Foster Farms, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 2, 2008

32-RC-005539 (N.L.R.B. May. 2, 2008)

JD(SF)–22–08
Porterville, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OF JUDGES
FOSTER FARMS, INC.,
Employer
and Case 32-RC-5539
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS 8 GOLDEN STATE,
Petitioner
Steven R. Feldstein, Esq., Menlo Park,
California, for the Employer
Donald C. Carroll, Esq., San Francisco,
California, for the Petitioner
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On November 13, 2007,1 United Food and Commercial Workers 8 Golden State
(Petitioner) filed a Petition for Certification of Representative seeking to represent a unit of
production and maintenance employees at the Porterville, California facility of Foster Farms,
Inc. (Employer).
The Employer, a California corporation with its principal office located in Livingston,
California, is engaged in the processing of poultry at its Porterville, California facility. From
November 28, 2006 to November 28, 2007, the Employer shipped and sold poultry products
valued in excess of $50,000 to firms located outside the State of California. The Employer
admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Employer admits, and I find, that Petitioner is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement, approved on November 28, a secret ballot
election was conducted on December 13 in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production and sanitation employees, receiving
clerks, forklift drivers, stackers, and lead employees employed by the Employer
at its Porterville, California facility; excluding all managerial and administrative
employees, quality control employees, maintenance employees, shipping clerks,
salespersons, office clerical employees, all other employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Tally of Ballots reflected that of the approximately 331 eligible voters, 75 votes were
cast for the Petitioner, 204 were cast against Petitioner, and 25 ballots, an insufficient number to
affect the election results, were challenged. Following the election, Petitioner filed timely
objections to conduct affecting the election. Pursuant to the Acting Regional Director’s Report
on Objections and Notice of Hearing issued February 29, 2008, certain of these objections have

1 All dates are in 2007 unless otherwise referenced.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
been referred for hearing. The hearing was conducted on March 20 and 21, 2008, in Porterville,
California.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue the merits of their respective positions. On
the entire record,2 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,3 and after
considering the briefs filed by Petitioner and Employer, I make the following findings of
fact and recommendations.
Objection 5
The Employer through its then Plant Manager Paul Bravinder on or about
November 20 invited employees to come to him with any complaints that they
had with their working conditions.
Reading from scripted talking points, plant manager Paul Bravinder4 conducted
four to six meetings on November 20. After each bulleted item, Bravinder paused and
his prior statement was translated into Spanish by Tessie Molina, human resources
manager for the Porterville facility. Bravinder agreed that he read the following sentence:
“Porterville employees, like all non-Union employees, enjoy an open door policy to
resolve concerns.” Bravinder agreed that at each meeting held that day, he diverted from
the scripted message to add his personal experience that when he worked at a
unionized plant, it took much longer to resolve disputes than the non-union method of
employees sitting down with management and resolving problems at the time of the
occurrence. Bravinder denied that he invited employees to bring problems to him (other
than the sentence quoted above) or said anything about fixing employees’ problems.
Bravinder’s testimony was corroborated by Tessie Molina. Additionally, Molina
testified that she faithfully interpreted Bravinder’s words into Spanish using the scripted
talking points. An employee fluent in both Spanish and English testified that Molina’s
translation of Bravinder’s speech was accurate and that Molina did not add any
additional comments or deviate from Bravinder’s statements. This employee recalled
that Bravinder told employees it was more comfortable to have an open door policy than
a third party, a Union. Bravinder told employees that they should not be afraid to come to
management with their thoughts, feelings, or anything on their minds. Another employee
presented by the Employer recalled that Molina stated that the Employer had an open
door policy for employee problems and employees did not need a third party to mediate.
There is no dispute that the Employer maintained an open door policy at least
several years prior to the filing of the petition herein. It is contained in an employee

2 Petitioner’s unopposed motion to correct the transcript is granted.
3 Credibility resolutions have been made based upon a review of the entire record and all
exhibits in this proceeding. Witness demeanor and inherent probability of the testimony have
been utilized to assess credibility. Testimony contrary to my findings has been discredited on
some occasions because it was in conflict with credited testimony or documents or because it
was inherently incredible and unworthy of belief.
4 At the time of the speech, Bravinder was an admitted supervisor and agent of the
Employer within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) and 2(13) of the Act. He left employment with the
Employer shortly thereafter.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
handbook and human resources manager Molina routinely communicated the policy to
all new hires.
Although the exact language from the handbook was not submitted at the
hearing, anecdotal evidence about the use of the procedure was. For instance, on one
occasion Jose Rodriguez utilized the open door policy to complain about bad treatment.
He was aware of the open door policy throughout his 5-year employment with the
Employer. Rosalinda Nevarez utilized the open door policy throughout her employment.
At times she met with Irma Hernandez in human resources and at other times she met
with Bravinder. Nevarez recalled that about two years prior to the hearing, she met with
Bravinder about a foreman.
Petitioner presented witnesses who testified that Bravinder, through Molina,
stated that employees should come directly to him. A third party was not necessary for
resolving problems. One witness testified that Bravinder said, “if you guys have
problems, come to me, I can help you, myself or Tessie.” Another recalled that Bravinder
stated, “we could go directly to him to resolve [complaints]. That we don’t need a third
person to help us resolve our problems.” Another witness testified that Bravinder said,
“you guys can come with me with your problem and I’m going to try to resolve it but, I’m
going to be leaving soon.”
To the extent there is discrepancy between Petitioner’s and Employer’s
witnesses on this issue, I credit the testimony of Bravinder and Molina and find that
employees were reminded that they had an existing open door policy to resolve their
concerns. My credibility finding is based on the uncontroverted testimony of Bravinder
and Molina that there was no deviation from the scripted remarks, except that Bravinder
told employees that he thought the open door policy was more expeditious than dealing
with a union about employee concerns.
I find that these statements did not interfere with the conduct of the election. In
the absence of a pre-existing open door policy, solicitation of employee grievances
during an election campaign tends to restrain and coerce employees when the employer
promises to remedy those grievances. Uarco, Inc., 216 NLRB 1, 2 (1974). “The
solicitation of grievances alone is not unlawful, but it raises an inference that the
employer is promising to remedy the grievances.” Center Service System Division, 345
NLRB 729, 730 (2005), enfd. in relevant part, 482 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2007). However,
when an employer utilizes an open door policy prior to the beginning of a union
campaign, the employer may lawfully continue the policy during the campaign provided it
does not significantly alter “its past manner and methods of solicitation during the
campaign.” Center Service System Division, supra, 245 NLRB at 730, citing House of
Raeford Farms, 308 NLRB 568, 569 (1992), enfd. mem. 7 F.3d 223 (4th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied 511 U.S. 1030 (1994).5
There is no evidence that Bravinder’s remarks altered the contours of the open
door policy as it existed prior to the election campaign. That is, the record reflects that
employees were free both before and during the election campaign to consult Bravinder
in order to resolve their concerns. Thus, I recommend that Petitioner’s Objection 5 be
overruled.

5 See also, PYA/Monarch, Inc., 275 NLRB 1194, 1195-1196 (1985); Butler Shoes New York,
Inc., 263 NLRB 1031 (1982), relied upon by Employer.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Objection 6
On December 4 and December 11 . . . the Employer held general meetings with
the employees in which the Employer threatened employees with a reduction of
wages and a loss of health insurance and retirement benefits as well as with
elimination of bonuses if the Union was elected. The employer also threatened to
bargain from zero with the Union if the Union was elected.
The Employer held a series of meetings on December 4 and 11. About 20-40
employees, typically those in one department or line, attended each meeting.
Approximately seven meetings were held on both the 4th and 11th. The meetings were
conducted by Ritchie King, vice president of chicken operations.6 King spoke in English,
reading from prepared charts. The charts were positioned in the front of the room and
were in both English and Spanish. When King finished reading a page of the English
chart, his speech was repeated in Spanish by Becky Reyes, a human resources
supervisor, who read the corresponding Spanish chart. Neither King nor Reyes regularly
worked in the Porterville facility.
A portion of the presentation dealt with comparison of wages and benefits at two
Unionized facilities of Respondent to the wages and benefits at the Porterville non-Union
facility. The charts reflected that the Unionized facilities had lower wages, lower wage
increases, higher medical plan deductibles and less medical coverage, different
retirement benefits, and no bonuses.
Petitioner presented witnesses who attended the December 4 and 11 meetings.
Uniformly, they testified that the Employer threatened employees with a reduction of
wages, loss of health insurance, retirement benefits, and bonuses if the Union was
elected. As to bargaining from zero, witnesses testified that the Employer threatened to
bargain from zero: “Well, they said that if the Union came in, they were going to lower
wages. That we were going to start from the bottom, from minimum.” Another witness
testified that if the Union came in, “the wages were going to be diminished to the
minimum.”
Petitioner’s witnesses either denied or could not recall that the Employer’s
speeches explained that items such as wages, health insurance, retirement benefits,
and bonuses were subject to negotiation. However, one of the witnesses understood the
Employer’s speech to say, “Well, they only said that the Union could only give what the
company accepted to give. That if the company did not accept to give, the Union cannot
give.”
The Employer produced the original English and Spanish-language charts. The
December 4 charts stated that the Union could only receive what the Employer agreed
to. The December 11 charts stated as to wages, medical benefits and retirement
benefits, “It is negotiable . . . benefits may go down, not change, go up . . . but History
says NO.” Petitioner’s witnesses recognized some of the pages of these charts but
disputed the accuracy of other pages of the charts or data on those pages. On the other
hand, the Employer produced employee and management witnesses who attended the

6 King is an admitted supervisor and agent of the Employer within the meaning of Sec. 2(11)
and 2(13) of the Act.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
same meetings. The Employer’s witnesses agreed that the charts at the hearing were
identical to the charts at the meetings.
Additionally, the Employer’s witnesses testified that both King and Reyes stated,
“The UFCW Union can only receive what Foster Farms agrees to.” These witnesses did
not hear King or Reyes state that medical benefits would be taken away or that wages
would be reduced. Neither King nor Reyes said that employee pension or retirement
plans would be eliminated. Neither said the Employer would cease making contributions
to the 401(k) plan. Neither said employees would lose bonuses if the Union came in.
When employees asked questions about wages or benefits, the response was uniformly
that these items could go up, down, or stay the same. These were negotiable items and
the answer would depend on what happened at the bargaining table. Similarly, King and
Reyes testified that no threat of loss of benefits or reduction of wages was made and
that the often repeated phrase in response to questions was, “It could go up, down, or
stay the same. Everything is negotiable.”
Of course, threats of wage reduction and loss of benefits constitute objectionable
conduct affecting the results of an election. See, e.g., Interstate Truck Parts, 312 NLRB
661, 661, 663 (1993), enfd. mem 52 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 1995)(threat to reduce wages and
benefits reasonably tended to interfere with employees rights under the Act); Truss-Span
Co., 236 NLRB 50 (1978), enfd. in relevant part, 606 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1979) (threat to
eliminate pension and profit sharing plans interfered with conduct of election). Certainly,
statements about bargaining from zero should the Union win an election may constitute
objectionable conduct if conveyed as a threat that wages will depend “in large measure
upon what the Union can induce the employer to restore.” See, e.g., Federated Logistics
& Operations, 340 NLRB 255 (2003), enfd. 400 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
However, based on the record as a whole, I find that no such objectionable
conduct occurred. Although Petitioner’s witnesses displayed credible demeanors and
appeared to be honestly convinced that they had been threatened, I find that the
Employer’s witnesses’ testimony and demonstrative evidence belies the recollections of
Petitioner’s witnesses. Thus, Respondent’s documentary evidence, utilized at the
December 4 and 11 meetings, demonstrates that Porterville wages are higher than two
other Employer facilities, both of which are unionized. Perhaps Petitioner’s witnesses
assumed that if they selected the Union, their wages would be the same as the two
unionized facilities. However, I find that this was not communicated to the employees by
King and Reyes. Similarly, I credit the testimony of King, Reyes, and other Employer
witnesses that there were no statements that employees would lose health benefits,
bonuses, or retirement plans or that the Employer would bargain from zero. Thus, I
recommend that Petitioner’s Objection 6 be overruled.
Objection No. 1
The Employer distributed to employees a sample ballot which did not comply in
Spanish or Laotian with the Board’s decision in Ryder Memorial Hospital, 351
NLRB No. 26. The parties stipulated that the election should be conducted in
Spanish and Laotian as well as English.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
In Ryder Memorial Hospital,7 the Board altered its official ballot as part of its effort to
conclusively cease case-by-case analysis of whether voters might be misled by partisan use of
official ballots during pre-election campaigns.8 Specifically, the Board added a two-sentence
disclaimer to its official ballots, as follows:
The National Labor Relations Board does not endorse any choice in this election.
Any markings that you may see on any sample ballot have not been put there by
the National Labor Relations Board.
The Board also announced that if, as part of pre-election propaganda, a party utilized facsimiles
of official Board ballots in the future, the two-sentence disclaimer must be present on the ballot
or a new election will be ordered.9 As the Board stated,
This explicit disclaimer language will appear on both the actual ballots cast by
employees in the election and the sample ballot contained on the Notice of
Election, and is in addition to the existing disclaimer language on the bottom of
the Notice of Election. We believe that this modification to the ballot will
effectively preclude any reasonable inference that the Board favors or endorses
any choice in the election. That is, as any actual reproduction of the Board’s
sample ballot will necessarily include the foregoing disclaimer language,
employees will not reasonably be misled into believing that the Board supports a
particular party, whether or not the reproduced ballot contains additional
markings or promotes that party’s cause.
Turning to the facts herein, as part of its election propaganda, the Employer prominently
posted and broadly distributed leaflets containing reproductions of NLRB ballots. This occurred
during the week of the election. The “NO” box was marked with an “X” on the sample ballot
portion of the leaflet. The leaflets were in both Spanish and English. None of the leaflets was in
Laotian. The sample ballot portion of both the Spanish and English leaflets was in English only,
regardless of whether the sample ballot was contained in a Spanish or English leaflet.10
Pursuant to the stipulated election agreement, official ballots were printed in English,
Spanish, and Laotian. Moreover, Notices of Election were printed in English, Spanish, and

7 351 NLRB No. 26 (2007).
8 Prior to Ryder Memorial Hospital, a party utilizing an altered NLRB ballot as part of its
election propaganda was not obligated to include the Neutrality Statement or the Marking
Disclaimer on the sample ballot. The potential interference caused by utilizing an unattributed
altered NLRB ballot as election propaganda was analyzed on a case-by-case basis pursuant to
SDC Investments, 274 NLRB 556, 557 (1985)(not misleading if source of altered ballot identified
or, if unidentified, nature and contents of material reveal employees would not be mislead). By
changing the law, the Board sought to eliminate litigation of this issue and, thus, eliminate the
delay inherent in such litigation.
9 Ryder, supra, 351 NLRB slip op. at 3.
10 In utilizing English-only Ryder disclaimers, I further note that the Employer did not copy
the sample ballots on the Notices of Election. The Notices of Election contain the Ryder
disclaimer in three languages, no matter whether the Notice of Election is in English, Spanish,
or Laotian. All of these Notices contain a sample ballot with the Ryder disclaimer written in three
languages on each ballot.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Laotian. These Notices contained the two-sentence Ryder disclaimer in English, Spanish, and
Laotian on the lower part of the Sample Ballot in the center of each tri-fold Notice.
The record does not reflect an exact number of employees who were unable to read the
English-language Ryder disclaimer on the Employer’s sample ballot. Various sorts of evidence
of this kind were discussed during on and off the record conversations. However, neither of the
parties had any specific facts or figures regarding unit employees’ abilities to read English.
Certainly the four witnesses produced by Petitioner testified that they were unable to read
English. Moreover, Petitioner averred, and there is no reason to doubt, that it could produce
additional witnesses to testify to the same inability to read English. The Employer agreed that
many employees speak Spanish but had no estimate regarding abilities to read English.11
The issue is thus whether Ryder requires that the two-sentence disclaimer statement on
a sample ballot utilized during an election campaign be printed in all languages utilized for
official ballots. I find that it does.
Although utilization of foreign-language ballots is a discretionary matter,12 Ryder
mandates that any party utilizing an altered NLRB ballot during an election campaign
communicate the NLRB’s neutrality and its disclaimer of markings to the voters. The rule was
adopted due to concern that if the Board’s official ballot was reproduced and then altered, it
might mislead employees into believing that the Board endorsed that party. The rule was made
mandatory to avoid further litigation of representation matters, thus delaying certainty of election
results.
Here, the Employer’s altered ballot was posted prominently in the entrance, the security
area, the time-clock area, and even in employee restrooms. All employees would have been
able to observe the altered ballot. Further, although the Employer carefully translated much of
its pre-election campaign materials and speeches into Spanish, there was no attempt to
translate the Ryder disclaimer language into Spanish or Laotian. I reject any argument that this
objection should be overruled due to the actual tally of ballots in a ratio of about 1 vote for the
Petitioner to 2.7 votes against representation by the Petitioner. The closeness of the election as
well as other factors enunciated in Cambridge Tool & Mfg.13 are not relevant under the Ryder
analysis.
Recognizing that the NLRB did not specifically enunciate a requirement that foreign-
language Ryder disclaimers be present in any sample ballots distributed as campaign
propaganda, the Employer argues that such an “extension” of Ryder be given prospective
application only, while Petitioner argues that the Board did not intend its holding in Ryder solely
for those voters who could read English. Petitioner argues that application of Ryder to the facts
in this case does not amount to an “extension” of Ryder. Rather, Petitioner asserts that foreign-

11 There is no evidence regarding Laotian employees’ ability to read English.
12 See, NLRB Casehandling Manual, Part Two, Representation Proceedings, Sec. 11315;
NLRB v. Precise Castings, 915 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir. 1990).
13 316 NLRB 716 (1995): the number of incidents, the severity of the incidents and whether
they were likely to cause fear among unit employees, the number of unit employees subjected
to the misconduct, proximity of misconduct to the election, degree to which misconduct persists
in the minds of employees, extent of dissemination, effect of opposing party to cancel out the
effects of original misconduct, closeness of the vote, degree to which misconduct can be
attributed to the party.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
language Ryder disclaimers are required implicitly in Ryder. Petitioner further argues that if a
foreign-language Ryder disclaimer does constitute “extension” of Ryder, it should nevertheless
be given retrospective effect.
For the reasons set forth below, I find in agreement with Petitioner, that requiring a
foreign-language disclaimer on the sample ballots utilized herein is inherent in the holding in
Ryder. Moreover, even were such a requirement not inherent in Ryder, I find that retroactive
application of a foreign-language requirement does not work a manifest injustice.
In Ryder, the Board added the statement of the Board’s neutrality and a disclaimer of
any markings in order “to ensure that employees are not misled into believing that the Board
favors a particular party to an election, and [to] reduce the likelihood of postelection litigation,
thereby enhancing the finality of Board elections.”14 It is impossible to reach these goals without
foreign-language Ryder disclaimers. Moreover, the foreign-language Ryder disclaimers were
readily available to the Employer because they were already present on the Board’s Notices of
Election. Thus, I find that the use of foreign-language Ryder disclaimers does not constitute an
extension of the Ryder decision.
Further, were such a requirement considered new or additional to the original Ryder
decision, it would nevertheless deserve retroactive application. The parties agree that the
relevant inquiry regarding retrospective application is a balance of the ill effects of retroactivity
“against the mischief of producing a result which is contrary to a statutory design or to legal or
equitable principles.” Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery, 332 U.S. 194, 203 (1947).
All decisions are applied retroactively, Deluxe Metal Furniture Co., 121 NLRB 995, 1006-1007
(1958), unless retroactive application would cause manifest injustice. See, e.g., SNE
Enterprises, 344 NLRB 673 (2005)(application of decision retroactively would not result in
manifest injustice). Examination of the following factors is utilized to determine whether manifest
injustice will occur: “reliance of the parties on preexisting law, the effect of retroactivity on
accomplishment of the purposes of the underlying law which the decision refines, and any
particular injustice to the losing party under retroactive application of the law.” Pattern Makers
(Michigan Model Mfrs.), 310 NLRB 929, 931 (1993), citing NLRB v. Bufco Corp., 899 F.2d 608,
609 (7th Cir. 1990).
Balancing these factors, I find that retroactive application of a foreign-language Ryder
disclaimer requirement creates no manifest injustice. As to reliance on preexisting law, the
Employer cites Systrand Mfg. Corp., 328 NLRB 803 (1999), and Dakota Premium Foods, 335
NLRB 228 (2001), in which Spanish-language altered ballots were utilized without benefit of a
Spanish-language statement of the NLRB’s neutrality. In both cases, the Board adopted the
hearing officers’ recommendations based on the SDC case-by-case analysis15 and held that the
neutrality statement in the Notice of Election cured any defect in the sample ballots under the
circumstances of those cases.

14 Ryder, supra, 351 NLRB No. 26, slip op. at 3.
15 Thus, the Hearing Officer in Systrand relied upon Worths Stores Corp., 281 NLRB 1191
(1986); C. J. Krehbiel Co., 279 NLRB 855 (1986); and Rosewood Mfg. Co., 278 NLRB 722
(1986). These cases, in turn, cited SDC Investments, 274 NLRB 566 (1985), as the appropriate
framework for analysis of the issue. Although the Hearing Officer’s Report is not included in
Dakota Premium Foods, 335 NLRB 228 (2001), the Board notes that it adopts the hearing
officer’s application of SDC. Id. at n. 2.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
These cases are unconvincing because they pre-date Ryder, Ryder specifically
overruled the SDC case-by-case approach, and these cases dealt only with the Board’s
neutrality statement rather than the two-sentence neutrality statement plus disclaimer required
by Ryder. If the Employer relied on Ryder to require that the disclaimer be written only in
English, it has not advanced that argument here and, indeed, it would be difficult to understand
such an argument. Based on these factors, I find the Employer relied upon precedent which
could apply by analogy only. Thus, I find that this factor only weakly suggests injustice by
retroactive application.
Regarding the effect of retroactivity on accomplishment of the purposes of the underlying
law which the decision refines, a requirement of foreign-language Ryder disclaimers ensures
the policies underlying the decision, i.e., it ensures that all employees understand the Board’s
neutrality and ensures that employees understand that the Board did not alter the ballot. Thus, I
weight this factor as strongly suggesting the retroactive application of a foreign-language Ryder
disclaimer.
Finally, I find there is no particular injustice to the Employer pursuant to retroactive
application of a foreign-language Ryder disclaimer requirement. As in SNE Enterprises,16 there
will be no finding of unfair labor practices or an order to pay damages in this case. The result
here, as in SNE Enterprises, will be invalidation of a prior election and order of a re-run election.
Balancing all of these factors, I find no manifest injustice in retroactive application.
Accordingly, I recommend that Petitioner’s Objection 1 be sustained.
Recommendation
I recommend that objections 5 and 6 be overruled and objection 1 be sustained. Due to
violation of serious Ryder Memorial Hospital policy considerations, I recommend that the
election conducted on December 13, 2007 in Case 32-RC-5539 be set aside and a new election
be directed.17 Further, I recommend that the following language be included in the Notice of
Second Election in accordance with The Lufkin Rule Co., 147 NLRB 341 (1964), and Fieldcrest
Cannon, Inc., 327 NLRB 109, 110 n. 3 (1993):
Notice to All Voters
The election conducted on December 13, 2008 was set aside because the National
Labor Relations Board found that certain conduct of the Employer interfered with the
employees’ exercise of a free and reasoned choice. Therefore, a new election will be held in
accordance with the terms of this notice of election. All eligible voters should understand that

16 344 NLRB 673, 673-674 (2005).
17 Under the provisions of Sec. 102.69 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, exceptions to
this Report may be filed with the Board in Washington, D.C. within 14 days from the date of
issuance of this Report and Recommendations. Exceptions must be received by the Board in
Washington, D.C. by May 16, 2008. Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the party
filing same shall serve a copy thereof upon the other parties and shall file a copy with the
Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the Board may adopt this Recommended
Report.
JD(SF)–22–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives them the right to cast their ballots as they
see fit and protects them in the exercise of this right, free from interference by any of the parties.
Dated: Washington, D.C. May 2, 2008
___________________________
Mary Miller Cracraft
Administrative Law Judge