07/07/2025: Region Declines to Set Aside An Election at Pizza Shop
One Regional Election Decision today.
Via 313 Pizza Restaurant Ii, LLC, 16-RC-300851 (Regional Election Decision)
The NLRB Regional Director's decision addresses objections by Via 313 Pizza Restaurant II, LLC to a March 2025 representation election at its North Campus facility in Austin, Texas. The election resulted in Restaurant Workers United (the Union) winning by a vote of 22-16, with 3 challenged ballots insufficient to affect the outcome.
The case has a complex procedural history. A previous election in 2022 was set aside following objections, with the parties agreeing to a re-run election. After the Union's victory in the 2025 re-run election, the Employer filed five objections, later withdrawing two of them.
The Regional Director overruled all remaining objections and certified the Union as the bargaining representative. The decision addresses three main objections:
First, the Employer argued the entire election process should be set aside due to "supervisory taint" because a front-of-house (FOH) shift manager, allegedly a statutory supervisor, was one of the founders and directors of the Union. The Employer claimed this created a conflict of interest and that the Union lacked standing to file the petition. The Regional Director rejected this argument, finding that:
The supervisor's membership in the Union or role as director was insufficient to warrant dismissal of the petition
The Employer failed to demonstrate any actual conflict of interest
The individual was no longer employed by the Employer since late 2022, eliminating any potential conflict
The conduct occurred outside the critical period (the time between the initial election and re-run election)
Second, the Employer objected that Union agents stationed near the polling area destroyed laboratory conditions necessary for a fair election. The Regional Director found insufficient evidence that:
Employees were required to pass individuals at the garage entrance to vote
Anyone blocked or impeded voters
Individuals inside a co-op store across the street engaged in objectionable conduct or surveillance
Third, the Employer alleged the Union coercively polled, interrogated, and surveilled voters, created a hostile work environment, and defaced employee property. The Regional Director found no evidence to substantiate these claims, noting that:
The testimony about alleged coercive conversations lacked specificity or probative value
The alleged accusation of an employee being a "plant" came from a manager, not the Union
Evidence about a 2023 petition and 2025 pledge lacked specific details about coercive conduct
The Regional Director also addressed numerous procedural objections by the Employer, including claims that the Hearing Officer showed bias, improperly refused to enforce subpoenas, sought privileged attorney-client communications, and made demeaning remarks. The Regional Director found no merit to these claims and no prejudicial error in the Hearing Officer's conduct.
The decision emphasizes established principles that "elections are not lightly set aside" and that the burden on parties seeking to overturn an election is "a heavy one." The objecting party must show by specific evidence that there has been prejudice to the election and that the conduct in question affected employees in the voting unit.
Significant Cases Cited
Harborside Healthcare, 343 NLRB 906 (2004): Established the standard for evaluating pro-union supervisory conduct in representation elections.
Sierra Vista Hospital, 241 NLRB 631 (1979): Emphasized that an employer seeking to establish a disqualifying conflict of interest carries a heavy burden.
Boston Insulated Wire & Cable Co., 259 NLRB 1118 (1982): Established that the presence of party representatives near a polling location does not automatically constitute objectionable conduct.
Singer Co., 161 NLRB 956 (1966): Established that the critical period in a re-run election is the time between the initial election and the re-run election.
Kennecott Copper Corp., 98 NLRB 75 (1952): Found that a supervisor cannot represent employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.