3 ms·
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-RC-269250 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-RC-269250 The specifics have been mentioned before, this article was light on them but they
by boomboomsubban 5y ago
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-RC-269250 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-RC-269250
The specifics have been mentioned before, this article was light on them but they were already known.
- jrochkind1 5y agoThanks! Lots of facts have been mentioned before, but which ones did the NLRB decide justified an election redo, is the question. From the 11/29 Supplemental Decision (which I guessed was the relevant one just cause it was 11/29), it looks like: 1. Mainly, the mailbox in the parking lot. a bunch of different issues with it's existence and treatment that violated various rules. ("OBJECTIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, AND 17 – THE MAILBOX OBJECTIONS") 2. Employer "present[ing] small groups of employees with the open and observable choice to pick up or not pick up “Vote No” paraphernalia in front of Employer agents," ("OBJECTION 11 – “VOTE NO” PARAPHERNALIA POLLING"). That's it. Just these. The details are of course in the fairly readable document, including the specifics (very specifics) on why these things were problematic.