Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 2016

364 NLRB No. 120 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

364 NLRB No. 120
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC and
Teamsters Local Union No. 731, Petitioner and
National Production Workers Union Local 707,
Intervenor. Case 13–RC–176276
September 9, 2016
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND MCFERRAN
The Intervenor’s request for review of the Acting Re-
gional Director’s Report on Objections and Certification
of Representative is denied as it raises no substantial
issues warranting review.1
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 9, 2016
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
. . . .
REPORT ON OBJECTIONS AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board’s Rules, the under-
signed has considered the objections filed by the Intervenor
regarding the election held on June 6, 2016, in the above-
captioned matter.
For the reasons set forth below, I have determined that
Intervenor has not complied with the requirements of Section
102.69(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations with respect to
the filing of its objections. Therefore, pursuant to Section

1 This case involves the Board’s final rule on representation case
procedures, with which Member Miscimarra disagrees for the reasons
expressed in his and former Member Johnson’s dissenting views to the
final rule. 79 Fed. Reg. 74308, at 74430–74460 (Dec. 15, 2014) (dis-
senting views of Members Miscimarra and Johnson). In the instant
case, Member Miscimarra agrees with the denial of the Intervenor’s
Request for Review.
102.69(c)(1)(i) of the Board’s Rules, I have decided to overrule
the Petitioner’s Objections and to certify the results of the elec-
tion.
THE ELECTION AND TALLY OF BALLOTS
Based on a petition filed on May 16, 2016, by Teamsters Lo-
cal Union No. 731 (Petitioner), and pursuant to a stipulated
election agreement executed by Petitioner, Aramark Uniform &
Career Apparel, LLC (Employer), and National Production
Workers Union Local 707 (Intervenor), and approved by the
undersigned on May 23, 2016, an election was conducted on
June 6, 2016 in the following unit:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time production em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its facility currently lo-
cated at 7650 South Grant Street, Burr Ridge, Illinois.
Excluded: All quality assurance employees, all employees
covered by other collective-bargaining agreements, including
maintenance employees, drivers, merchandise control clerks,
driver-dock employees, office clerical employees and guards,
professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The tally of ballots1 showed that of the approximately 94 eli-
gible voters, 38 cast ballots for Petitioner, 29 cast ballots for
Intervenor, and zero cast ballots against representation. There
were no void ballots and no challenged ballots. A majority of
valid votes counted were cast for Petitioner.
The Objections
On June 13, 2016, the Intervenor timely filed objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election, a copy of which is
attached as Appendix A. The Intervenor did not file an offer of
proof or certificate of service that the objections were served on
the other parties.2 The Union’s objections state:
1. The Employer failed to block the supervisory staff from
viewing employees as they went into the polling place, as
they had done in previous elections, wherein paper was ap-
plied to the windows directly adjacent to the polling place en-
trance in order to insure privacy - this intimidation caused un-
ion supporters not to vote.
2. Teamster truck drivers were allowed to campaign on the
premises of the employer thereby giving employees the im-
pression of overwhelming Teamster support.
3. These and other activities had the effect of discouraging
many employees from voting as evidenced by the low turn-
out—27 employees never even attempted to vote.
Intervenor asserts that the above-alleged objectionable con-
duct interfered with the June 6, 2016 election, that the election
should be set aside, and that a rerun election should be con-
ducted.

1 A corrected tally of ballots issued on June 9, 2016, which correct-
ed the date of issuance from May 26, 2016 (before the election) to June
6, 2016 (the day of the election and the ballot count). There were no
other corrections.
2 The Intervenor filed its offer of proof in support of the objections
on June 20, 2016. No request for extension was requested, nor was any
good cause for such delay offered.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Discussion
Within 7 days after the tally of ballots has been prepared,
any party may file objections to the conduct of the election or
to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Intervenor
timely filed its objections in the instant matter on June 13,
2016, 7 days after the election on June 6, 2016 and the issuance
of the tally of ballots.
On December 15, 2014, the Board adopted a final rule3 to
modify in certain respects the procedures applicable to the pro-
cessing of representation cases. These changes went into effect
on April 14, 2015, and have applied to all representation cases
filed on or after that date. The final rule includes, among other
things, changes to both Board procedure and the issuance of
decisions involving postelection matters. Specifically with re-
spect to postelection matters, under the final rule, Section
102.69(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that
when filing objections to an election, a party must also include
(1) a short statement of the reasons for the objections, and (2)
an offer of proof in support of the objections which identifies
its witnesses and summarizes their testimony. A party filing
objections must also serve a copy of the objections, but not the
offer of proof, on all other parties and include a certificate of
service when filing the objections. Upon a showing of good
cause, the Regional Director may extend the time for filing the
offer of proof.
The Intervenor did not file an offer of proof with its objec-
tions, and did not submit any request for an extension of time to
file its offer of proof with good cause shown why such an ex-
tension was needed. Moreover, the Intervenor did not serve a

3 79 Fed. Reg. 74308.
copy of the objections on Employer or Petitioner and did not
include a certificate of service with its objections, certifying
that it served a copy of its objections on Petitioner and Employ-
er. Based on (1) the Intervenor’s failure to include the requisite
offer of proof with its objections, and (2) the Intervenor’s fail-
ure to serve a copy of the objections on all parties and include a
certificate of service with its objections, I overrule Intervenor’s
objections in their entirety.
Conclusion
In summary, I conclude that the Intervenor has not complied
with the requirements of Section 102.69(a) with respect to the
filing of its objections and, thus, further consideration of the
objections is unwarranted. Therefore, pursuant to Section
102.69(c)(1)(i) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, I overrule
Intervenor’s objections in their entirety and issue the following
Certification of Representative.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a majority of valid ballots have
been cast for Teamsters Local Union No. 731, and that it is the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time production em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its facility currently lo-
cated at 7650 South Grant Street, Burr Ridge, Illinois.
Excluded: All quality assurance employees, all employees
covered by other collective-bargaining agreements, including
maintenance employees, drivers, merchandise control clerks,
driver-dock employees, office clerical employees and guards,
professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.