RH CEMETERY CORP.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Nov 20, 2018

21-RC-206360 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RH CEMETERY CORP.
Employer
and Case 21-RC-206360
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 265, CEMETERY WORKERS
& GREENS ATTENDANTS
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s request for review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objections
and Certification of Representative is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 20, 2018

1 The arguments in the Employer’s Request for Review largely rely on security videos that were
submitted to the Regional Director. The Employer, however, did not append those videos to its Request
for Review as required by Sec. 102.67(e) and Sec. 102.69(d)(3). Moreover, even if we were to accept the
Employer’s characterization of what those videos depict, the allegations in the Request for Review do not
warrant overturning the election under Milchem, Inc., 170 NLRB 362, 362-363 (1968). Among other
failings, the Request for Review falls well short of establishing the necessary prima facie case (1) that the
Union supporters who allegedly engaged in objectionable electioneering and surveillance were agents or
representatives of the Union, (2) that the Union supporters had sustained discussions with voters, and (3)
that the Union supporters’ conversations occurred while employees were waiting to vote. See, e.g., id.
Similarly, the Employer’s Request for Review fails to assert facts supporting a finding that nonparties
engaged in conduct that would “so substantially impair[] the employees’ exercise of free choice as to
require that the election be set aside.” Hollingsworth Management Service, 342 NLRB 556, 558 (2004)
(internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Rheem Mfg. Co., 309 NLRB 459, 462-463 (1992)
(refusing to set aside election where pro-union employee wearing union shirt and hat stood outside of
polling room, spoke with employees passing by to vote, and shouted and encouraged them to “vote yes”).
Nor does the Employer’s Request for Review assert facts supporting a finding that the Board agent
engaged in conduct that “raises a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election.”
Physicians & Surgeons Ambulance Service, Inc., 356 NLRB 199, 199 (2010) (quoting Polymers, Inc.,
174 NLRB 282, 282 (1969), enfd. 414 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1010 (1970)).
Member Kaplan notes that many of the issues in this case could have been avoided by the
designation and enforcement of a no-electioneering zone.