Portillo's Hot Dogs, LLC

373 NLRB No. 86 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. Portillo’s Hot Dogs, LLC and International Associa- tion of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Rein- forcing Iron Workers, AFL–CIO and Arise Chi- cago. Case 13–RC–313847 August 16, 2024 ORDER BY MEMBERS KAPLAN, PROUTY, AND WILCOX The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting re- view.1 Dated, Washington, D.C., August 16, 2024 ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member ________________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. In denying review, we do not rely on Patient Care, 360 NLRB 637 (2014), or Polymers, Inc., 174 NLRB 282 (1968), enfd. 414 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1010 (1970). Both cases concern Board agent conduct during an election and are inapposite. We agree with the Regional Director’s conclusion that the Employer did not establish that any misconduct occurred during the critical period, and that no exception to Ideal Electric and Mfg. Co., 134 NLRB 1275 (1961), applies here. We accordingly find it unnecessary to rely on the Regional Director’s discussion of Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 261 NLRB 125 (1982). Member Kaplan joins in denying review under extant precedent, but he would consider in a future appropriate case whether the Board should recognize an exception to Ideal Electric, similar to the exception pertain- ing to the solicitation of authorization cards, when a party offers to pro- vide a material benefit to employees, beyond the scope of employees' terms and conditions of employment, on the condition that they vote for, or against, the union. As we are denying review on substantive grounds, we find it unnec- essary to pass on the Petitioner’s contention that the Employer failed to comply with Sec. 102.5(f) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations by serv- ing its request for review via a proprietary file system that required the Petitioner to register with the system in order to access the request for review.