Exela Enterprise Solutions, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 5, 2021

22-RC-237040 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 5, 2021)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
EXELA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Employer
and Case 22-RC-237040
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY,
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED & INDUSTRIAL SERVICE WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and
Certification of Representative is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
1 In denying review with respect to Objection 2, we agree with the Employer that the Hearing
Officer mischaracterized the scope of its electioneering objection by misquoting it such that it
was narrowed to the standard set forth in Milchem, Inc., 170 NLRB 362 (1968), and that the
Regional Director did not explicitly correct that error. Because Objection 2 is not limited to
allege conduct violative of the Milchem standard, we do not rely on the Employer’s citation to, or
the Regional Director’s distinguishing of, American Safety Equipment Corp., 234 NLRB 501
(1978) (Regional Director obligated to assess objectionable conduct uncovered during
administrative investigation), enf. denied on other grounds 643 F.2d 693 (10th Cir. 1981).
Nevertheless, we agree with the Hearing Officer and Regional Director that the Union agents’
conduct does not meet the Milchem standard for objectionable electioneering, and we agree with
the Regional Director that the conduct is not objectionable under Electric Hose & Rubber Co.,
262 NLRB 186 (1982). Further, the alleged conduct would not constitute objectionable
electioneering under Boston Insulated Wire & Cable Co., 259 NLRB 1118 (1982), enfd. 703
F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1983). Even assuming the Union agents disregarded a Board agent instruction
to move “far, far away”—which is not necessarily the case here—they did not engage in any
electioneering, were 80 feet away from the entrance to a polling site and were not in any
designated no-electioneering area, and there is no evidence that, at the time, there were any
complaints regarding their brief presence in the parking lot. See, e.g., C & G Heating and Air
Conditioning, 356 NLRB 1054, 1055 (2011) (union representative’s mere presence 77 feet from
entrance to polling site not objectionable).
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 5, 2021.