24-328 Prounion Supervisory Conduct – 01-RC-098982 SSC Mystic Operating d/b/a Pendleton Health & Rehabilitation, (Dec. 3, 2013). In an unpublished decision, the Board noted the employer's antiunion campaign in finding that a prounion “extensive supervisor’s conduct was ‘effectively mitigated.’” 671 F3d 1267 (DC Cir. 2012). Court affirmed Veritas Health Services v. NLRB, Board finding that prounion conduct of supervisory charge nurses in signing cards in front of employees and in attending union meetings did not amount to employer supervisory interference. Court also noted that even if the conduct tended to interfere with employee free choice, it was mitigated by the actions of the charge nurses in subsequently campaigning against the union. 24-410 Board Agent Conduct (Ballot Box Security) – 672 F3d 1117 (DC Cir. 2012). It was not Hard Rock Holdings v. NLRB, objectionable conduct for the Board agent to decide not to give observers a badge when he discovered that he had only one in his election kit. The Court held that there was no evidence that the absence of badges affected the election. 24-410(a) Board Agent Conduct – 360 NLRB No. 129 (2014). Board agent did not engage *Magnum Transportation, in objectionable conduct when he permitted an employee to cast a second ballot under challenge where the employee notified the agent that he had marked his first ballot incorrectly and put it in the box. 360 NLRB No. 108 (2014). It was not objectionable *Durham School Services, for the Board agent to carry the ballot box to the parking lot in order to permit a disabled employer to cast a ballot. Case No. 20 RC 107222 (Feb. 7, 2014). In the *Securitas Security Services USA, unpublished decision, a panel majority found that a Board agent did not engage in objectionable conduct in the circumstances here. Board agent engaged in conversation with union representatives while those representatives were handing out literature to prospective voters.
24-328 – Prounion Supervisory Conduct SSC Mystic Operating d/b/a Pendleton Health & Rehabilitation, 01-RC-098982 (Dec. 3, 2013). In an unpublished decision, the Board noted the employer's “extensive antiunion campaign in finding that a supervisor’s prounion conduct was ‘effectively mitigated.’” Veritas Health Services v. NLRB, 671 F3d 1267 (DC Cir. 2012). Court affirmed Board finding that prounion conduct of supervisory charge nurses in signing cards in front of employees and in attending union meetings did not amount to employer supervisory interference. Court also noted that even if the conduct tended to interfere with employee free choice, it was mitigated by the actions of the charge nurses in subsequently campaigning against the union. 24-410 – Board Agent Conduct (Ballot Box Security) Hard Rock Holdings v. NLRB, 672 F3d 1117 (DC Cir. 2012). It was not objectionable conduct for the Board agent to decide not to give observers a badge when he discovered that he had only one in his election kit. The Court held that there was no evidence that the absence of badges affected the election. 24-410(a) – Board Agent Conduct *Magnum Transportation, 360 NLRB No. 129 (2014). Board agent did not engage in objectionable conduct when he permitted an employee to cast a second ballot under challenge where the employee notified the agent that he had marked his first ballot incorrectly and put it in the box. *Durham School Services, 360 NLRB No. 108 (2014). It was not objectionable for the Board agent to carry the ballot box to the parking lot in order to permit a disabled employer to cast a ballot. *Securitas Security Services USA, Case No. 20 RC 107222 (Feb. 7, 2014). In the unpublished decision, a panel majority found that a Board agent did not engage in objectionable conduct in the circumstances here. Board agent engaged in conversation with union representatives while those representatives were handing out literature to prospective voters.
ABA%202015%20Paper%20-%20March%202015%20%28TSJ%20additions%29.docx