Curaleaf Massachusetts, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board DecisionsJul 6, 2021

01-RC-259277 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 6, 2021)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CURALEAF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. Employer and Case 01-RC-259277 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 328 Petitioner ORDER The Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Supplemental Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1 LAUREN McFERRAN, CHAIRMAN MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER JOHN F. RING MEMBER Dated, Washington, D.C., July 6, 2021 1 In denying review, we do not rely on the Acting Regional Director’s speculation with respect to the eligibility of the voters who submitted the four ballots that were never received at the Region 3 Office. Since the ballots were never received, the issue of voter eligibility is irrelevant. Nor do we rely on the Acting Regional Director’s discussion of Lemco Construction, Inc., 283 NLRB 459 (1987), as the Employer’s objections do not allege that low voter turnout warrants a new election. Nevertheless, we agree, for the other reasons stated by the Acting Regional Director, that the Employer’s objections should be overruled. Finally, the Employer asserts that its objections should have been handled by another Region, suggesting that it has raised allegations of Board agent misconduct and citing to Section 11424.2 of the NLRB’s Casehandling Manual, which states that “[i]f the subject matter of the objections involves regional or Board agent misconduct that would require that a Hearing Officer outside the regional office be assigned to hear the matter, the case should be transferred to another region for adjudication before the originating Regional Director directs the hearing.” However, the Employer’s objections—that the mechanics of the mail ballot election disenfranchised eligible voters—are not the sort of allegations of individual misconduct that would require the Board to appoint a Hearing Officer from another Region; in fact, this case did not involve a hearing at all. Accordingly, Section 11424.2 is inapplicable.