Douglas Emmett Management, LLCDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board DecisionsJun 25, 202131-RM-264449 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 25, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DOUGLAS EMMETT MANAGEMENT, LLC Employer-Petitioner and Case 31-RM-264449 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 501 Union ORDER The Union’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Disposing of Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Revised Tally of Ballots and Certification of Results is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1 MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER CHAIRMAN McFERRAN, dissenting. I would grant review based on the substantial issues raised by the Union in its Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Disposing of Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Revised Tally of Ballots and Certification of Results. 1 In denying review, we agree with the Regional Director that the Union’s objections should be overruled, as the Union’s offer of proof does not allege any objectionable conduct occurring during the critical period. See Ideal Electric Mfg. Co., 134 NLRB 1275, 1278 (1961). And, with respect to the Regional Director’s overruling of the Union’s challenges, we observe that the Union has failed to proffer any evidence that the relevant employees “were [transferred] for the sole purpose of voting in the election and therefore should be excluded from the unit as temporary employees,” especially as the transfers occurred several months before any of the RM petitions were filed and it appears the transferees have remained in their unit as permanent employees ever since. See Supermarkets of Dunbar, 178 NLRB 206, 206 (1969). However, we do not rely on the Acting General Counsel’s dismissal of the unfair labor practice charge in Case 31-CA-285352 in overruling the majority of the Union’s objections and challenges. The dismissal resolved only the specific allegation that the Employer-Petitioner violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to bargain over the transfers of several employees into the relevant unit. It did not resolve whether the transfers were objectionable in other respects, as some of the Union’s objections allege, or whether the transfers rendered the transferees ineligible to vote. LAUREN McFERRAN, CHAIRMAN Dated, Washington, D.C., June 25, 2021. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation