Hanson Cold Storage Co. of Indiana d/b/a Hanson Logistics

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 2018

13-CA-178619 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

1
NOT INCLUDED IN
BOUND VOLUMES
PMcE
Hobart, IN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HANSON COLD STORAGE CO. OF INDIANA
d/b/a HANSON LOGISTICS
and Case 13-CA-178619

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 142
ORDER REMANDING
This test-of-certification proceeding is on remand to the National Labor Relations Board
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. For the reasons explained
below, the Board has decided in turn to remand this proceeding to the Regional Director for
Region 13 for further processing, consistent with the court’s opinion and this Order.
Hanson Cold Storage Co. of Indiana (the Employer) is engaged in providing refrigerated
storage and transportation across the Midwest, and operates a facility in Hobart, Indiana. On
February 4, 2016, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union Local No. 142 (the
Petitioner) filed a petition to represent “full-time and regular part-time warehousemen,
dockworkers, pickers, runners, team leads, inventory workers and maintenance workers
employed by [the Employer]” at its Hobart facility. Pursuant to a Stipulated Election
Agreement, an election was held on February 29, 2016. The initial Tally of Ballots showed 18
for and 17 against the Petitioner, with 2 determinative challenged ballots. The Petitioner
challenged the ballot of Lawrence Kelly, arguing that, even though Kelly was on medical leave
2
at the time of the election, he had effectively resigned from his position and was therefore
ineligible to vote. The Employer, meanwhile, challenged the ballot of an unknown individual,
contending that irregular markings on the ballot rendered the voter’s intent unclear. Both parties
submitted offers of proof and position statements in support of their challenges.
On March 25, 2016, the Acting Regional Director issued a Decision and Certification of
Representative. In his decision, the Acting Regional Director found that the irregularly marked
ballot should be counted in favor of the Petitioner. Because counting this ballot in favor of the
Petitioner resulted in a vote of 19 for and 17 against the Petitioner, the Acting Regional Director
found that Kelly’s ballot was no longer determinative and he accordingly did not pass on the
merits of the challenge, finding it moot.
On September 13, 2016, the Board granted the General Counsel's motion for summary
judgment and found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Petitioner as the exclusive representative of all
employees employed by the Employer in the appropriate unit. See Hanson Cold Storage Co. of
Indiana, 364 NLRB No. 121 (2016). The Employer refused to comply with the Board’s Order
and filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
and the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement.
On June 20, 2017, the court granted the Employer’s petition for review, denied the
Board’s cross-application for enforcement, and remanded this proceeding to the Board. See
Hanson Cold Storage Co. of Indiana v. NLRB, 860 F.3d 911 (2017). The Seventh Circuit held
that the unknown voter’s ballot—which included a large X marked in and extending beyond the
“yes” box, along with “indecipherable scribbling both inside and outside of the box”—was void,
because the scribbles could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to void the ballot, and
3
therefore the unknown voter’s intent was unclear. Id. at 915-917. The Seventh Circuit then
found that, since the irregularly marked ballot was void, Kelly’s ballot was in fact outcome
determinative and the Board should have considered the Petitioner’s challenge to the ballot. Id.
at 918. The court accordingly remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
On September 14, 2017, the Board advised the parties that it had accepted the court’s
remand and invited the parties to file statements of position. Subsequently, the Employer filed a
timely statement of position, asserting that Kelly’s ballot should be opened and counted because
Kelly was on medical leave at the time of the election and therefore was eligible to vote. The
Petitioner did not file a statement of position with the Board.
Having accepted and considered the court’s opinion as the law of the case, we find that
the issues raised by the court can best be resolved by remanding this proceeding to the Regional
Director for further analysis in light of the court’s opinion, including reopening the record, if
necessary.
Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Regional Director for Region 13 for further
appropriate action consistent with this Order, including reopening the record, if necessary, and
the issuance of a Supplemental Decision.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 26, 2018.
_________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
_________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
_________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD