Ashland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 2, 2011

05-RC-016580 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 2, 2011)

JD–01-11
Richmond, VA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ASHLAND NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER1
Employer
and Case 5-RC-16580
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERICAL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 400
Petitioner
James P. Naughton and Kimberlee W. DeWitt, Esqs.,
Hunton & Williams, Norfolk, Virginia, for the Employer.
John A. Durkalski, Esq. Butsavage & Associates, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for the petitioning Union.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATONS ON OBJECTIONS
Procedural Background
The Petitioner, Local 400 of the United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union, filed a petition to represent employees at the Employer, Ashland Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, on September 21, 2010. Pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement,
the Board conducted a secret-ballot election at the Ashland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
on November 3, 2010 in a bargaining unit described as, “All regular full-time and part-time CNAs
(certified nursing assistants), restorative aides, activity aides and maintenance employees:
Excluding all RNs, dietary employees, office clerical employees, confidential employees, and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.”
Thirty-one votes were cast for the Petitioner; 28 were cast against it. There was one
challenged ballot. On November 10, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting
the result of the election. The Employer’s first objection is that the Union’s campaign was based
in whole or in substantial part on unlawful appeals to racial prejudice. The bargaining unit is
approximately 73% African-American. As an example of alleged appeals to racial prejudice, the
Employer in its objections accuses the Union of circulating an endorsement from a local NAACP
chapter without revealing that the chapter’s board included an individual who was on the

1 The correct identity of the employer and thus the proper caption for this case is somewhat
confusing. At hearing, the employer’s counsel represented that Ashland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center is the appropriate employer, rather than Consulate Health Care. For
purposes of this case only, I accept that representation. However, this record shows that
Consulate Health Care provides Ashland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center and other nursing
homes with management services, including management of its human resources and labor
relations matters. The executive directors of the nursing homes receiving such management
services appear to move freely between one such home and another.
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Union’s payroll. However, in the hearing before this judge, the Employer focused almost
exclusively on statements made by King Salim Khalfani, the Executive Director of the Virginia
State Conference NAACP months prior to the critical period and what it contends were the
persistent and lingering effects of those statements.
The second objection is that the Union spread false rumors among employees on
Election Day that the Board agent (and/or the Employer) was seeking to deny employees their
right to a secret ballot election by falsely characterizing an innocent error on the part of the
Board agent. At hearing and in its brief, the Employer appears to have abandoned this
objection.
The Regional Director mandated that a hearing be held on the issues raised by
Objections 1 and 2.2 However, the Regional Director specifically stated that he would consider
only that alleged interference that occurred during the critical period, September 21 through
November 3, 2010. I conducted a hearing in Richmond, Virginia in this matter on December 15,
and 16, 2010.3
I provided the parties 13 days to file briefs, which I have read and considered.4
The issues and material facts bearing on the Employer’s objections
The Employer’s principal objection to conduct affecting the election involves the conduct
of King Salim Khalfani, the Executive Director of the Virginia State Conference NAACP,
occurring months before the representation petition was filed and what it terms the lingering
effects of Khalfani’s activities up through the election. As to the latter, the Employer introduced
testimony intending to show that unidentified employees were repeating the allegations made by
Khalfani throughout the critical period. Finally, the Employer alleges that a fair election was also
impossible because in the context of these allegations, the Union solicited an endorsement from
the Hanover County branch of the NAACP which the Union mailed to all unit employees within a
week of the election.
With regard to Mr. Khalfani, the Employer argues that the Union should be held
responsible for the statements that he made because of the close relationship between the
Virginia State Conference NAACP and Local 400 and the involvement of Kenneth Pickard in
both organizations and in the Union’s organizing drive. It is not clear as to whether the Employer
contends that Khalfani is or was an agent of the Union within the meaning of the Act.
One of the first hurdles for the Employer is the Board’s long-held rule that generally only
activity within the critical period may provide a basis for overturning election results, Ideal
Electric & Manufacturing Co., 134 NLRB 1275 (1961). A second hurdle is that the Union or
individuals who are clearly its agents engaged in none of the alleged objectionable conduct,
except for distributing the letter from the Hanover County NAACP.

2 The Employer also made a third objection that the election was tainted by improper pro-union
supervisor conduct. The Regional Director did not order a hearing on this objection and no
evidence in this regard was introduced into the record before me.
3 Tr. 11 at line 24 should read, “critical period,” rather than “criminal hearing.”
4 I am receiving, sua sponte, into the record as Judge’s exhibit 1, a December 23, 2010
letter from Union counsel and four attached emails dated May 25 , May 25, May 26 and May 27,
2010.
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
While there are cases in which the Board has sustained objections based on conduct
occurring prior to the critical period and in which it has held a party responsible for third-party
conduct, these cases are exceptions to the general rule. I conclude that the facts of this case
do not warrant departing from the Ideal Electric rule or the Board’s general rule finding that pro-
union employees are not agents of the Union.
The events leading up to King Salim Khalfani’s allegations
Six employees were required to empty their purses for inspection in February 20105
Ashland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center is a 190 bed skilled nursing facility located
just north of Richmond, Virginia. The nursing staff at this facility works around the clock in three
shifts.
In February 2010, Carmen Sanderson, an African-American certified nursing assistant
(CNA), alleged that $200-$250 had been stolen from her purse. Nancy Taylor, a Caucasian
LPN/shift supervisor, and Levita Page, an African-American charge nurse, paged six CNAs, five
of whom were African-American and one who is Caucasian, and required them to empty their
purses for inspection of the contents. One employee was also required to remove her shoes
and one or two others were required to remove outer garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts.
The response by Taylor and Page is apparently contrary to the Employer’s policies and
the two were suspended and later terminated, apparently as a result of the February incident.
Charles Nelson, who at the time was Ashland’s Executive Director, met with the 6 employees (2
LPNs and 4 CNAs) who had been searched and apologized to them.
Some or all of the six employees contacted King Salim Khalfani, the Executive Director
of the Virginia State Conference NAACP. Khalfani wrote to the Employer’s Executive Director,
Charles Nelson, on April 22, 2010, stating that the six employees, whom he called “the Ashland
Six,” were ordered to remove their shoes, jackets and to dump everything out (assumedly from
their purses) at a nurses’ station in front of residents, visitors and other staff. He also alleged
that only African American employees were targeted; that a white LPN was not searched.
Khalfani’s letter also stated that on snowy days these employees were told they could not leave
the facility and were told to get some blankets and to sleep on the floor.
Attorney Sharon Goodwyn from the Hunton and Williams law firm called Khalfani on
behalf of the Employer on three occasions asking to speak with him about his April 22, 2010
letter. Khalfani did not return her telephone calls.
Khalfani accuses the Employer of racial discrimination and treating its employees like slaves
In early May, Khalfani held a press conference. At this press conference some or all of
the six employees, referred to as “the Ashland Six,” alleged that they were targeted because of
their skin color, publicly and illegally strip-searched, ridiculed and later harassed. Some or all
also claimed that on snow days they were told that they could not leave the facility, were told to
get some blankets and sleep on the floor, and had to eat out of snack machines because meals

5 There is not any first-hand evidence in this record as to what transpired in February 2010.
Rather, I take at face value the testimony of Debra Mason, the vice-president of Consulate
Management Company, who investigated the incident in late March 2010.
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
were not provided. Khalfani stated at the press conference that, “human beings should not be
treated like chattel enslaved captives. What we have here is a cesspool of inhumanity that
needs to be told and fixed.”
On May 10, Khalfani sent an email to three of the employer’s employees stating, “my
folks from the Labor Union Local 400 asked if you could meet sometime on Sunday? Antoinette
can you get a consensus from the other ladies?”6
The Richmond Voice of May 12-18, 2010, Employer exhibit 4, reported the
aforementioned allegations of the nurses at the press conference and Khalfani’s statements. At
least six copies of this edition of the paper were circulating at the employer’s facility.
Khalfani repeated his assertion that Ashland’s employees (or at least the African-
American employees) had been treated like chattel and slaves on several television and radio
shows broadcast in the Richmond area, apparently in the May-June timeframe.
In June 2010, a publication of radio station WCLM, Heart and Soul of the City, carried a
column in which statements attributed to Khalfani asserted that six African-American employees
of Ashland had been strip-searched, that the Ashland Six were not allowed to leave the nursing
home on winter snow days and were told to grab blankets and sleep on the floor. The column
ended by stating that, “human beings should not be treated like chattel enslaved captives.”
Kenneth Pinkard, who is a vice-president of Local 400 and is also on the executive
board of the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP met with Khalfani and some or all of the
so-called “Ashland Six.” One of them, Antoinette Patron, appears to have been the principal
distributor of union authorization cards. She also appears to have assisted the Union in
gathering other information for its organizing campaign. In June the six employees retained an
attorney and, so far as this record shows, Khalfani had no further involvement with respect to
their grievances or to Local 400’s efforts to organize the employer.
Conduct During the Critical Period: September 21 to November 3, 2010.
Ken Pickard a vice-president of Local 400, is also one of 32 members of the Virginia
NAACP’s State Conference’s executive board and chairperson of its Labor and Industry
committee. On October 27, 2010, at his request, Elizabeth Waddy, the President of the
Hanover County Chapter of the NAACP, who is also on the executive board of the State
Conference, wrote a 2-line letter to Ashland unit employees encouraging them to vote in favor of
the Petitioner. This letter did not give any reason for the endorsement. The Union sent the
October 27 letter to every person on the Excelsior list.
The Employer alleges this is objectionable because the NAACP did not reveal the fact
that Ken Pickard is an official of Local 400. It also alleges that by sending this letter, the Union
was reminding the employees of the racial hostilities at the core of the Union’s organizing
campaign.
Board law establishes that the October 27, 2010 letter does not come anywhere near
providing a basis for sustaining the employer’s objections. A racial remark involving the
employer-employee relationship must be so inflammatory as to make a fair election impossible

6 The Antoinette addressed in the email is Antoinette Patron, one of the six employees who
had to empty her purse in February.
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
in order to find it objectionable, Coca-Cola Bottling Co, 273 NLRB 444, 445 (1984). A two-line
letter telling employees to vote in favor of the Union does not come close to meeting this
standard, see Shepherd Tissue, Inc., 326 NLRB 369, 374 (1998).7
There is no evidence to support the Employer’s assertion that the Union’s organizing
campaign was largely predicted on inflaming racial hostility. In fact, there is little evidence in
this record regarding what the Union said or published during the campaign. The Employer’s
argument is that everything said by Mr. Khalfani is attributable to the Union and that it poisoned
the atmosphere so much that a fair election was impossible. I reject this argument.
First of all, Khalfani’s statements were made months in advance of the critical period.
The Employer had ample opportunity to acquaint employees with the truth, or at least its version
of what had transpired with regard to the so-called Ashland Six and the treatment of employees
during the 2009-10 snow storms. The Employer not only had the opportunity to set the record
straight, it availed itself of this opportunity by holding 6 meetings for each shift (18 total) during
the critical period. Thus, employees had ample opportunity to decide what they believed and to
vote on the basis on the information they received.
The only other alleged objectionable conduct possibly occurring within the critical period
on this record is that unnamed persons were spreading rumors to the effect that employees
should vote in favor of the petitioner to prevent employees from being strip searched, being
compelled to stay at the facility in bad weather and work in slave-like conditions.8 Such
statements by unidentified individuals are not a valid basis for sustaining the Employer’s
objection, Brightview Care Center, 292 NLRB 352 (1989).
The testimony supporting the employer’s assertions in the regard was given by three
individuals, Phyllis Wilson, a CNA (bargaining unit member) who works on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m. shift, and who was the Employer’s election observer, Gregory Ashley, the Executive
Director of Ashland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, and Donna Howard, the Employer’s
Director of Dietary Services.9
Wilson testified as follows at Tr. 109-110:
Q. In the period leading up to the election, tell us whether you've heard other
CNAs discussing the article in Exhibit 4 from time to time.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell the Judge some of the things that you've heard people discussing about
the article?

7 For purposes of this decision I find that Elizabeth Waddy was an agent of Local 400 in
writing the letter at Mr. Pinkard’s request.
On the afternoon of November 2, the employer posted a notice, Union Exhibit 1, by the
employee time clock, in each of the nursing units and in the employee breakroom identifying
Kenneth Pickard as a vice president of Local 400 and labor chairperson of the Hanover branch
of the NAACP. Employees who may have voted but who may not have worked on November 2,
and/or November 3, may not have had the opportunity to see this notice.
8 The Union repeated some of these allegations, such as the strip-searching, in internet
postings after the election, Employer exhibit 13 and 14. What transpired after the election has
no bearing on whether the employer’s objections should be sustained or overruled, Mountaineer
Bolt, 300 NLRB 667 (1990).
9 Howard does not supervise bargaining unit employees.
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
A. They were saying that it's a shame that people are actually saying that we're
being treated like slaves. A lot of them was very negative about the situation, but
then there were some that was positive about it, and they was like, well, we need to
make a difference because we shouldn't be treated like slaves.
Q. Will you tell the Judge whether you ever heard complaints from employees --
during the --
COURT REPORTER: Could you repeat that? I'm sorry.
MR. NAUGHTON: Sure.
Q. BY MR. NAUGHTON: Tell the Judge if you heard any comments from CNAs
during the time leading up to the election about employees supposedly being strip-
searched by management.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tell the Judge what you heard.
A. I heard that somebody had lost $200, and that some nurses all got together
and stated that they had to be strip-searched to so where the $200 went, and they
strip-searched all the black CNAs, but there was one lady that they didn't strip
search who was white.
Q. When employees talked about the Richmond Voice article, Exhibit 4, and
talked about things like slavery conditions and strip searching, what did some of
them say they needed to do because of the existence of those conditions?
A. Well, they said they were going to call the NAACP because it was -- it was
the sisters that were being mistreated, and they said they were going to get the
Union in so it would be fair for everybody.
It is important to note that Wilson did not testify to the identity of any of the persons
from whom she heard these statements and thus they cannot be attributed to the Union.
Moreover, it is unclear what Wilson meant in terms of “the time leading up to the election.”
Thus her testimony above could relate to comments she heard well before the beginning
of the critical period on September 21. Indeed, her testimony that she heard employees
talk about calling the NAACP suggests that Wilson was testifying in part about comments
she heard before the Richmond Voice article was published. Anyone who read the
Richmond Voice article would have been aware that the “Ashland Six” had already called
the NAACP.
At Tr. 112-13, Wilson answered similar questions pertaining to “the weeks leading
up to the election.” Even assuming, that she meant that she heard these comments during
the critical period she did not identify any of the persons from whom she heard such
rumors.10
Donna Howard’s testimony about the rumors she heard is similarly unspecific as to
the identity of the speakers and, with one exception, the time period in which they were
made, Tr. 197-199, 201-02.11Howard testified that:

10 Wilson also testified that she visited the Facebook site of Marcia Walker, one of the
employees who passed out authorization cards for the Union. On Facebook, Walker apparently
alleged that the Employer was “firing all the sisters.” Even assuming that there was no truth to
this statement, or that African-American employees had been discharged, but not
discriminatorily, the Employer has made no showing that Walker was an agent of the Union,
Cornell Forge Co., 339 NLRB 733 (2003).
11 The employer’s counsel phrased his questions to Donna Howard both in terms of “the
period between the time the Union filed for an election and the election itself,” and “the period
Continued
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
I did hear them talking about the slave-like conditions during the period of the
election. Within that two-week [time] frame of the election, they still were.
Because the thing was, was that I believe different CNA’s were trying to convince
each other one way or the other, and the one thing that kept coming up was the
slave-like conditions and the Ashland 6.
Tr. 202.
Ashley testified that after he became executive director on October 4, he conducted
18 meetings with employees (6 per shift) in order to encourage them not to vote for union
representation. At transcript page 124, Ashley testified that he heard the following
complaints from employees:
A. Well, they explained to me that prior to me coming there, that employees
were subject to strip searches and other outrageous treatment during weather
periods.
Q. What were some of the allegations about outrageous treatment during bad
weather that you heard?
A. They were forced to lay on the floor, that they weren't offered any beds, and
they were told they couldn't leave the building, couldn't go home, things of that
nature. Now, there was some disagreement. Not everybody agreed with that. But
there was a contingency of employees that would state those kinds of things.
Q. What, if anything, did you hear about eating arrangements during storm
periods?
A. There were some employees that indicated that the facility didn't provide
them any meals during the storm periods.
Q. What did they say they were forced to do in those circumstances?
A. Eat out of the vending machines.12
Ashley, like Wilson, did not identify the employees making these comments. Thus,
they cannot be attributed to the Union. These allegations never appeared in union
campaign literature. Moreover, through Ashley, the Employer had ample opportunity to
make an effective reply to the statements regarding strip-searching and other alleged
forms of alleged racial discrimination. These were not allegations that were made
suddenly on election eve, nor is it clear as to how recurrent or persistent were comments
about strip-searching and slave-like treatment. This is another factor in my finding that the
employer’s objections should be overruled, Catherine’s Inc., 316 NLRB 186 (1995); Coca-
Cola Bottling Co., 273 NLRB 444 at 448 (1984).13
Moreover, it is not clear that the allegations regarding mistreatment during the
_________________________
(or weeks) leading up to the election.” It is not clear to me that Howard was testifying about
comments she heard after the Union filed its representation petition or whether she even knows
when the petition was filed.
12 Thus the statement in the Employer’s brief at page 6 that, “during the campaign, no
employee ever complained that she/he had been strip searched, forced to sleep on the floor or
eat out of vending machines…” is inaccurate with regard to having to sleep on the floor or eat
out of vending machines.
13 In order to convince its employees that Khalfani’s May allegations were untrue, the
Employer could have pointed out to employees that Khalfani’s April 22, 2010 letter to Nelson did
not allege that employees were strip-searched.
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
winter storms were exclusively or even predominantly made as examples of racial
prejudice. Charles Nelson did not testify that the complaints he heard on this subject at
the meetings he conducted were limited to African-American employees, Tr. 124, 127.14
Election Day, November 3, 2010
The Employer appears to have abandoned its contention regarding objectionable
conduct during the election in its post-trial brief. However, assuming it has not done so, I find
that there is no merit to it. On November 3, 2010, voting was conducted in the training room at
Respondent’s facility from 6:30-8:30 a.m. and from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. During the morning voting,
the Board Agent challenged the ballot of Kevin Coleman, an African-American maintenance
employee. At a debriefing shortly after 8:30 a.m., the Board Agent admitted she had made a
mistake in challenging Coleman’s ballot, which appeared at the end of the Excelsior list. She
suggested that his ballot be inserted into the ballot box.
James Hepner, the Union’s director of organizing, initially did not agree. Efforts were
made to contact Coleman and have him recast his ballot. After this effort failed, Hepner agreed
to the Board Agent’s proposal and Coleman’s ballot was opened and placed in the ballot box.
There is no evidence in this record to support the employer’s initial objection, i.e., that the Union
created and spread false rumors among employees that the Employer, with the assistance of
the Board Agent, was trying to prevent African-American employees from having their vote

14 It is also not clear from this record that all the allegations regarding what transpired on
snow days were false. Wilson was not present during the second and third shifts and Ashley
did not work at Ashland yet. From Donna Howard’s testimony, one can only conclude that she
was unaware that any of the allegations of mistreatment during snowstorms were true; not that
they were completely false.
The testimony of Charles Nelson, who was Ashland’s Executive Director during the storms
in question, is that available beds in the facility were made available to staff. He did not testify
that there was an available bed for every staff member who stayed at the facility. His testimony
that staff could bring in sleeping bags or use any available mattress leaves open the possibility
that some staff members did end up sleeping on the floor, Tr. 212. It is also possible that some
employees did in fact encounter working conditions that they subjectively considered, “slave-
like.”
In any event, the Board held in Midland Life Insurance Co., 263 NLRB 127 (1982) that it
would not set aside election results on the basis of misleading campaign statements and would
not probe into the truth or falsity of such statements.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has applied a somewhat different
test than the Board in deciding this kind of controversy. The factors it considers are 1) the
timing of the misrepresentation—in this case months before the critical period; 2) whether the
employer was aware of the misrepresentation and had an opportunity to respond; 3) the extent
of the misrepresentation; 4) whether the source of the misrepresentation was identified; and 5)
whether there is evidence that employees “actually were affected” by the misrepresentation.
The court also considers the closeness of the election, see the discussion of Sixth Circuit law in
Gormac Custom Mfg., 335 NLRB 1192 (2001).
If I were to apply this test I would still overrule the employer’s objections. While the election
was close and misrepresentations about strip-searching may have been considerable, the
employer had months to respond to them, including during its multiple meetings with employees
during the critical period. There is absolutely no evidence that employees who voted for union
representation would not have done so but for the allegations regarding strip-searching and
slave-like treatment.
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
remain secret.
The cases relied upon by the Employer are easily distinguishable
I find that the cases relied upon by the Employer are either distinguishable from the
instant case or wholly irrelevant, or both. I conclude there is no precedent which supports the
Employer’s position in this case. With regard to the some of the cases cited by the Employer, I
note the following:
In Zartic, Inc., 315 NLRB 495 (1994), the Board sustained the objections of the Employer
to an election in which the Union had prevailed. The case is easily distinguishable from the
instant case in that the Union distributed leaflets within the critical period, only a week or ten
days before the election, in which it falsely connected the Employer with the Ku Klux Klan in an
already highly-charged atmosphere of ethnic tension. It is clear from the portion of the Board’s
decision at page 497-98 that the Union’s repeated use of an inflammatory audiotape (in which a
management official had recounted unflattering comments about Hispanics) was not in of itself
enough to overturn the election results. The Board relied on the leaflets which were
“inflammatory, gratuitous, and irrelevant to any bona fide campaign issue.”
Columbia Tanning Corporation, 238 NLRB 899 (1978) concerned a letter sent to 26
Greek employees the day before the election, in Greek, which suggested directly or indirectly
that the NLRB endorsed the Union. This case has no relevance to the endorsement of the
Petitioner in this case by the Hanover County branch of the NAACP.
In Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 291 NLRB 578 (1988), the Board did in fact overturn the
election results on the basis on the activities of pro-union employees. However, the Board did
not do so on the grounds that these employees were agents of the Union. Indeed, the Board
found that the employees were not acting as agents of the Union. Rather, the Board found that
these employees’ activities, electioneering while the election was in progress in a no-
electioneering area, destroyed the laboratory conditions of the election. Pepsi-Cola has no
relevance to the instant matter.
M & M Supermarkets v. NLRB, 818 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1987) involved anti-Semitic
remarks made by an identifiable, outspoken advocate of the union well within the critical period.
These remarks were far more inflammatory than those made by Khalfani. They were an attack
on Jews generally, worthy of Joseph Goebbels, and were not limited to alleged conduct by the
employer related to the workplace.
The Board has declined to hold a union responsible for isolated remarks made by
unidentified employees, apparently in the course of casual conversations among employees,
particularly when these remarks have been made before and after the beginning of the union
organizing campaign, and were possibly made by supporters and opponents of the union,
Brightview Care Center, 292 NLRB 352 (1989).
Conclusion
I recommend that the Employer’s Objections to the Petitioner’s Alleged Conduct
affecting the outcome of the election be overruled and the results of the election be certified.
JD–01-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
RECOMMENDED CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
It is certified that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for United Food and
Commercial Worker International Union, Local 400, and that it is the exclusive representative of
the bargaining unit employees. 15
Dated at Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of January 2011.
_______________________
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge

15 If no exceptions are filed within 14 days of this order (no later than January 17, 2011) as
provided by Sec. 102.69 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and
recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.69 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board
and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.