The opinion
THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
Although I do not disagree with the majority’s result in this case, I am troubled by its reliance on NLRB v. North Electric Company, Plant No. 10, 644 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1981). In North Electric, the Sixth Circuit held that “it is an abuse of discretion for the Board to adopt the report of the Regional Director without reviewing the evidence relied upon by the Regional Director.” Id. at 584 . Further, the North Electric court held that the Regional Director must transmit the entire record to *730 the Board in order to facilitate the Board’s review of the evidence. Id. at 583, 584 . In short, the court established a per se rule under 29 C.F.R. § 102.69 (g).
As I understand the majority, we do not and cannot accept the per se rule of North Electric. In Birmingham Ornamental Iron Company v. NLRB, 615 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1980), this Circuit held that “the failure to include affidavits as applied to the regional director is not a per se basis for setting aside the district director’s report.” Id. at 667 (emphasis in original), citing NLRB v. Dobbs House, Inc., 613 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1980). I agree, however, that “if sufficient factual allegations are stated in the exceptions to the district director’s report. . . the provisions of section (g) require the inclusion of the affidavits in the regional director’s file as a part of the record on review.” 615 F.2d at 667 . In this case, the allegations of vote counting improprieties and of intimidation of the voting employees are sufficient to require the transmission of the record to the NLRB for Board consideration.