements established pursuant to the rule-making authority of the NLRB. The federal regulation provides that objections to the conduct of an election shall be submitted to a regional director, who, like the ALRB’s executive secretary, reviews and acts on them in the first instance. (29 C.F.R. § 102.69 (a)-(c) (1978).) “[I]f it appears to the regional director that substantial and material factual issues exist which, in the exercise of his reasonable discretion, he determines may more appropriately be resolved after a hearing, he shall issue and cause to be served on the parties a notice of hearing on said issues before a hearing officer.” (Id., subd. (d).) After the regional director acts on the objections, the NLRB “may decide the matter forthwith upon the record,” or “make other disposition of the case,” or if it concludes the objections raise “substantial and material factual issues,. . .may direct the regional director or other agent of the [NLRB] to issue and cause to be served on the parties a notice of hearing on said exceptions before a hearing officer.” (Id., subd. (f).) Thus, under the federal law “in order to obtain a hearing in a post-election representation proceeding, the objecting party must supply prima facie evidence, presenting ‘substantial and material factual issues’ which would warrant setting aside the election. [Citation.] [A] hearing is unnecessary where if all the facts contended for by the objecting party were credited, no ground is shown which would warrant setting aside the election. [Citations.]” (Alson Mfg. Aero. Div. of Alson Indus., Inc. v. N. L. R. B. (9th Cir. 1975) 523 F.2d 470, 472; see, e.g., N. L. R. B. v. Bata Shoe Company (4th Cir. 1967) 377 F.2d 821, 826.) The NLRA regulation has been uniformly sustained by federal courts. (See, e.g., Polymers, Inc. v. N. L. R. B. (2d Cir. 1969) 414 F.2d 999, 1004-1005; N. L. R. B. v. Smith Industries, Inc. (5th Cir. 1968) 403 F.2d 889, 892; N. L. R. B. v. Air Control Products of St. Petersburg, Inc. (5th Cir. 1964) 335 F.2d 245, 249; N. L. R. B. v. Joclin Manufacturing Company (2d Cir. 1963) 314 F.2d 627, 632.) Thus, as stated by Judge Friendly in N. L. R. B. v. Joclin Manufacturing Company, supra, 314 F.2d at page 632, the NLRB’s regulation conditioning a hearing on the existence of “substantial and material” factual issues is “not only proper but necessary to prevent dilatory tactics by employers or unions disappointed in the election returns....” Moreover, it has also been observed that a hearing in the context of administrative action in response to objections concerning election misconduct is properly viewed “‘not as an end in itself, but as a means of defending substantive interests.’” (N. L. R. B. v. Air Control Products of St. Petersburg, Inc., supra, 335 F.2d at p. 249; N. L. R. B. v. Smith Industries, Inc., supra, 403 F.2d at p. 892.) “‘If there is nothing to hear, then a hearing is a senseless and useless formality.’” (Ibid.) The foregoing analysis leads us to conclude that Labor Code section 1156.3, subdivision (c), does not require the Board to hold a full hearing in every case in which a party merely files a petition objecting to the conduct of a representation election. Rather, it is permissible for the ALRB to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations setting forth a requirement that a prima facie case must-be presented in objections and supporting declarations before a hearing will be held concerning election misconduct. We thus concur in the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in Radovich v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 36, 45 [140 Cal.Rptr. 24]: “Otherwise, naked assertions of illegality unclothed with the raiments and accouterments designed to protect against an onslaught of inconsequential or frivolous or dilatory acts unsupported by even the undergarments of a prima facie case would frustrate the state policy as set forth in Labor Code section 1140.2.” (Fn. omitted.) We consequently hold that the ALRB’s regulation, which conditions a full evidentiary hearing on the presentation of objections and factual declarations that establish a prima facie case, is a reasonable exercise of the Board’s rule-making authority. The regulation does not foreclose a party with an adequate objection from obtaining a full hearing on its claim. When the executive secretary dismisses in the first instance a petition or portion thereof, his action is subject to review by the Board pursuant to California Administrative Code, title 8, section 20393. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 8, § 20365, subds. (e), (h).) Before acting on an appeal from the executive secretary’s dismissal of a petition, the Board requires the party challenging the dismissal to submit relevant information concerning his objections to the conduct of the election, including his petition and supporting declarations. The Board’s decision to sustain or dismiss the objections presented on such an appeal therefore entails an examination of the appealing party’s arguments and evidentiary support in order to determine whether a prima facie case has been stated. And, although an ALRB union certification is not normally subject to direct judicial review (Nishikawa Farms, Inc. v. Mahony (1977) supra, 66 Cal.App.3d 781, 788; cf. A. F. of L. v. Labor Board (1940) supra, 308 U.S. 401; Boire v. Greyhound Corp. (1964) supra, 376 U.S. 473; but cf. Leedom v. Kyne (1958) 358 U.S. 184 [3 L.Ed.2d 210, 79 S.Ct. 180]), a party seeking to obtain such review may do so before the Court of Appeal after the Board has found him guilty of an unfair labor practice under Labor Code section 1160.3 (Nishikawa Farms, Inc. v. Mahony, supra, 66 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; see also Lab. Code, § 1158.) Thus, because the review process provides adequate checks on potential abuses of discretion in cases in which objections to representation elections are summarily dismissed, it is clear that the regulation serves a valid purpose in assuring that the ALRB will not dissipate its limited resources in holding meaningless hearings on claims that are, as a matter of law, insufficient. (See, e.g., U. S. v. Storer Broadcasting Co., supra, 351 U.S. 192, 205 [100 L.Ed. 1081, 1092]; Fay v. Dowds (2d Cir. 1949) 172 F.2d 720, 725.) B Having concluded that the ALRA’s administrative regulation is valid, we next examine whether the executive secretary and the Board erred in concluding that the declarations accompanying Norton’s various objections failed to set forth “facts which, if uncontradicted or unexplained, would constitute sufficient grounds for the Board to refuse to certify the election.” As explained below, we conclude the executive secretary and the Board properly determined, in light of ALRB precedents, that the employer’s factual declarations, even if true, did not warrant overturning the election. 1 We examine first the four objections that relate to alleged improper union activity and other disruption in the vicinity of one of the polling areas. These objections allege that during the five and one-half hours when voting occurred at the Calexico Employment Development Department (EDD) office (also known as “the hole” or “el hoyo”): (1) the union was guilty of misconduct for engaging in “electioneering,” “coercion,” and “surveillance” of the voting employees, (2) other disruptive events occurred in the polling area that undermined the integrity of the election, and (3) the Board agent who supervised the election was guilty of misconduct in permitting the above activities to occur. Because the objections are interrelated, if Norton’s declarations fail to demonstrate that any union misconduct or other significant disruption occurred, its objections to the Board agent’s supervision must also be rejected. In support of its allegations of union misconduct, Norton proffered two declarations. The first, by Verne Smith, one of Norton’s supervisors, discloses that during the time the polls were open at the Calexico EDD office, Smith drove by the polling site on a number of occasions and on each occasion noticed that union organizers were standing at the entrance to the parking lot of the EDD building, stopping cars as they drove into the lot, questioning the occupants, and then writing something down. The second declaration was signed by a voting employee. It states that as he was going to vote he was approached by two persons who asked him his name and how he was going to vote; the declaration does not, however, identify the persons who approached the voter, nor does it declare that union organizers were polling the employees. The executive secretary concluded the facts set forth in these declarations would not, even if true, constitute sufficient grounds for the Board to refuse to certify the election. He relied on two ALRB decisions, Toste Farms, Inc. (Dec. 5, 1975) 1 A.L.R.B. No. 16, and William Dal Porto & Sons, Inc. (Dec. 11, 1975) 1 A.L.R.B. No. 19. The Board sustained the action of the executive secretary by its denial of Norton’s appeal. Norton now contends the Board erred in its dismissal of its union misconduct objection. It argues first that the union engaged in improper electioneering in the vicinity of the polling place by stopping cars and conversing with the occupants at the parking lot entrance. The principal authority in support of this argument is Michem, Inc. (1968) 170 N.L.R.B. 362. In Michem, the NLRB overturned an. election because a union representative had engaged in conversations with employees waiting to vote at the polling place, even though the content of the conversations was unknown. The NLRB reasoned: “[T]he potential for distraction, last minute electioneering or pressure. . . between representatives of any party to the election and voters waiting to cast ballots is of sufficient concern to warrant a strict rule against such conduct, without inquiry into the nature of the conversations. The final minutes before an employee casts his vote should be his own, as free from interference as possible. Furthermore, the standard here applied insures that no party gains a last minute advantage over the other, and at the same time deprives neither party of any important access to the ear of the voter. The difficulties of recapturing with any precision the nature of the remarks made in the charged atmosphere of a polling place are self-evident, and to require an examination into the substance and effect of the conversations seems unduly burdensome and, in this situation, unnecessary. Finally, a blanket prohibition against such conversations is easily understood and simply applied.” (Id. at p. 362; see also Pastoor Bros. Co. (1976) 223 N.L.R.B. 451; N. L. R. B. v. Skelly Oil Co. (8th Cir. 1973) 473 F.2d 1079.) The prophylactic language in Michem, however, must be considered in light of the circumstances that led the NLRB to conclude improper electioneering had occurred: the union officer in Michem had been engaged in “sustained conversations” with employees waiting in line to cast their ballots. Both Tosté Farms and William Dal Porto disclose that the ALRB has concluded such conversations do not necessarily justify the invalidation of an election when they occur outside the immediate voting area. In Tosté, the ALRB contrasted the facts of Michem with circumstances in which union representatives stop automobiles and converse with the occupants in an area between a public road and the polling booth. And in William Dal Porto the Board declined to apply Michem in a case in which electioneering allegedly took place, as in the instant case, at the entrance to a parking lot by the voting area. It stated: “The Michem rule has been held not to apply to conversations with prospective voters unless the voters are in the polling area or in line waiting to vote. Harold W. Moore, 173 NLRB [No.] 191, (1968). ... In Moore the election took place in a warehouse and the polls were located 10 yards from the entrance to that warehouse. The offending conversation took place in a parking lot 10 yards from the building’s entrance. The NLRB ruled that the conduct was not so near the polls as to be objectionable. Here, whatever conversations might have taken place, occurred at the entrance to a parking lot at least 100 and perhaps as much as 200 yards from the polling place. Such conversations, if they occurred, did not affect the outcome of this election.” (1 A.L.R.B. No. 19, at p. 7.) In the instant case, we cannot conclude the Board abused its discretion in ruling that Tosté Farms and William Dal Porto were controlling, rather than the NLRB’s Michem decision. Norton’s declarations do not establish that any electioneering took place near the actual balloting place, nor do they suggest that the union engaged in any conversations with voting employees while they were waiting in line to vote. Rather, Norton’s declarations disclose only that union representatives conversed with voters, as in William Dal Porto, at the entrance to the parking lot of the building in which the voting took place. Neither ALRB nor NLRB precedent warrants the invalidation of an election as a result of conversations that occur between union representatives and voting employees at such a location, absent information concerning the content of the conversations or other evidence suggesting the activity had a potential for interfering with the employees’ free choice. As explained below, no such evidence has been presented in this case. Moreover, the election results were not close. (Fn. 1, ante.) We consequently uphold the ALRB’s dismissal of Norton’s objection on this ground. Norton’s other objection concerning union misconduct is that the UFW engaged in coercion and surveillance by asking employees, as they were approaching the polling area, their names and how they were going to vote. We observe initially that Norton’s declarations do not establish that the union asked any employee how he was going to cast his ballot. As noted above, the one declarant alleging that such a question was asked does not identify the source of the question. (Fn. 13, ante,) Thus, Norton has failed to establish a prima facie case that such union misconduct in fact occurred. With respect to Norton’s allegation that the union was asking voters their names, it is clear from ALRB precedent that the asking of such questions, even if the answers are compiled on a list, is in itself an insufficient ground for invalidating an election. In Tosté Farms, the Board explained that whereas the permissibility of such a check-off procedure was suspect under NLRB precedent (compare Piggly-Wiggly # 011, (1967) 168 N.L.R.B. 792, with Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation (1948) 80 N.L.R.B. 1239, 1240-1241, in view of the unique characteristics of elections under the ALRA the use of check-off lists should not be considered “per se impermissible conduct such as to warrant setting an election aside.” The Board cautioned, however, that it would take a different view of such a check-off procedure “where it occurs in a context of coercion or intimidation such that voters may reasonably regard the checking off of their names as involving undue pressure upon them to vote or not to vote, or as constituting an implicit threat of surveillance as to how they voted.” Because there was no evidence of such coercion or intimidation in Tosté, the ALRB held that the check-off procedure did not warrant the invalidation of the election. In William Dal Porto, the employer raised a similar claim that the union had engaged in improper conduct by writing down several voters’ names. The Board stated: “The checking off of these names did not occur as part of an atmosphere of coercion or intimidation. Accordingly, our finding in Tosté Farms Inc., 1 ALRB No. 16 (1975), is applicable here. There was no additional conduct which might constitute sufficient grounds for setting aside this election.” (1 A.L.R.B. No. 19, at p. 9.) In view of Tosté and William Dal Porto, we conclude the executive secretary and the Board correctly decided the facts offered in the employer’s declarations were insufficient to establish a prima facie case that the election should be overturned as a result of a union check-off list. As we have noted, the declarations stated only that union organizers had been seen stopping cars at the entrance of the EDD parking lot, talking with prospective voters, and writing down unspecified information. It has thus not been established what information the union organizers were allegedly compiling. Moreover, although the petition repeatedly characterizes the union organizers’ conduct as “coercion,” the declarations relate no instances in which the union engaged in threatening or hostile tactics, and do not reveal any facts to suggest that the election process in this case was conducted in an “atmosphere of coercion or intimidation.” (Compare, e.g., Sonoco Products Company v. N. L. R. B. (9th Cir. 1971) supra, 443 F.2d 1334; N. L. R. B. v. Southern Paper Box Company (8th Cir. 1973) 473 F.2d 208.) While, as the Board has acknowledged, union lists of those who have voted must be viewed with caution, the facts alleged herein do not provide sufficient grounds for concluding that such a list, if indeed one were being kept, interfered with a free election. Norton’s next polling area objection is that the election site could not be properly supervised, a circumstance which impaired the integrity of the election because disruption occurred. The executive secretary dismissed the objection by relying on Perez Packing, Inc. (Jan. 20, 1976) 2 A.L.R.B. No. 13. When the situation surrounding the Perez election is compared with the facts alleged in the instant case, it is clear that the dismissal of this objection was not an abuse of discretion. The Board characterized the disruption in Perez as follows: “the polling area inside the Perez packing shed consisted of a small office located two to three feet down a hallway from the shed’s loading dock. During the election the Perez employees were congregated around this loading dock drinking beer, yelling and chanting UFW slogans which were clearly audible inside the designated polling area. The employer’s observers testified that many voters had been drinking and some appeared intoxicated as they came to cast their ballots. At least one voter fell inside the polling place and had to be assisted to his feet by the Board agents. [II] Although there was no evidence of beer drinking inside the polling area itself, the employer’s observer stated that two employees were sometime seated on a plank across the narrow hallway from the door to the polling area drinking beer and looking inside the office. Furthermore, she testified that at times the noise from the chanting and cheers of the crowd outside became so loud that it seemed as though the crowd was actually inside the polling area. The Board agents either could not or would not control the situation.” (Id. at pp. 5-6.) Norton’s declarations merely disclose (1) the voting area was a public place at which shippers picked up and let off their men and (2) two drunks at one point during the five and one-half hours at “the hole” tried to vote. The declarations do not suggest the shippers’ men caused any disruption, or even that they were in a position to do so. With respect to the two intoxicated persons, it is not shown that they requested to vote while any eligible voters were present, that they prevented any worker from voting, or that their presence in any way affected the outcome Of the voting. It is thus clear that the declarations do not establish a prima facie case in support of Norton’s claim that the election was disrupted. Norton’s final polling area objection is that the Board agent did not exercise adequate supervision at the election site. Because Norton has failed to establish any support of its claims that union misconduct or other disruption occurred, we conclude this objection is without merit. 2 Three of the four remaining objections related to “access rule” violations that were allegedly committed by the union in the week preceding the election. In a number of recent decisions, the ALRB has held that while a union’s violation of the access rule may subject both the union and the individual wrongdoer to sanctions (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 8, § 20900, subd. (e) (5)), such a violation will not constitute grounds for setting aside an election in the absence of proof that the “excess access” taken by the union was of such a character as to have had an intimidating impact on employees or in any other way affected the outcome of the election. (K.K. Ito Farms (Oct. 29, 1976) 2 A.L.R.B. No. 51, p. 8; Dessert Seed Co. (Oct. 29, 1976) 2 A.L.R.B. No. 53; Bruce Church, Inc. (Dec. 13, 1977) 3 A.L.R.B. No. 90; Martori Brothers Distributing (Jan. 27, 1978) 4 A.L.R.B. No. 5; cf. Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 551, 559 [147 Cal.Rptr. 165, 580 P.2d 665].) In the instant case, the factual declarations relating the alleged access violations contain no suggestion whatsoever that the union’s violations were of an intimidating or coercive nature. In one instance, the access violation allegedly occurred when an organizer “told everybody to quit at 4:00” to attend a union meeting; this declaration goes on to state, however, that no workers complied with the organizer’s request. The only other specific access violation described in the declarations allegedly occurred the day before the election, when several organizers purportedly admitted to a Board agent that they had been on the employer’s property for two hours, rather than the one hour permitted by the access rule; the declaration, however, contains no facts suggesting that the organizers had conducted themselves in an intimidating or coercive fashion; moreover, when their violation was pointed out to them, the organizers immediately left at the Board agent’s direction. Given the insufficiency of these declarations, the executive secretary properly dismissed without a full hearing the objections relating to the union’s alleged access violation. 3 Norton’s final objection is that the Board agent committed misconduct by changing one of the polling sites at a time when it was impossible to inform the employees of the change. Although the executive secretary did dismiss one objection on this issue, he also directed that a hearing be held on a separate, virtually identical objection, which raised the issue in terms of “whether the board agent held the election at a time and place which prevented a substantial number of employees from voting.” After a full hearing on this matter, the hearing examiner concluded that the Board agent had not erred but had acted reasonably in selecting the ultimate sites of the election; the Board upheld that conclusion and the employer has not contested the ruling. Accordingly, because of the duplication of the two objections, the executive secretary committed no prejudicial error in dismissing one objection while setting a similar objection for hearing. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that under the applicable administrative regulations the executive secretary and the Board properly dismissed the eight objections without a hearing. Inasmuch as the employer has not challenged the Board’s certification on any other ground and has conceded that it refused to bargain with the union despite certification, we conclude that the Board properly found the employer guilty of an unfair labor practice under section 1153, subdivision (e). II Norton’s second contention is that the ALRB erred in applying the make-whole remedy to the instant facts. Before examining the merits of this thesis, we explain the Board’s asserted justification for its application of such relief in these circumstances. The Board derives its authority to impose the make-whole remedy from Labor Code section 1160.3. That section provides that when the Board finds an employer guilty of an unfair labor practice for refusal to bargain in good faith, it may enter an order “requiring such person to cease and desist from such unfair labor practice, to take affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees with or without backpay, and making employees whole, when the Board deems such, relief appropriate, for the loss of pay resulting from the employer’s refusal to bargain, and to provide such other relief as will effectuate the policies of this part.” (Italics added.) As previously explained, an ALRB ruling concerning the validity of a representation election is not subject to direct judicial review, and thus a person who wishes to challenge such a ruling in the court must first engage in an unfair labor practice in violation of section 1153, subdivision (e). Once the Board finds the person has committed an unfair labor practice and enters an order requiring him to cease and desist from the practice or to take other action with respect thereto, the order is subject to judicial review pursuant to Labor Code section 1160.8; that section explicitly permits an election to be “reviewed as provided in Section 1158.” The course of action taken in these circumstances is often referred to as a “technical” refusal to bargain. In Perry Farms, Inc. (Apr. 26, 1978) 4 A.L.R.B. No. 25, reversed on other grounds (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 448 [150 Cal.Rptr. 495], the Board announced a blanket rule for the application of the make-whole remedy in all cases in which an employer is found to have refused to bargain in contravention of Labor Code section 1153, subdivision (e). (Id. at p. 9; see also Adam Dairy (Apr. 26, 1978) 4 A.L.R.B. No. 24, p. 6.) Thus, when an employer commits a technical refusal to bargain in order to challenge before the courts the propriety of an election, and the challenge is subsequently rejected, his action falls within the scope of this rule. The Board began its analysis in Perry by observing that the ALRA was enacted to “‘ensure peace in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice for all agricultural workers and stability in labor relations,’” to “‘bring certainty and a sense of fair play’” to the employer/employee relationship,” and to protect the employees’ right of free choice in the selection of their collective bargaining agent. The Board then reasoned that “when an employer refuses to bargain with the certified representative of its employees it commits an act which strikes at the very heart of the system of labor-management relations which the Legislature sought to create. It has thereby deprived the employees of the statutorily created right to be represented by their Board-certified agent in the negotiation of the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of their employment.” (4 A.L.R.B. No. 25, at p. 10.) The employer in Perry contended that, in determining whether imposition of the make-whole remedy is appropriate, the Board should distinguish between instances in which an employer’s refusal to bargain is “flagrant” or “willful” and those in which it is motivated simply by a good faith desire to obtain judicial review of a “debatable” administrative certification decision. The Board, however, rejected this suggestion. It stated: “The employees suffer [the] same loss [i.e., deprivation of collective bargaining rights and the economic benefits that flow therefrom] whether the employer’s refusal to bargain is designed solely to procure review in the courts of the underlying election issues or is of the flagrant or willful variety. This identity of harm is the crux of the question concerning when the remedy ought to be applied. As between the innocent employees and the employer which, having once had the full opportunity to litigate meritorious representation objections before the Board, now seeks a second review in the courts by a refusal to bargain, traditional principles of equity and the goals and policies of the Act require that the employer bear the actual burden of its own conduct. . . . [11] A contrary conclusion would create a situation in which only the employer would be the ultimate beneficiary of its refusal to bargain regardless of the eventual result of its appeal. If it were found by the court to be under a valid bargaining obligation it would then simply be ordered to bargain with the union; an obligation which it had avoided during the pendency of the Board and court proceedings. In the end, it would likely face a union weakened by attrition and delay. If, on the other hand, its position is sustained by the courts, the employer would be relieved both of the duty to bargain and of any make-whole liability. Such a system contains great incentive for a refusal to bargain. It stands in contradiction of the statutory principles set forth above.” (Id. at pp. 10-11.) The Board relied on the foregoing analysis to justify imposition of make-whole relief in this case. Thus, after finding Norton guilty of an unfair labor practice for its technical refusal to bargain, the Board ordered it to make its “employees whole for all losses of pay and other economic benefits sustained by them as the result of [Norton’s] refusal to bargain from the date of the UFW’s request for bargaining to the date on which [Norton] commences to bargain collectively in good faith and thereafter bargains to a contract or a bona fide impasse.” (J.R. Norton Company, (June 22, 1978) 4 A.L.R.B. No. 39, p. 5.) Norton and amici curiae contend the Board lacks authority to impose such relief in a categorical fashion when, as in the instant case, the employer has been found guilty of an unfair labor practice solely as a result of a technical refusal to bargain. We agree. In reviewing the Board’s rule for the application of the make-whole remedy, we are cognizant of the principle that an administrative agency is entitled to deference when interpreting policy in its field of expertise. (See, e.g., Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board (1941) 313 U.S. 177, 194 [85 L.Ed. 1271, 1283, 61 S.Ct. 447, 133 A.L.R. 1217].) Nevertheless, as we observed in Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 801, 813-814 [114 Cal.Rptr. 577, 523 P.2d 617].) “It is fundamental in statutory construction that courts should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.” Thus, when administrative rules or regulations “alter or amend the statute or enlarge or impair its scope,” they “are void and courts not only may, but it is their obligation to strike down such regulations. [Citations.]” (Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal.2d 733, 748 [63 Cal.Rptr. 689, 433 P.2d 697].) In the instant case, we conclude the Board’s blanket rule for imposing the make-whole remedy eviscerates important ALRA policy and fundamentally misconstrues the nature of and legislative purpose behind such relief. A Initially, we observe that a principal purpose of the ALRA, as provided in its policy declaration, is to enable agricultural employees to elect “representatives of their own choosing. . .for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” (Lab. Code, § 1140.2, italics added.) Labor Code section 1152, which enumerates the rights of employees with respect to the selection of their collective bargaining agent, restates this purpose and further guarantees to employees the right “to refrain from any or all of such activities. . . . ” When the integrity of a representation election is being attacked, two competing considerations arise that are both fundamental to the promotion of ALRA policy. The first is the need to discourage frivolous election challenges pursued by employers as a dilatory tactic designed to stifle self-organization by employees. The second is the important interest in fostering judicial review as a check on arbitrary administrative action in cases in which the employer has raised a meritorious objection to an election and the objection has been rejected by the Board. The tension between these two considerations also exists with respect to NLRA policy, which is relevant in this context as a result of the ALRA’s provision that applicable NLRA precedents shall govern interpretation of the ALRA. (Lab. Code, § 1148.) As previously observed, and as discussed by the ALRB in Perry Farms, when an employer engages in dilatory tactics after a representation election his action may substantially impair the strength and support of a union and consequently the employees’ interest in selecting an agent to represent them in collective bargaining. Thus, in examining the importance of the make-whole remedy in the promotion of NLRA policy, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated: “Employee interest in a union can wane quickly as working conditions remain apparently unaffected by the union or collective bargaining. When the company is finally ordered to bargain with the union some years later, the union may find that it represents only a small fraction of the employees. [Citations.] Thus the employer may reap a second benefit from his original refusal to comply with the law: he may continue to enjoy lower labor expenses after the order to bargain either because the union is gone or because it is too weak to bargain effectively.” (International Union of E., R. & M.W., AFL-CIO v. N. L. R. B. [tii-dee Products] (D.C. Cir. 1970) 426 F.2d 1243, 1249; see also United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. N. L. R. B. (5th Cir. 1974) 496 F.2d 1342, 1351-1352; Comment, Employee Reimbursement for an Employer’s Refusal to Bargain: The Ex-Cell-O Doctrine (1968) 46 TexasL.Rev. 758, 770; Note, Monetary Compensation as a Remedy for Employer Refusal to Bargain (1968) 56 Geo.L.J. 474, 482; Note, NLRB Power to Award Damages in Unfair Labor Practice Cases (1971) 84 Harv.L.Rev. 1670, 1671-1674.) The court further noted that make-whole relief compensates employees for losses incurred during the period when collective bargaining does not take place as a result of litigation attacking the propriety of a representation election; it thereby reduces the employer’s financial incentive for refusing to bargain in order to avoid the expenses he would be required to pay if he had entered into a collective bargaining agreement. (426 F.2d at p. 1249.) Thus, as is apparent from the court’s discussion, make-whole relief serves the salutary purpose of discouraging frivolous election challenges designed to stifle employees’ self-organization. (Id. at pp. 1249-1250; see also International Union, U.A., A. & A. Imp. Wkrs. v. N. L. R. B., (D.C. Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 1046, 1048; Culinary Alliance & Bartenders U., Local 703 v. N. L. R. B. (9th Cir. 1974) 488 F.2d 664, 666; United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. N. L. R. B. (5th Cir. 1974) supra, 496 F.2d at pp. 1351-1352.) Yet, it does not follow from the foregoing analysis that blanket imposition of the make-whole remedy, as required by the ALRB’s Perry Farms decision, is justifiable in light of either NLRA or ALRA policy. Indeed, as the court in Tiidee Products was careful to caution, “it is as old in philosophy at least as Aristotle, and it is settled in the law as well, that the application of an apparently uniform rule may in reality engender unfair discrimination when like measures are applied to unlike cases.” (426 F.2d at p. 1250.) The ALRB’s Perry Farms rule requires an employer to make his employees whole for their losses in all cases in which he seeks to challenge the ALRB’s election proceedings in a judicial forum, but ultimately does not prevail in the challenge. It makes no distinction between close cases that raise potentially meritorious objections and frivolous challenges pursued as a tactic for stifling union organization. It is clear that make-whole relief is appropriate when an employer refuses to bargain for the purpose of delaying the collective bargaining process. As the United States Supreme Court has pointed out, a principal concern of Congress in drafting the provisions for challenging an election under the NLRA, upon which the review procedures of the ALRA were modeled, was that deleterious delays in bargaining would be more likely to occur if direct judicial review of NLRB determinations were permitted. (See, e.g., Boire v. Greyhound Corp. (1964) supra, 376 U.S. 473, 477-479 [11 L.Ed.2d 849, 852-854]; A.F. of L. v. Labor Board (1940) supra, 308 U.S. 401, 408-412 [84 L.Ed. 347, 351-354].) It would thwart the purpose of this review procedure if the employer could altogether circumvent it by raising frivolous challenges to elections before courts reviewing final NLRB or ALRB orders, without any risk of being held liable for the losses to employees that result therefrom. Thus, as previously noted, the ALRA explicitly authorizes the ALRB to award make-whole damages. (Lab. Code, § 1160.3.) Although it is inconsistent with both the NLRA and ALRA to foster the delays that result from judicial review of frivolous election challenges, the policies of neither act support the application of a blanket rule for the imposition of make-whole relief. Such a rule places burdensome restraints on those who legitimately seek judicial resolution of close cases in which a potentially meritorious claim could be made that the NLRB or ÁLRB abused its discretion. It thereby impairs the important interest served by the provision in both acts for a check on arbitrary administrative action. In enacting the NLRA, Congress recognized that judicial review— even of interlocutory orders made in the context of NLRB decisions concerning the validity of a representation election—was necessary to prevent arbitrary NLRB action. It consequently placed no limits on the review of final NLRB orders, and expressly permitted judicial review of interlocutory orders when the employer was subsequently found guilty of refusing to bargain with the union on the basis of the prior interlocutory decree. (Comment, supra, 46 TexasL.Rev. at p. 773.) Thus as one commentator has observed, “Congress thought it more efficacious to preclude court review of the representation certification until there was a refusal-to-bargain finding based upon the certification, after which a court could review both the unfair labor practice and the underlying certification.” (McGuiness, Is the Award of Damages for Refusals to Bargain Consistent with National Labor Policy? (1968) 14 Wayne L.Rev. 1086, 1101-1102.) Under the ALRA, the procedures for judicial review are parallel to those of the NLRA and thus have been construed in light of the federal law. (Nishikawa Farms, Inc. v. Mahony (1977) supra, 66 Cal.App.3d at pp. 786-787.) The importance of judicial review, as a check on arbitrary administrative action in the context of federal labor legislation, has been explicitly acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court. (Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd. (1951) 340 U.S. 474, 490-491 [95 L.Ed. 456, 468-469, 71 S.Ct. 456]; May Stores Co. v. Labor Board (1945) 326 U.S. 376, 380 [90 L.Ed. 145, 157, 66 S.Ct. 203]; A.F. of L. v. Labor Board (1940) supra, 308 U.S. at pp. 407-411 [84 L.Ed. at pp. 351-353].) Moreover, with respect to NLRB action in response to election challenges, it is clear from federal precedents that the courts have played an important role in the promotion of NLRA policy by ensuring the NLRB acts to preserve the integrity of the election process. (See, e.g., N. L. R. B. v. Georgetown Dress Corp. (4th Cir. 1976) 537 F.2d 1239 (reversing NLRB certification of union on the ground that conduct by union representatives had vitiated fairness of election); Turner’s Express, Incorporated v. N. L. R. B. (4th Cir. 1972) 456 F.2d 289 (same); Alpers’ Jobbing Co., Inc. v. N. L. R. B. (8th Cir. 1976) 547 F.2d 402 (holding NLRB’s election procedures failed to produce an accurate indication of employee sentiment); Marriott In-Flite Serv. Div. of Marriott Corp. v. N. L. R. B. (5th Cir. 1969) 417 F.2d 563, cert. den. (1970) 397 U.S. 920 [25 L.Ed.2d 101, 90 S.Ct. 929] (same); Beaird-Poulan Division, Emerson Elec. v. N. L. R. B. (8th Cir. 1978) 571 F.2d 432 (reversing NLRB decision that hearing concerning integrity of election was unnecessary); N. L. R. B. v. Skelly Oil Co. (8th Cir. 1973) supra, 473 F.2d 1079 (same); N. L. R. B. v. Southern Paper Box Co. (8th Cir. 1973) supra, 473 F.2d 208 (same); United States Rubber Company v. N. L. R. B. (5th Cir. 1967) 373 F.2d 602 (same); Electronic Components Corp. of N. C. v. N. L. R. B. (4th Cir. 1976) 546 F.2d 1088 (requiring NLRB to conduct an investigation to determine whether integrity of election had been undermined); N. L. R. B. v. Flomatic Corporation (2d Cir. 1965) 347 F.2d 74 (overturning NLRB’s issuance of bargaining order on the ground that it infringed employees’ right to choose their bargaining agent).) The need to avoid placing undue restraints on judicial review in the context of proceedings concerning representation elections must be recognized as especially compelling when one considers that the NLRA and ALRA purpose is not exclusively to promote collective bargaining, but to promote such bargaining by the employees’ freely chosen representatives. The imposition of make-whole relief undermines this purpose to the extent that it discourages employers from exercising their right to judicial review in cases in which the NLRB or ALRB has rejected their meritorious challenges to the integrity of an election. The Perry Farms rule for the imposition of make-whole relief discloses the ALRB’s failure to acknowledge the serious deterrent impact that the rule may have on the employer’s incentive to seek judicial review of meritorious objections to representation elections. As one commentator has observed, it is important to recognize that the make-whole remedy “place[s] greater restrictions on judicial review in general and, therefore, will reduce the number of appeal-worthy refusal-to-bargain cases heard by the courts. This will frustrate [the policy] underlying the federal labor legislation.... [I]t will deter the initiation of many appeals that would otherwise have been asserted in good faith. Since in many cases the employer might have won on appeal, the deterrence of good-faith review might interfere with the employees’ right not to be represented by a union. ...” (Comment, supra, 46 TexasL.Rev. at p. 774.) Moreover, it has also been pointed out that the make-whole remedy “is especially harmful to small employers. Many small employers who in good faith believed the [NLRB] to be wrong would have neither the resources nor reserves to risk review of a representation decision if the damage remedy might be imposed upon them if they ‘guessed wrong’ and lost. The [make-whole] remedy, litigation expenses, and the threat of strike while review was pending, would definitely discourage seeking review. In view of statistics showing that the [NLRB] is reversed in the courts on 40% of the bargaining orders reviewed, such discouragement would appear oppressive and contrary to the Act’s policies. [Citation.]” (McGuiness, op. cit. supra, 14 Wayne L.Rev. at p. 1102, fn. 89.) The foregoing considerations lead us to conclude that the ALRB’s Perry Farms rule of automatic imposition of make-whole relief cannot be sustained on the ground that it promotes ALRA policy by fostering collective bargaining. A central feature of the collective bargaining process is the exercise of the employees’ free choice in selecting their bargaining representative. The ALRB’s blanket rule for the application of the make-whole remedy does not provide a sufficient guarantee that the integrity of representation elections will be preserved. B The ALRB further contends, however, that make-whole relief is compensatory in nature, and thus its Perry Farms rule should be sustained because it ensures that employees will be compensated for their losses when an employer’s objections to an election ultimately do not prove to be meritorious. It is true that make-whole relief is compensatory in that it reimburses employees for the losses they incur as a result of delays in the collective bargaining process. It does not follow, however, that such compensation is justified in every case in which the employer pursues his case in a judicial forum and ultimately does not prevail. As discussed above, when the integrity of an election is being attacked, the pursuit of judicial review in itself is not contrary to the objectives of the ALRA; such review undermines ALRA policy only when the employer’s election challenges lack merit and are pursued as a dil