STG INTERNATIONAL

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 2015

21-RC-097525 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 22, 2015)

1
NOT INCLUDED HJMc
IN BOUND VOLUMES El Centro, CA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STG INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Employer
and Case 21-RC-097525

TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 542, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
Petitioner

DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, has considered
objections to a mail ballot election, in which the ballots were mailed to voters on April
25, 2013 and counted on May 13, 2013, and the Acting Regional Director’s report
recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a Decision
and Direction of Election. The tally of ballots shows 9 for and 3 against the Petitioner,
with 1 void ballot and 3 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the Employer’s exceptions and brief,
has adopted the Acting Regional Director’s findings and recommendations, and finds that
a certification of representative should be issued.1

1 At the time of the Decision and Direction of Election, the composition of the Board
included two persons whose appointments to the Board had been challenged as
constitutionally infirm. On June 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its
decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), holding that the challenged
appointments to the Board were not valid. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court
2
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE

in NLRB v. Noel Canning, supra, we have considered de novo the Employer's arguments
in support of its Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election, and we find them without merit. Accordingly, we deny the Request for Review
in the prior proceeding as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.
In denying review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election, we
reject the Employer’s argument (also preserved in its Objections and exceptions to the
Report on Objections) that the petition should be dismissed because the Regional
Director had no authority to process representation petitions if the Board lacked a
quorum. The authority of a Regional Director to act in representation case proceedings is
derived from a 1961 delegation from the Board, and that delegation has never been
revoked. Thus, the Regional Director was fully empowered to process the representation
petition and conduct the election in this matter without regard to the presence or absence
of a Board quorum. See Fused Solutions, LLC, 362 NLRB No. 95, slip op. at 2 (2015),
citing Mission Produce, 362 NLRB No. 15, slip op. at 1 (2015) and Durham School
Services, LP, 361 NLRB No. 66 (2014).
We further find the Employer’s contention that the appointment of Olivia Garcia as
Regional Director for Region 21 is invalid because it was made on January 6, 2012, when
the Board lacked a quorum, to be without merit. Although Regional Director Garcia’s
appointment was announced on January 6, 2012, the Board approved the appointment on
December 22, 2011, at which time it had a valid quorum. See Mathew Enterprise, Inc. v.
NLRB, 771 F.3d 812, 813 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he President's recess appointment of
Member Becker . . . was constitutionally valid.”); Gestamp South Carolina, LLC v.
NLRB, 769 F.3d 254, 257-258 (4th Cir. 2014) (same).
We next consider the question whether the Board can rely on the results of the election.
For the reasons stated in Panera Bread, 361 NLRB No. 142, slip op. at 1-2 (2014), we
find that the election was properly held and the tally of ballots is a reliable expression of
the employees' free choice.
Finally, we find that the Acting Regional Director properly dismissed the objections,
including the objections based on a challenge to the Regional Director’s representation
that permission was sought but not forthcoming from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to allow the Region to hold the election anywhere on ICE’s premises,
including the parking lot. In the circumstances of this case, we have no reason to doubt
the Regional Director’s representation. We also note that ICE’s position was
corroborated by an independent source. See email from counsel for the prime contractor
InGenesis, dated Wednesday, April 03, 2013 8:29 AM, reprinted at Attachment A to
Employer's Exceptions To Regional Director's Report On Objections (“….unfortunately
the government will not give permission to hold the election on the premises. I believe the
Board will have to make arrangements to have the election off-site.”) (emphasis added).
3
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for the
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 542, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, and that it is the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time professional and nonprofessional employees,
including registered nurses, physicians, dentists, psychologists, administrative
assistants, dental assistants, licensed practical nurses, medical records technicians
and pharmacy technicians, employed by the Employer and working at the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency’s El Centro Services Processing
Center, located at 1115 North Imperial Avenue, El Centro, California; excluding
all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 22, 2015.

_________________________________
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
_________________________________
Harry I. Johnson, III, Member
_________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member

[SEAL] NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD