JVK Operations, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Dec 15, 2017

29-RD-192880 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 15, 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
JVK OPERATIONS, LTD.
Employer
and Case 29-RD-192880
ANA FUNES
Petitioner
and
LAUNDRY DISTRIBUTION AND FOOD
SERVICE JOINT BOARD, WORKERS UNITED,
AFFILIATED WITH SERVICE EMPLOYERS
INTERNATION UNION
Union
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Report on
Objections and Certification of Representative is denied as it raises no substantial
issues warranting review.1

1 Chairman Miscimarra joins his colleagues in denying review and affirming the
Certification of Representative. Here, the Employer filed an objection to the election on
the grounds that it had hired additional employees after the eligibility date set forth in the
Stipulated Election Agreement, and that these new employees were not permitted to
vote. The election, however, had been deferred for approximately two months under
the Board’s “blocking charge” doctrine and the Regional Director had rescheduled the
election without changing the eligibility date. In Chairman Miscimarra’s view, where the
Board’s blocking charge doctrine results in a change to the election date in the
Stipulated Election Agreement, the Board cannot reasonably enforce other material
terms of the Agreement—here the eligibility date—against either party. Tekweld
Solutions, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 18, slip op at 3-4 (2014) (Member Miscimarra, dissenting
in part), affd. 639 Fed. Appx. 16 (2d Cir. 2016). However, the Union won the
decertification election by 40 votes, the Employer had only hired 35 new employees in
the period between the eligibility date and the election, and only 27 ballots were
challenged, making the challenged ballots non-dispositive. As a result, the votes of the
new employees who attempted to vote could not have been determinative, unlike those
at issue in Tekweld, and Chairman Miscimarra would therefore find no need to set aside
the election results and direct a new election. Accordingly, Chairman Miscimarra joins
his colleagues in denying review.
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, CHAIRMAN
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 15, 2017.

Member Kaplan joins his colleagues in denying review. In his view, due to
election delays subsequent to the filing of blocking charges, newly hired employees may
be disenfranchised by the use of the stipulated eligibility date. However, as Chairman
Miscimarra notes, in this case, the votes of the newly hired employees could not have
been determinative. In an appropriate case, Member Kaplan would explore whether it
may be necessary, under certain circumstances, for a Regional Director to modify a
stipulated eligibility date sua sponte in order to prevent the disenfranchisement of newly
hired employees.