Lund Food Holdings, Inc.

373 NLRB No. 107 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be in- cluded in the bound volumes. Lund Food Holdings, Inc. and Teamsters Local 120. Case 18–RC–316373 September 20, 2024 ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN 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. September 20, 2024 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, 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 find that, even assuming that Colby James pos- sessed the authority to discipline employees within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Employer did not meet its burden of proving that his conduct coerced employees under Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 NLRB 906 (2004). In addition to the reasons set forth by the Regional Director, we also emphasize that the Employer failed to meet its burden as the objecting party to submit probative evi- dence to sustain its objections. Campbell Products Department, 260 NLRB 1247, 1247 fn. 2 (1982), enfd. 707 F.2d 1393 (3d Cir. 1983). This is particularly true with respect to James’ alleged involvement in facili- tating a meeting between an employee and the Petitioner. In denying review, Member Kaplan applies Harborside Healthcare as extant law. This case, however, highlights his concerns about that standard. For example, Member Kaplan questions whether it is appro- priate for the Board to analyze statements by statutory supervisors, who are routinely assumed to be speaking for management, differently when the statements are prounion rather than antiunion. Here, for instance, it is not clear why the statutory supervisor's statements that wages will im- prove if employees vote for the union should be evaluated under Har- borside Healthcare when, if the statutory supervisor had stated that wages will decrease if employees vote for the union, it would not. For that reason, among others, Member Kaplan is open to revisiting the ap- propriateness of the Harborside Healthcare standard in a future appro- priate case.