Wismettac Asian Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 4, 2020

21-RC-204759 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 4, 2020)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC.
Employer
and Case 21-RC-204759
FOOD, INDUSTRIAL & BEVERAGE
WAREHOUSE, DRIVERS AND CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 630,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review and Remand of the Regional Director’s Decision to
Overrule the Employer’s Exceptions and Overrule the Union’s Exceptions, Adopt the
Administrative Law Judge’s Recommendations and Certification of Representative is denied as
it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
1 In denying review with respect to those classifications that were explicitly permitted to vote subject to challenge,
we do not rely on the Administrative Law Judge’s or Regional Director’s application of the three-step analysis set
forth in Caesars Tahoe, 337 NLRB 1096 (2002). Where, as here, a stipulated election agreement explicitly permits
certain job classifications to vote subject to challenge and where, as here, the non-petitioning party contends that
those classifications must be included in the unit in order for it to be appropriate, the proper analysis to apply in
assessing the bargaining-unit status of voters in those job classifications is the community-of-interest analysis set
forth in PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017). As the Administrative Law Judge and Regional Director
ultimately applied a community-of-interest analysis under the Caesars Tahoe test, however, and as the Employer’s
request for review makes no argument with respect to that analysis, this error does not warrant granting review.
We also observe that the RD misstated the judge’s findings in his decision. He mistakenly stated that the
judge found that Logistics Office Clerks lacked a community of interest with the employees included in the Unit.
Rather, the judge found that Logistics Office Clerks were functionally Warehouse Clerks included in the Unit.
Nevertheless, the RD later correctly stated that the judge found Logistics Office Clerks were part of the Unit.
Further, we note that the RD inadvertently referred to “Inventory Control Employees” instead of “Purchasing
Clerks,” in affirming the judge’s finding that Purchasing Clerks were not eligible to vote. Neither of these
inadvertent errors affects our decision to deny review.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 4, 2020