Collins Building Services, Inc.

373 NLRB No. 32 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Collins Building Services, Inc. and Fatjon Agolli and Production and Service Employees International Union, Local 143. Case 29–RD–319570 February 27, 2024 ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND PROUTY The Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Di- rector’s Order Dismissing Petition and Withdrawing No- tice of Representation Hearing is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1 Dated, Washington, D.C. February 27, 2024 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 Member Kaplan joins his colleagues in denying review. In a future appropriate case, he would seek public input on whether the Board should alter its contract-bar policy for collective-bargaining agreements, such as the one at issue in this case, that are not ratified by employees. Currently, the Board will generally decline to process an election petition filed during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement for up to three years, whether or not employees had an opportunity to vote on the agree- ment. See Silvan Industries, 367 NLRB No. 28 (2018). The contours of the contract bar, however, “are compelled neither by the Act nor by ju- dicial decision, but are rather discretionary rules which may be applied or waived . . . in the interests of effectuating the policies of the Act.” Hershey Chocolate Corp., 121 NLRB 901, 905 (1958). Indeed, as the Board has recognized, the policy behind the discretionary contract- bar rule necessarily requires the Board to “balance the statutory goal of promoting labor relations stability against its statutory responsibility to give effect to employees’ wishes concerning representation.” Silvan In- dustries, 367 NLRB No. 28, slip op. at 3. Accordingly, Member Kaplan would seek public input regarding whether the Board’s contract-bar policy would better effectuate the pur- poses of the Act by treating contracts ratified by employees—who thereby approve the contract term and implicitly approve the resulting contract bar—differently from contracts that are not ratified by employ- ees. He would propose that, for the latter, the contract bar be limited to a 1-year period. In his view, this shorter period would better protect em- ployees’ rights to choose whether or not to continue to be represented by the union while still promoting labor stability by ensuring a full year un- der the contract. During this year, employees will be able to understand how the contract's terms, as well as the union’s administration of the con- tract, will affect them. In addition, because this policy affords greater protection to employee-ratified agreements, unions will have an incen- tive to provide employees, whose terms and conditions of employment will be controlled by the collective-bargaining agreement, a more mean- ingful say in the terms of that agreement.