121 and 143 days of contract execution was not filed “shortly after the contract is executed.” Accordingly the petition was not timely filed. 11-220 – Accretion vs. Question Concerning Representation *AT Wall Co., 361 NLRB No. 62 (2014). The Board found that the new classifications at issue did not perform the same basic functions as those in the existing unit because the new classifications produced different products using different processes under different conditions. The Board therefore declined to apply Premcor, Inc., 338 NLRB 1365 (2001) to find that the new classifications were part of the existing unit, but instead applied the traditional accretion standard. See Sec. 12-500 infra. 11-300 – Deauthorization Petition (UD) First Student, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 27 (2012). A Board majority denied review of a Regional Director’s dismissal of a UD petition where the RD found that the employees had become part of a merged national unit and the petition sought only an election at a single location. Chapter 12 Appropriate Unit: General Principles 12-210 – Community of Interest Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013). In this decision, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Boards decision in Specialty Healthcare, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011), where the Board held that an employer who challenges an excluded classification from an otherwise appropriate unit, must demonstrated “an overwhelming community of interest with those in the petitioned for unit.” In two cases decided in 2013, the Board applied Specialty and found that efforts to add employees to otherwise appropriate units were not supported by overwhelming evidence. These cases are: Fraser Engineering Company, 359 NLRB No. 80 (2013) (Employer sought to add employees of wholly owned subsidiary)
24-328 – Prounion Supervisory Conduct SSC Mystic Operating d/b/a Pendleton Health & Rehabilitation, 01-RC-098982 (Dec. 3, 2013). In an unpublished decision, the Board noted the employer's “extensive antiunion campaign in finding that a supervisor’s prounion conduct was ‘effectively mitigated.’” Veritas Health Services v. NLRB, 671 F3d 1267 (DC Cir. 2012). Court affirmed Board finding that prounion conduct of supervisory charge nurses in signing cards in front of employees and in attending union meetings did not amount to employer supervisory interference. Court also noted that even if the conduct tended to interfere with employee free choice, it was mitigated by the actions of the charge nurses in subsequently campaigning against the union. 24-410 – Board Agent Conduct (Ballot Box Security) Hard Rock Holdings v. NLRB, 672 F3d 1117 (DC Cir. 2012). It was not objectionable conduct for the Board agent to decide not to give observers a badge when he discovered that he had only one in his election kit. The Court held that there was no evidence that the absence of badges affected the election. 24-410(a) – Board Agent Conduct *Magnum Transportation, 360 NLRB No. 129 (2014). Board agent did not engage in objectionable conduct when he permitted an employee to cast a second ballot under challenge where the employee notified the agent that he had marked his first ballot incorrectly and put it in the box. *Durham School Services, 360 NLRB No. 108 (2014). It was not objectionable for the Board agent to carry the ballot box to the parking lot in order to permit a disabled employer to cast a ballot. *Securitas Security Services USA, Case No. 20 RC 107222 (Feb. 7, 2014). In the unpublished decision, a panel majority found that a Board agent did not engage in objectionable conduct in the circumstances here. Board agent engaged in conversation with union representatives while those representatives were handing out literature to prospective voters.
election. This requires parties to appeal issues that may be rendered moot by the election results. unnecessary and they do not waive their right to seek review of that decision if they decide to file their request after the election. Elections are delayed 25-30 days to allow the Board to consider any request for review of the regional director’s decision that may be filed. This is so even though such requests are rarely filed, even more rarely granted and almost never result in a stay of the election. There will be no automatic stay of an election. The Board is required to review every aspect of most post-election disputes, regardless of whether any party has objected to it. The Board is not required to review aspects of post-election regional decisions as to which no party has raised an issue, and may deny review consistent with the discretion it has long exercised in reviewing rulings. The voter list provided to parties to enable them to communicate with voters about the election includes only names and home addresses. The employer must submit the list within 7 days of the approval of an election agreement or the regional director’s decision directing an election. The voter list will also include personal phone numbers and email addresses (if available to the employer). The employer must submit the list within 2 business days of the regional director’s approval of an election agreement or decision directing an election.