Aramark Sports, Inc./SFS

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Aug 28, 2012

04-RC-021685 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 28, 2012)

1
Philadelphia, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC
Employer
and
PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION
CENTER SERVICE EMPLOYEES
UNION
Petitioner
and
PHILADELPHIA JOINT BOARD,
WORKERS UNITED, a/w SEIU
Union
Case 04-RC-021685
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
The National Labor Relations Board has considered objections to an
election held June 16 and 17, 2011, and the Hearing Officer’s report
recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted in accordance
with a Decision, Order and Direction of Second Election issued by the Board on
April 18, 2011. The tally of ballots shows 50 ballots cast for the Petitioner, 75
ballots cast for the Union, and no ballots cast against the participating labor
organizations. There were 3 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the
results of the election.
2
No exceptions were filed to the Hearing Officer’s report within the time
provided.1 Accordingly, the Board adopts the Hearing Officer’s findings and
recommendations, and finds that a certification of results of election should be
issued.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have not been cast for
the Petitioner, Pennsylvania Convention Center Service Employees Union, and
that it is not the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of these bargaining
unit employees. A majority of the valid ballots were cast for the Union,
Philadelphia Joint Board, Workers United, a/w SEIU, and it remains the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of these bargaining unit employees.
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 28, 2012.
By direction of the Board: Henry S. Breiteneicher
Associate Executive Secretary

1 On September 26, 2011, the Petitioner filed with the Board exceptions to the Hearing
Officer’s report and a request for an extension of time to supplement its exceptions.
Neither the Petitioner, nor any representative of the Petitioner, appeared at the August 17,
2011 hearing, and therefore the Petitioner presented no evidence in support of its three
Objections that were the subject of the hearing. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer
recommended overruling all three Objections on the ground that the Petitioner failed to
meet its burden of proof of coming forward with specific evidence to support its
Objections. The exceptions filed by the Petitioner did not comply with the Board’s Rules
and Regulations because they did not substantively address the Hearing Officer’s
findings, namely, that the Petitioner had failed to present any evidence in support of its
Objections at the hearing. Instead, the Petitioner’s exceptions essentially challenge the
Regional Director’s denial of its request to postpone the hearing, an issue that the
Petitioner failed to raise before the Hearing Officer, even though the Regional Director had
advised the Petitioner that it could do so. Further, the Petitioner’s request for an
extension of time to supplement its exceptions was granted to October 28, 2011. The
Petitioner, however, did not file a supplement to its exceptions. As a result, the
procedurally deficient exceptions filed on September 26, 2011 were the only exceptions
filed with the Board, and they were not forwarded to the Board for consideration.