Motion For Summary Judgment

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION 13
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC, D/B/A WINDY CITY

CANNABIS AND D/B/A CURALEAF WEED
STREET
and Case 13-CA-295623
UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS

LOCAL 881
COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL’S MOTION

TO TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS TO THE BOARD
AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Sections 102.24 and 102.50 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Counsel for the General Counsel moves to transfer this case to the Board
and moves for summary judgment. GHG Management LLC, d/b/a Windy City Cannabis and
d/b/a Curaleaf Weed Street (“Respondent”) has refused to bargain with United Food &
Commercial Workers Local 881 (“Union”) in order to test the Board’s recent certification of the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of product specialists employed by
the Respondent from its facility currently located at 923 W. Weed Street in Chicago, Illinois..
Thus, the case presents no genuine issues as to any material fact and the General Counsel is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In support of this Motion, Counsel for the General Counsel states the following:
1. On January 11, 2021, in Case 13-RC-271360, the Union the Union filed a Petition
pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act, seeking to represent Respondent’s product specialists. A
copy of the Petition is attached as Exhibit 1.
1
2. On February 2, 2021, Respondent and the Union entered into a Stipulated
Election Agreement. This Election Agreement, approved by the Acting Regional Director,
stipulated election of the employees of Respondent, herein called “the Unit”:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time product specialists employed by the
Employer from its facility currently located at 923 W Weed Street in Chicago,
Illinois.
Excluded: Managers, product specialist leads, agents in charge, office clerical

employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
A copy of the Stipulated Election Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2.
3. Beginning on February 25, 2021, Respondent’s employees in the above-described
unit voted in a secret mail ballot election, under the supervision of the Acting Regional Director,
as to whether they desired to be represented by the Union.
4. On March 19, 2021, Respondent and the Union entered into a Stipulated
Agreement due to intermittent delays in mail delivery by the United States Postal Service.
Accordingly, on May 19, 2021, the Acting Regional Director issued an Order Extending Mail
Ballot Period and Rescheduling Ballot Count. A copy of the Order Extending Mail Ballot
Period and Rescheduling Ballot Count is attached as Exhibit 3.
5. The Tally of Ballots for the election showed that of the approximately 29 eligible
voters, 11 votes were cast for the Union and 10 votes were cast against the Union. There were no
challenged ballots. A copy of the Tally of Ballots is attached as Exhibit 4.
6. On April 7, 2021, Respondent filed Objections to the Conduct of the Election. A
copy of the Respondent’ s objections is attached as Exhibit 5.
7. On April 13, 2021, the Acting General Counsel issued an order transferring and
continuing Case 13-RC-271360 from Region 13 to Region 7 of the National Labor Relations
2
Board. A copy of the Order Transferring Case from Region 13 to Region 7 is attached as Exhibit
6.
8. On April 15, 2021, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 issued an Order
Directing Hearing and Notice of Hearing on Objections. A copy of the Order Directing Hearing
and Notice of Hearing on Objections is attached as Exhibit 7.
9. On August 5, 2021, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 issued a Decision
and Certification of Representative wherein he overruled all of Respondents objections and
issued a Certification of Representative. A copy of the Decision and Certification of
Representative is attached as Exhibit 8.
10. On August 19, 2021, Respondent filed with the Board a Request for Review of
the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative. A copy of
Respondent’s Request for Review (without exhibits) is attached as Exhibit 9.
11. On April 21, 2022, the Board, by Order, denied Respondent’s Request for Review
of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative. A copy of the
Board’s Order is attached as Exhibit 10.
12. Pursual to the Board’s Certification, the Union, by letter dated April 26, 2022,
requested that Respondent recognize it as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
the Unit and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the Unit. A copy of the Union’s letter is attached as Exhibit 11.
13. Since about May 5, 2022, and continuing, Respondent by email dated May 5,
2022, has refused to recognize and bargain with the Union. A copy of Respondent’s email is
attached as Exhibit 12.
3
14. Pursuant to a first amended charge filed by the Union in 13-CA-295623, on July
28, 2022, the Regional Director issued a complaint, alleging that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union. Copies of the first
amended charge, the complaint, and affidavits of service for those documents are attached as
Exhibits 13-16.
15. On August 11, 2022, Respondent filed an Answer to the Complaint. A copy of
Respondent’s Answer is attached as Exhibit 17.
16. In its Answer, Respondent denies that at all times since August 5, 2021, based on
Section 9(a) of the Act, the Charging Party has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Unit (paragraph 4(d)). However, Respondent admits that it is testing the
certification of the Unit as the Acting Regional Director issued in Case 13-RC-271360.
17. No genuine issues of material fact are present in this case and summary judgment
as a matter of law for the General Counsel is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Counsel for the General Counsel respectfully moves that the Board grant
the Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Board and Motion for Summary Judgment, find all of
the allegations of the Complaint to be true, and issue an appropriate Decision and an Order
requiring Respondent to bargain in good faith with the Union, on request, for the period required
by Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962), as the recognized collective
bargaining representative in the certified Unit.
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of September 2022.
/s/ Rachel Stopchinski

Rachel Stopchinski
Counsel for the General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
Region 13
219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 808
Chicago, Illinois 60604
4
REGION 13

STREET

LOCAL 881
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF: Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Board and

Motion for Summary Judgment
I, the undersigned employee of the National Labor Relations Board, being duly sworn, say that
on September 15, 2022, I served the above-entitled document(s) by regular mail or via E-
Issuance, as noted below, upon the following persons, addressed to them at the following
addresses:
Cristina Nutzman, Vice President, Assistant Jeffrey E. Dilger, Attorney

General Counsel Littler Mendelson, P.C.
923 W. Weed Street 80 South 8th Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60642 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136
cristina.nutzman@curaleaf.com jdilger@littler.com
E-ISSUANCE E-ISSUANCE
Stefan J. Marculewicz, Attorney Joseph C. Torres, Attorney

Littler Mendelson, P.C. United Food and Commercial Workers
815 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 400 Union, Local 700
Washington, DC 20006-4046 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1720
smarculewicz@littler.com Chicago, IL 60603
E-ISSUANCE joe@karmellawfirm.com
E-ISSUANCE
Nicholas W. Clark, General Counsel Local 881 United Food & Commercial
United Food and Commercial Workers Workers
International Union (UFCW) 1350 E Touhy Suite 300E
1775 K Street NW, Basement Des Plaines, IL 60018
Washington, DC 20006-1598 REGULAR MAIL
nclark@ufcw.org
E-ISSUANCE
Rachel Stopchinski, Designated Agent of NLRB

September 15, 2022
Date Name
/s/ Rachel Stopchinski
Signature
FORM NLRB-502 (RC)
(4-15)
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Case No. Date Filed
RC PETITION 13-RC-271360 January 11, 2021
INSTRUCTIONS: Unless e-Filed using the Agency’s website, www.nlrb.gov, submit an original of this Petition to an NLRB office in the Region
in which the employer concerned is located. The petition must be accompanied by both a showing of interest (see 6b below) and a certificate
of service showing service on the employer and all other parties named in the petition of: (1) the petition; (2) Statement of Position form
(Form NLRB-505); and (3) Description of Representation Case Procedures (Form NLRB 4812). The showing of interest should only be filed
with the NLRB and should not be served on the employer or any other party.
1. PURPOSE OF THIS PETITION: RC-CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE - A substantial number of employees wish to be represented for purposes of collective
bargaining by Petitioner and Petitioner desires to be certified as representative of the employees. The Petitioner alleges that the following circumstances exist and
requests that the National Labor Relations Board proceed under its proper authority pursuant to Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act.
2a. Name of Employer 2b. Address(es) of Establishment(s) involved (Street and number, city, State, ZIP code)
Windy City Cannabis- Curaleaf 923 W Weed St, Chicago, IL 60642
3a. Employer Representative – Name and Title 3b. Address (If same as 2b – state same)
Jason Neloms- General Manager
3c. Tel. No. 3d. Cell No. 3e. Fax No. 3f. E-Mail Address
312-371-3435 jneloms@windycitycannabis.com
4a. Type of Establishment (Factory, mine, wholesaler, etc.) 4b. Principal product or service 5a. City and State where unit is located:
Retail Cannabis Chicago, IL
5b. Description of Unit Involved 6a. No. of Employees in Unit:
Included: 33
All full-time and part-time Product Specialist 6b. Do a substantial number (30%
Excluded: or more) of the employees in the
Managers, supervisors, product specialist leads/agent in charge and security guards as defined by the Act unit wish to be represented by the
Petitioner? Yes [ ✔ ] No [ ]
Check One: ____
7a. Request for recognition as Bargaining Representative was made on (Date) _____________ and Employer declined recognition on or about
________________ (Date) (If no reply received, so state).
____ 7b. Petitioner is currently recognized as Bargaining Representative and desires certification under the Act.
8a. Name of Recognized or Certified Bargaining Agent (If none, so state). 8b. Address
8c. Tel No. 8d Cell No. 8e. Fax No. 8f. E-Mail Address
8g. Affiliation, if any 8h. Date of Recognition or Certification 8i. Expiration Date of Current or Most Recent
Contract, if any (Month, Day, Year)
________ If so, approximately how many employees are participating? ___________

9. Is there now a strike or picketing at the Employer's establishment(s) involved?
(Name of labor organization) __________________________, has picketed the Employer since (Month, Day, Year) _____________________________________.
10. Organizations or individuals other than Petitioner and those named in items 8 and 9, which have claimed recognition as representatives and other organizations and individuals
known to have a representative interest in any employees in the unit described in item 5b above. (If none, so state)
10a. Name 10b. Address 10c. Tel. No. 10d. Cell No.
10e. Fax No. 10f. E-Mail Address
11. Election Details: If the NLRB conducts an election in this matter, state your position with respect to 11a. Election Type: ___
✔ Manual ___ Mail ____ Mixed Manual/Mail
any such election.
11b. Election Date(s): 11c. Election Time(s): 11d. Election Location(s):
1/25/12 10am-12-m and 5:30pm-7pm new construction area
12a. Full Name of Petitioner (including local name and number) 12b. Address (street and number, city, state, and ZIP code)
Untied Food and Commercial Workers Local 881 1350 E. Touhy Ave, Rosemont, IL 60018
12c. Full name of national or international labor organization of which Petitioner is an affiliate or constituent (if none, so state)
Untied Food and Commercial workers International Union
12d. Tel No. 12e. Cell No. 12f. Fax No. 12g. E-Mail Address
847 294-5064 x329 630 254-3100 847 759-7107 moiseszavala@local881ufcw.org
13. Representative of the Petitioner who will accept service of all papers for purposes of the representation proceeding.
13a. Name and Title 13b. Address (street and number, city, state, and ZIP code)
Joseph Torres, Attorney 221 N. Lasalle St. Chicago, IL 60601
13c. Tel No. 13d. Cell No. 13e. Fax No. 13f. E-Mail Address
3126412910 312 641-0781 joe@karmellawfirm.com
I declare that I have read the above petition and that the statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Name (Print) Signature Title Date
Moises Zavala Director of Organizing 1/11/21
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS ON THIS PETITION CAN BE PUNISHED BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT (U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SECTION 1001)
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Solicitation of the information on this form is authorized by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The principal use of the information is to assist the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) in processing representation and related proceedings or litigation. The routine uses for the information are fully set forth in the Federal Register, 71 Fed. Reg. 74942-
43 (Dec. 13, 2006). The NLRB will further explain these uses upon request. Disclosure of this information to the NLRB is voluntary; however, failure to supply the information will cause the
NLRB to decline to invoke its processes.
1 Exhibit 1
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
STIPULATED ELECTION AGREEMENT
GHG Management, LLC d/b/a Windy City Cannabis Case 13-RC-271360
The parties AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. PROCEDURAL MATTERS. The parties waive their right to a hearing and agree that
any notice of hearing previously issued in this matter is withdrawn, that the petition is amended
to conform to this Agreement, and that the record of this case shall include this Agreement and
be governed by the Board's Rules and Regulations.
2. COMMERCE. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act and a question affecting commerce has arisen
concerning the representation of employees within the meaning of Section 9(c).
The Employer, GHG Management, LLC d/b/a Windy City Cannabis, an Illinois limited
liability company with a place of business in Chicago, Illinois, is an employing entity for a
retail cannabis dispensary operator. During the past calendar year, a representative
period, the Employer in the course and conduct of its business operations described
above, has provided services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Illinois.
3. LABOR ORGANIZATION. The Petitioner is an organization in which employees

participate, and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions
of work and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. ELECTION. The election will be conducted by United States mail. The mail ballots
will be mailed to employees employed in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit from the
office of the National Labor Relations Board, Region 13, on February 25, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. CST
Voters must return their mail ballots so that they will be received in the National Labor Relations
Board, Region 13 office by close of business on March 19, 2021. The mail ballots will be
counted at the Region 13 office located at Dirksen Federal Building, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Suite 808, Chicago, IL 60604-2027 or by videoconference, at 10:00 a.m. CST on
March 22, 2021.
Voters must sign the outside of the envelope in which the ballot is returned. Any ballot received
in an envelope that is not signed will be void.
If any eligible voter does not receive a mail ballot or otherwise requires a duplicate mail ballot
kit, he or she should contact the Region 13 office by no later than 5:00 p.m. CST on March 4,
2021 in order to arrange for another mail ballot kit to be sent to that employee.
If the election and/or count is postponed or canceled, the Regional Director, in his or her
discretion, may reschedule the date, time, and place of the election and/or count.
5. UNIT AND ELIGIBLE VOTERS. The following unit is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
Employer from its facility currently located at 923 W Weed Street in Chicago, Illinois.
1 Exhibit 2
Excluded: Managers, product specialist leads, agents in charge, office clerical
employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Those eligible to vote in the election are employees in the above unit who were employed
during the payroll period ending January 30, 2021, including employees who did not work
during that period because they were ill, on vacation, or were temporarily laid off.
Employees engaged in any economic strike, who have retained their status as strikers and who
have not been permanently replaced are also eligible to vote. In addition, employees engaged in
an economic strike which commenced less than 12 months before the election date, who have
retained their status as strikers but who have been permanently replaced, as well as their
replacements are eligible to vote. Employees who are otherwise eligible but who are in the
military services of the United States may vote by mail as described above in paragraph 4.
Ineligible to vote are (1) employees who have quit or been discharged for cause after the
designated payroll period for eligibility, (2) employees engaged in a strike who have been
discharged for cause since the commencement thereof and who have not been rehired or
reinstated before the election date, and (3) employees engaged in an economic strike which
began more than 12 months before the election date who have been permanently replaced.
6. VOTER LIST. Within 2 business days after the Regional Director has approved this
Agreement, the Employer must provide to the Regional Director and all of the other parties a
voter list of the full names, work locations, shifts, job classifications, and contact information
(including home addresses, available personal email addresses, and available personal home
and cellular telephone numbers) of all eligible voters. The Employer must also include, in a
separate section of that list, the same information for those individuals whom the parties have
agreed should be permitted to vote subject to challenge. The list must be filed in common,
everyday electronic file formats that can be searched. Unless otherwise agreed to by the
parties, the list must be provided in a table in a Microsoft Word file (.doc or docx) or a file that is
compatible with Microsoft Word (.doc or docx). The first column of the list must begin with each
employee’s last name and the list must be alphabetized (overall or by department) by last name.
The font size of the list must be the equivalent of Times New Roman 10 or larger. That font
does not need to be used but the font must be that size or larger. When feasible, the list must
be filed electronically with the Regional Director and served electronically on the parties. The
Employer must file with the Regional Director a certificate of service of the list on all parties.
7. THE BALLOT. The Regional Director, in his or her discretion, will decide the
language(s) to be used on the election ballot. All parties should notify the Region as soon as
possible of the need to have the Notice of Election and/or ballots translated.
The question on the ballot will be “Do you wish to be represented for purposes of collective
bargaining by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881?” The choices on the ballot will
be "Yes" or "No".
8. NOTICE OF ELECTION. The Regional Director, in his or her discretion, will decide
the language(s) to be used on the Notice of Election. The Employer must post copies of the
Notice of Election in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees in the
unit are customarily posted, at least three (3) full working days prior to 12:01 a.m. of the day the
ballots are mailed to employees. The Employer must also distribute the Notice of Election
electronically, if the Employer customarily communicates with employees in the unit
electronically. Failure to post or distribute the Notice of Election as required shall be grounds for
setting aside the election whenever proper and timely objections are filed.
2 Exhibit 2
9. NOTICE OF ELECTION ONSITE REPRESENTATIVE. The following individual will
serve as the Employer’s designated Notice of Election onsite representative: Keevin Cox, 923
W Weed Street, Chicago, IL, keevin@windycitycannabis.com
10. ACCOMMODATIONS REQUIRED. All parties should notify the Region as soon as
possible of any voters, potential voters, or other participants in this election who have handicaps
falling within the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and
29 C.F.R. 100.503, and who in order to participate in the election need appropriate auxiliary
aids, as defined in 29 C.F.R. 100.503, and request the necessary assistance.
11. OBSERVERS. Each party may designate an observer or observers to participate in
the count, including challenging the eligibility of voters.
12. TALLY OF BALLOTS. Upon conclusion of the election, the ballots will be counted
and a tally of ballots prepared and immediately made available to the parties. More specifically,
the mail ballots will be counted at the Region 13 office located at Dirksen Federal Building, 219
South Dearborn Street, Suite 808, Chicago, IL 60604-2027 or by videoconference, at 10:00 a.m.
CST on March 22, 2021.
13. POSTELECTION AND RUNOFF PROCEDURES. All procedures after the ballots
are counted shall conform with the Board's Rules and Regulations.
GHG Management, LLC d/b/a Windy City United Food and Commercial Workers
Cannabis Local 881
(Employer) (Petitioner)
By: /s/Jeffrey E. Dilger 2/2/21 By: /s/Moises Zavala 2/2/21

(Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)
Print Name: Print Name:
(Union)
By:
(Signature) (Date)
Print Name:
3 Exhibit 2
Recommended: /s/Jana Prokop 2/2/21
Jana C. Prokop, Field Examiner (Date)
Date approved: February 2, 2021
/s/Paul Hitterman (Acting RD-Acting ARD KMG)

Regional Director, Region 13
4 Exhibit 2
REGION 13
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A WINDY CITY
CANNABIS
Employer
and Case 13-RC-271360
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS
LOCAL 881
Petitioner
ORDER EXTENDING MAIL BALLOT PERIOD AND

RESCHEDULING BALLOT COUNT
Following the approval of a stipulated election agreement to hold a mail ballot election,
the ballots were mailed by the Regional Office on February 25, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. The ballots
were to be commingled and counted Monday, March 22, 2021. The Regional Office has
experienced intermittent delays in mail delivery by the United States Postal Service and as there
is a concern that not all ballots mailed back to the Regional Office have been received, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
The voting period for the mail ballot portion of the election will be extended to March 29,
2021. All ballots will be commingled and counted by videoconference at 10:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, March 31, 2021. In order to be valid and counted, the returned ballots must be
received in the Regional Office prior to the counting of the ballots.
Dated this 19th day of March 2021.
/s/ Paul Hitterman

Paul Hitterman
Acting Regional Director
Region 13
Dirksen Federal Building
Chicago, IL 60604-2027
1 Exhibit 3
REGION 13
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A WINDY CITY
CANNABIS
Employer
LOCAL 881
Petitioner
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF: ORDER EXTENDING MAIL BALLOT PERIOD AND

RESCHEDULING BALLOT COUNT
I, the undersigned employee of the National Labor Relations Board, being duly sworn, say that on
March 19, 2021, I served the above documents by electronic mail and regular mail upon the following
persons, addressed to them at the following addresses:
Joseph C. Torres, Attorney United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881
The Karmel Law Firm 1350 East Touhy Avenue
221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1550 Rosemont, IL 60018
Chicago, IL 60601
joe@karmellawfirm.com
Jeffrey E. Dilger, Attorney Jason Neloms, General Manager

Littler Mendelson, P.C. GHG Management LLC d/b/a Windy City
1300 IDS Center Cannabis
80 South 8th Street 923 West Weed Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136 Chicago, IL 60642
jdilger@littler.com jneloms@windycitycannabis.com
Brendan Zarling, Designated Agent of NLRB

March 19, 2021
Date Name
/s/ Brendan Zarling

Signature
2 Exhibit 3
1 Exhibit 4
DilgUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REGION 13
GHG Management LLC d/b/a Windy )

City Cannabis )
)
Employer, )
)
and ) Case No. 13-RC-271360
)
United Food and Commercial Workers )
Local 881 )
)
Petitioner. )
EMPLOYER GHG MANAGEMENT LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT

AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION
Pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, including
Section 102.69, GHG Management LLC (“Employer”) hereby files the following Objections to
Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election in connection with the mail ballot election conducted
by Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and counted March 31, 2021 in
Case number 13-RC-271360 filed by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881
(“Union”). The objectionable conduct includes the following:
OBJECTION 1: The accuracy and purpose of the mail ballot election was defeated
by delays with the National Labor Relations Board processing of ballots and extraordinary and
arbitrary delays with the United States Postal Service which resulted in voter disenfranchisement
that is outcome determinative.
OBJECTION 2: After postponing the ballot count on or about March 18, 2021
because of known outstanding ballots from voters that had not yet been received by the Region,
1 Exhibit 5
and then representing to the parties on March 22 that it had received ballots from all voters that
told the Region they had returned ballots, the Board Agent failed to notify the parties that the
Region was aware that at least one voter had returned a ballot but it had not been received by the
Region as of the ballot count on March 31 resulting in the disenfranchisement that is outcome
determinative.
OBJECTION 3: The Board Agent engaged in misconduct by arbitrarily and/or
selectively contacting certain voters, but not all voters, to confirm whether they had received a
ballot and/or had returned their ballot resulting in disparate treatment of voters and/or
disenfranchisement that is outcome determinative.
OBJECTION 4: On or about March 18, 2021, the Board Agent contacted the
Employer’s attorney and explained that the ballot count would be postponed to March 31
regardless of whether the Employer stipulated to the new date. The Region’s decision to
unilaterally force postponement of the count to March 31 was objectionable.
OBJECTION 5: Following forced postponement of the count, the Region failed to
issue a new notice of election updating employees regarding the new count date resulting in
insufficient notice to employees.
2 Exhibit 5
Based on the foregoing Objections, or combination thereof, the Employer submits that the
election must be set aside, and a new, in-person election held. Casehandling Manual Section
11360.3.
Dated: April 7, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jeffrey E. Dilger

Jeffrey E. Dilger (MN Bar No. 0392153)
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1300 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136
612.630.1000
jdilger@littler.com
Stefan J. Marculewicz
815 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
202-423-2415
410-404-7805
smarculewicz@littler.com
Counsel for GHG Management LLC d/b/a

Windy City Cannabis
3 Exhibit 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing was e-filed in accordance with NLRB requirements
and served via electronic mail, this 7th day of April, 2021, upon:
Daniel Nelson
National Labor Relations Board, Region 13
daniel.nelson@nlrb.gov
Joseph Torres
Attorney at Law
The Karmel Law Firm
oe@karmellawfirm.com
Moises Zavala
Director of Organizing
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 881
moiseszavala@local881ufcw.org

Jeffrey E. Dilger
4839-9702-8580.1 / 108055-1000
4 Exhibit 5
In the matter of
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A WINDY CITY CANNABIS
Employer
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 881
Petitioner
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

FROM REGION 13 TO REGION 7
Case 13-RC-271360, having been filed with the Regional Director for Region 13
and the Acting General Counsel of the Board having duly considered the matter, and
deeming it necessary in order to effectuate the purpose of the National Labor Relations
Act, and to avoid unnecessary costs and delay,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the

National Labor Relations Board, that Case 13-RC-271360, and hereby is, transferred to
and continued in Region 7.
/s/ Beth Tursell
FOR:
Peter Sung Ohr

Acting General Counsel
Dated: April 13, 2021

at Washington, D.C.
cc: Region 13, Region 7
1 Exhibit 6
REGION SEVEN
GHG MANAGEMENT, LLC D/B/A WINDY CITY
CANNABIS
Employer
LOCAL 881
Petitioner
ORDER DIRECTING HEARING AND

NOTICE OF HEARING ON OBJECTIONS
Based on a petition filed on January 11, 2021, and pursuant to a Stipulated Election
Agreement, an election was conducted on February 25, 2021 to determine whether a unit of
employees of GHG Management, LLC d/b/a Windy City Cannabis (the Employer) wish to be
represented for purposes of collective bargaining by United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 881 (the Petitioner). That voting unit consists of:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time product specialists employed

by the Employer from its facility currently located at 923 W. Weed Street
in Chicago, Illinois.
Excluded: Managers, product specialist leads, agent in charge, office

clerical employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
The tally of ballots prepared at the conclusion of the election shows that of the
approximately 29 eligible voters, 11 votes were cast for and 10 votes were cast against the
Petitioner, with 0 challenged ballots, a number that is not sufficient to affect the results of the
election.
THE OBJECTIONS
On April 7, 2021, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election. A copy of the objections is attached to this Order.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
I have concluded that the evidence submitted by the Employer in support of its objections
could be grounds for overturning the election if introduced at a hearing. Accordingly, in
accordance with Section 102.69(c)(1)(ii) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, IT IS
ORDERED that a hearing shall be held before a Hearing Officer designated by me, for the
1 Exhibit 7
purpose of receiving evidence to resolve the issues raised by the objections. At the hearing, the
parties will have the right to appear in person to give testimony, and to examine and cross-
examine witnesses.
Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall submit to me and serve on
the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact and
recommendations as to the disposition of the objections.
NOTICE OF HEARING
Starting at 10:00 EDT a.m. on April 28, 2021, via Zoom videoconference, the hearing
on objections as described above will be conducted before a hearing officer of the National
Labor Relations Board. The hearing will continue on consecutive days thereafter until
completed unless I determine that extraordinary circumstances warrant otherwise.
Dated: April 15, 2021
Terry Morgan,
Regional Director
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 05-200
Detroit, MI 48226
Attachment
2 Exhibit 7
DilgUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REGION 13
GHG Management LLC d/b/a Windy )

City Cannabis )
)
Employer, )
)
and ) Case No. 13-RC-271360
)
United Food and Commercial Workers )
Local 881 )
)
Petitioner. )
EMPLOYER GHG MANAGEMENT LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT

AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION
Pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, including
Section 102.69, GHG Management LLC (“Employer”) hereby files the following Objections to
Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election in connection with the mail ballot election conducted
by Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and counted March 31, 2021 in
Case number 13-RC-271360 filed by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881
(“Union”). The objectionable conduct includes the following:
OBJECTION 1: The accuracy and purpose of the mail ballot election was defeated
by delays with the National Labor Relations Board processing of ballots and extraordinary and
arbitrary delays with the United States Postal Service which resulted in voter disenfranchisement
that is outcome determinative.
OBJECTION 2: After postponing the ballot count on or about March 18, 2021
because of known outstanding ballots from voters that had not yet been received by the Region,
3 Exhibit 7
and then representing to the parties on March 22 that it had received ballots from all voters that
told the Region they had returned ballots, the Board Agent failed to notify the parties that the
Region was aware that at least one voter had returned a ballot but it had not been received by the
Region as of the ballot count on March 31 resulting in the disenfranchisement that is outcome
determinative.
OBJECTION 3: The Board Agent engaged in misconduct by arbitrarily and/or
selectively contacting certain voters, but not all voters, to confirm whether they had received a
ballot and/or had returned their ballot resulting in disparate treatment of voters and/or
OBJECTION 4: On or about March 18, 2021, the Board Agent contacted the
Employer’s attorney and explained that the ballot count would be postponed to March 31
regardless of whether the Employer stipulated to the new date. The Region’s decision to
unilaterally force postponement of the count to March 31 was objectionable.
OBJECTION 5: Following forced postponement of the count, the Region failed to
issue a new notice of election updating employees regarding the new count date resulting in
4 Exhibit 7
Based on the foregoing Objections, or combination thereof, the Employer submits that the
election must be set aside, and a new, in-person election held. Casehandling Manual Section
11360.3.
Dated: April 7, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey E. Dilger (MN Bar No. 0392153)
1300 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
612.630.1000
jdilger@littler.com
Stefan J. Marculewicz
815 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
202-423-2415
410-404-7805
smarculewicz@littler.com
Counsel for GHG Management LLC d/b/a

Windy City Cannabis
5 Exhibit 7
I hereby certify that the foregoing was e-filed in accordance with NLRB requirements
and served via electronic mail, this 7th day of April, 2021, upon:
Daniel Nelson
daniel.nelson@nlrb.gov
Joseph Torres
Attorney at Law
The Karmel Law Firm
oe@karmellawfirm.com
Moises Zavala
Director of Organizing
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 881
moiseszavala@local881ufcw.org

Jeffrey E. Dilger
4839-9702-8580.1 / 108055-1000
6 Exhibit 7
REGION SEVEN
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a

WINDY CITY CANNABIS
Employer
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL

WORKERS LOCAL 881
Petitioner
DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election, an election was conducted in a unit of

the Employer’s full-time and regular part-time product specialists employed by the Employer
from its facility currently located at 923 W. Weed Street, Chicago, Illinois. The election was
conducted by mail from February 25, 2021 to March 31, 2021. 1 The tally of ballots shows that of
the 29 eligible voters, 11 ballots were cast for Petitioner and 10 voters cast ballots against
representation. There were no challenged ballots and no void ballots. Therefore, Petitioner
received the majority of votes.
The Employer timely filed five Objections to the election. On June 25, the hearing
officer issued a report in which he recommended overruling the Objections in their entirety. On
July 12, the Employer filed Exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendations. On July 26,
Petitioner timely filed a written Opposition to Employer’s Exceptions to the Hearing Officer’s
Report on Objections.
The hearing officer’s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. I have considered the evidence and the arguments presented by the Employer
and Petitioner. As discussed below, I agree with the hearing officer that the Employer’s
Objections should be overruled. Accordingly, I am issuing a Certification of Representative.
I. THE OBJECTIONS
On April 7, the Employer timely filed “Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of
the Election,” a copy of which was served on Petitioner in accordance with the Board’s Rules
and Regulations:
1
All dates 2021 unless otherwise indicated.
1 Exhibit 8
(1) OBJECTION 1: The accuracy and purpose of the mail ballot election was defeated
by delays with the National Labor Relations Board processing of ballots and
extraordinary and arbitrary delays with the United States Postal Service which resulted in
voter disenfranchisement that is outcome determinative.
(2) OBJECTION 2: After postponing the ballot count on or about March 18 because of
known outstanding ballots from voters that had not yet been received by the Region, and
then representing to the parties on March 22 that it had received ballots from all voters
that told the Region they had returned ballots, the Board Agent failed to notify the parties
that the Region was aware that at least one voter had returned a ballot but it had not been
received by the Region as of the ballot count on March 31 resulting in the
(3) OBJECTION 3: The Board Agent engaged in misconduct by arbitrarily and/or

selectively contacting certain voters, but not all voters, to confirm whether they had
received a ballot and/or had returned their ballot resulting in disparate treatment of voters
and/or disenfranchisement that is outcome determinative.
(4) OBJECTION 4: On or about March 18, the Board Agent contacted the Employer’s
attorney and explained that the ballot count would be postponed to March 31 regardless
of whether the Employer stipulated to the new date. The Region’s decision to unilaterally
force postponement of the count to March 31 was objectionable.
(5) OBJECTION 5: Following forced postponement of the count, the Region failed to issue
a new notice of election updating employees regarding the new count date resulting in
A hearing on Objections was held in Detroit, Michigan on April 28. The hearing officer
recommended that the Employer’s Objections be overruled in their entirety.
II. THE EXCEPTIONS
A. Finding Regarding the Employer’s Exceptions 2 to Hearing Officer’s

Recommendation To Overrule Objection 1
The Employer’s Exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule

Objection 1 center on ballot processing delays by the Region as well as the United States Postal
Service (USPS) which it argues resulted in voter disenfranchisement that affected the outcome of
the election.
The Employer first argues that the hearing officer refused to determine that the Region’s
refusal to hold a manual election created a delay in ballot processing that ultimately affected the
outcome of the election. It is true that since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020,
Region 13, like all NLRB regions across the country, has conducted a majority of representation
2
The Employer’s Exceptions regarding Objection 1 include Exceptions 8 through 15.
2 Exhibit 8
elections by mail ballot. Since November 2020, where there was a dispute as to the
appropriateness of holding a mail ballot election, the Regions have been making such decisions
pursuant to the Board’s guidelines established in Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No 45 at 4-8
(November 9, 2020). While conditions regarding the COVID pandemic have recently improved
significantly to the point where manual elections are being held more frequently around the
country, all directed elections continue to be conducted under the current Board guidance in
Aspirus as well as General Counsel Memoranda 20-10 and 21-01.
What the hearing officer found here, and what the Employer fails to acknowledge, is that
this election was not directed under the guidelines established by the Board in Aspirus. Despite
having the opportunity to make arguments regarding the appropriateness of a manual election in
a pre-election hearing, thus requiring the Region to determine whether such election should be
held under Aspirus, the Employer signed a Stipulated Election Agreement consenting to a mail
ballot election. I fail to see any ballot processing delay on the Region’s based on the parties’
agreement to conduct the election by mail.
Next, the Employer argues that the hearing officer erred when he did not find merit to the
argument that the Region failed to properly staff NLRB personnel to answer requests from voters
for duplicate ballot kits and that such a failure resulted in the late arrival of ballots. In Lemco
Construction, Inc., 283 NLRB 459 (1987), the Board determined that election results should be
certified where all eligible voters have an adequate opportunity to participate in the election,
notwithstanding low voter participation. The Board declared it will not apply a percentage test
of eligible voters voting to determine the validity of an election, rather, it will find an election to
be valid if: (1) all employees have received adequate notice of the election; (2) all employees
were given adequate opportunity to vote; and (3) employees were not prevented from voting by
the conduct of one of the parties or by unfairness in the scheduling or mechanics of the election.
See also Northern Star Realty Co., 283 NLRB 1159 (1987); Community Care System, 284
NLRB 1147 (1987). Here, the Employer challenges the third prong of Lemco requiring that
employees are not prevented from voting by unfairness in the scheduling or mechanics of the
election.
Here, the record demonstrates that the notice of election listed two NLRB phone numbers
for voters to call to request a duplicate ballot in the event they did not receive an original ballot
in the mail by March 4 – one phone number was to the Region 13 office and the other phone
number was a national toll-free line to the NLRB. The record supports that Wratten called both
NLRB numbers on March 3 and 4, presumably in her attempt to obtain a duplicate ballot kit.
However, the record does not establish that employee Wratten actually left a voicemail
requesting a duplicate ballot. 3 Further, as found by the hearing officer, the record evidence
demonstrates that following Wratten’s March 3 and 4 phone calls to the NLRB, Wratten missed
multiple return phone calls from the NLRB. 4 The hearing officer, supported by record evidence,
correctly determined that Wratten knew the NLRB was trying to contact her but did not respond
3
The hearing officer found Wratten’s testimony on whether she left a voicemail on March 3 or 4 was inconsistent
and inconclusive. The Employer’s statement in its brief supporting its Exceptions that “[a]fter being unsuccessful
with her first two phone calls, on a third call on March 4, Mr. Wratten left a voicemail message” is not supported by
the record.
4
The Employer acknowledges in its brief that “… Ms. Wratten received return phone calls from the Region but was
unable to answer them.”
3 Exhibit 8
to the missed phone calls because she was “busy with school and work.” Furthermore, the
record is clear that on March 10, following those missed phone calls from the NLRB to Wratten,
the Board agent sent a text message to Wratten advising her that a duplicate ballot was mailed to
her that day. There is no dispute that the record demonstrates that Wratten received her duplicate
ballot kit on March 15 and returned her duplicate ballot three days later on March 18.
Contrary to the Employer’s claims, I do not find this to be a situation where the NLRB
was derelict in not responding to Wratten for seven days (from her initial phone call on March 3
to the time the duplicate ballot was mailed on March 10). This is particularly true given that
there was no record evidence demonstrating whether a duplicate ballot was actually requested by
Wratten or that the duplicate was sent out in an abundance of caution by the Region when it was
unable (after numerous attempts) to contact her directly. I do not agree with the Employer that
the Region’s actions here cause an irregularity or unfairness in the scheduling or mechanics of
the election. Instead, I agree with the hearing officer that under the specific circumstances
presented on the record, the Region’s actions were both timely and reasonable. Cf. National Hot
Rod Association v. NLRB, 988 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir Feb. 23, 2021) (where DC Circuit Court
overruled Board and finding 5-day delay between request for and sending of a duplicate ballot to
be an irregularity attributable to Board agents) (emphasis added).
I further find that, in agreement with the hearing officer, that Wratten’s delay in returning
her mail ballot on March 18 (three days after she received it), which arrived to the Region one
day after the ballot count, was beyond the control of the Region and does not provide a basis for
setting aside this election. The Board has consistently held that an employee, having been
advised of the procedure and timing of the vote, maintains some responsibility for overcoming
obstacles and casting a ballot. Versail Manufacturing, 212 NLRB 592, 593 (1974). In Visiting
Nurses Association of Metropolitan Atlanta, Inc., 314 NLRB 404 (1994), an employee arrived at
the voting site 15 minutes before the close of the polls (after returning from work away from the
facility). Before the employee could vote, she was called in for a brief discussion with her
supervisor. The Board found that the employee was not disenfranchised by the employer
because she did not make every effort to proceed directly and expeditiously from her brief
conversation with her supervisor to the polling area. Id. at 404-405. Similarly, Wratten could
have expeditiously returned her mail ballot on March 15, the same day it arrived, or on March
16, the day she told the Board Agent she would return it, instead of waiting until March 18.
See also, National Van Lines, 120 NLRB 1343, 1346 (1956) (employees who failed to return
mail ballots by the established due date would not have their votes counted; they could have
voted duplicate ballots had they not exhibited a "lack of diligence and interest"); Waste
Management of Northwest Louisiana, Inc., 326 NLRB 1389, 1389 (1998). Here, as found by the
hearing officer, Wratten confirmed receipt of her duplicate ballot on March 15, and indicated she
was sending it that same day, but failed to do so. 5
In sum, the Region’s actions in sending out Wratten’s duplicate ballot kit did not
constitute a “multi-day delay” which “created the possibility of disenfranchisement” or raised
any “doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election” as argued by the Employer. Instead, as
found by the hearing officer, the Region made numerous attempts to contact Wratten and,
5
Whether the ballot would have been timely received had Wratten received her ballot earlier or sent it in on
March 15 requires an exercise in speculation. Here, I must make the determination based on the record evidence
and the specific circumstances presented in this case.
4 Exhibit 8
whether by request or its own initiative, sent a duplicate ballot that she acknowledged she
received well before the date of the ballot count. Despite receiving her ballot on March 15,
Wratten did not return the ballot until March 18. Such a delay was solely on her part, and not
due to any action by the Region. See, National Van Lines, 120 NLRB at 1346 (late-received
ballots were not counted where voters were not excluded by “any defect in the election
procedures utilized, but rather [were] occasioned by their lack of diligence and interest in
mailing their ballots on a date which would have assured their timely receipt”).
Finally, the Employer contends that the hearing officer failed to consider “problems and
delays with the USPS” which “exceed[ed] the ‘vagaries of mail delivery’” and resulted in a
flawed and unfair election. In this regard, the Employer references undisputed record evidence
that (1) employee Wratten mailed her duplicate ballot to the Region on March 18 which arrived
14 days later, on April 1; (2) employee Kaplan mailed her ballot to the Region on March 8 which
was never received, and (3) employee Coffman never received his ballot mailed by the Region
on February 25. Thus, the Employer argues, three of 31 ballots (i.e., “nearly 10 percent”) mailed
by the Region in this election “were significantly impacted by problems with the USPS” and
resulted in voters not receiving adequate notice and an opportunity to vote.
As found by the hearing officer, employee Coffman received notification and had the
same opportunity as all other voters regarding the procedure for requesting a duplicate ballot in
the event an original ballot was not received. Despite receiving those instructions, Coffman
undisputedly did not call or otherwise initiate any contact with Region 13 office to seek a
duplicate ballot. Thus, Coffman was aware that that an election was taking place but did not take
any reasonable steps to obtain a duplicate ballot.
It is well established that when the conduct of a party to the election causes an employee
to miss his opportunity to vote, the Board will set aside the results of the election if the
employee's vote would have been determinative of the outcome of the election. Sahuaro
Petroleum and Asphalt Company, 306 NLRB 586, 586 (1992), citing Versail Manufacturing,
Inc., 212 NLRB 592, 593 (1974). However, when an employee does not vote for reasons that are
beyond the control of a party or the Board, the failure to vote is not a basis for setting aside the
election. Id. at 586-587. Coffman’s ballot clearly falls into the latter circumstance in which his
failure to return a ballot whatsoever was beyond the control of the parties or the Board and is not
a basis for setting aside an election. As noted above, the Board has consistently held that an
employee, having been advised of the procedure and timing of the vote, maintains some
responsibility for overcoming obstacles and casting a ballot. Versail Manufacturing, 212 NLRB
at 593. See also, Coast North America Trucking Ltd, 325 NLRB 980, 981 (1998) (employees
had the opportunity to vote and their choosing not to vote does not warrant setting aside the
election). Under these circumstances, the Employer has not demonstrated that Coffman did not
receive an adequate notice and opportunity to vote or was prevented from voting by failure of the
USPS.
Turning next to the ballots of Kaplan and Wratten, based on undisputed evidence, the
hearing officer found that Kaplan sent in her ballot but it was never received and that Wratten’s
ballot was untimely received one day after the ballot count. The Board has long reasoned that
there "must be some degree of finality to the results of an election, and there are strong policy
considerations favoring prompt completion of representation proceedings." Versail
5 Exhibit 8
Manufacturing, 212 NLRB at 593. Thus, the Board must balance the conflicting interests of
affording employees the broadest participation in election proceedings while still insuring the
prompt completion of election proceedings. To this end, the Board explained in Classic Valet
Parking, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 23, slip op. at 1, as noted by the hearing officer, that the Board's
Rule permitting mail ballots received after the due date, but before the ballot count, to be opened
and counted already provides a grace period for late-arriving ballots and finds a balance between
the interests of effectuating employee choice and the substantial policy considerations favoring
the finality of elections.
Sustaining the Employer’s Objection regarding the ballots of Kaplan and Wratten would
open the door to endless challenges and litigation arising from varying experiences with the
USPS and the subjective expectations of individual voters whose ballots arrived and/or were
returned late. To permit ballots to be counted that are received days after the count (or in the
Kaplan’s case not at all), would improperly and unnecessarily shift the balance of the conflicting
interests noted above against the prompt completion of election proceedings and unduly hamper
and delay the entire election process. Under extant Board law, this mail ballot election need not
be set aside based on two ballots out of 31 that appear to have been “lost through the vagaries of
mail delivery,” as determined by the hearing officer. See also, Premier Utility Services, LLC,
363 NLRB No. 159, slip op. at 1, fn. 1 (2016) and Classic Valet, 363 NLRB at 1, cited by the
hearing officer, in which the Board found that the regional directors’ decisions not to count late-
received ballots were fully consistent with Board precedent and policy and did not constitute an
abuse of discretion.
Based on the above analysis, I find that the Employer’s Exceptions to the hearing
officer’s recommendation to Objection 1 are without merit and I affirm the hearing officer’s
recommendation.
B. Finding Regarding the Employer’s Exceptions 6 to Hearing Officer’s

The Employer’s Exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule

Objection 2 center on the Region’s postponement of the ballot count while awaiting known
outstanding ballots and later failing to notify the parties that at least one voter’s ballot had not
been received by the Region. Specifically, in these Exceptions, the Employer argues that it
relied on the Board Agent’s statement that the Region had received all outstanding ballots when
it had not, which caused it to miss an opportunity to seek a second postponement of the ballot
count to address Wratten’s outstanding ballot. Thus, the Employer argues, given the one-vote
margin in this election, the Board Agent’s “misrepresentation raises a reasonable doubt as to the
fairness and validity of the election.” However, in agreement with the hearing officer, I find that
the Employer’s Exceptions regarding this Objection are without merit.
It is undisputed that by their Stipulated Agreement executed on March 19, the parties
agreed to extend the voting period from March 22 to March 29 based on “a concern that not all
mail ballots mailed back to the Regional Office have been received.” It is also undisputed that
Wratten’s ballot was not received in the Region 13 office by the agreed upon March 29 due date
or March 31 count date. At issue is a March 22 email from the Board Agent, to the parties, that
6
6 Exhibit 8
stated: “So we’ve received ballots from all at least that have told me that they sent their ballots
in. We are at about 20 received as of this past Friday. Thus, I’d expect we’ll be going forward
with the count on 3/31.” The record further demonstrated that the Board Agent informed the
parties on March 31 (the day of the count) that the Region had received the three ballots that had
not been received as of March 18, which was the reason the initial count was extended to March
31. There was no specific information provided by the Board agent as to any outstanding ballots
that may have been sent out after March 18.
The Employer argues that this communication created a situation whereby it believed the
ballots had all been returned and had it known that Wratten’s had not yet been received, it would
have requested additional time for the receipt of the outstanding ballot. The Employer argues
that the Board Agent “misrepresented” the situation to the detriment of the Employer and created
an irregularity that affected the outcome of the election.
Here, as suggested by the hearing officer, the Board Agent’s comments to the parties
about the receipt of ballots was more of a misunderstanding than a misrepresentation. On March
22, the Board Agent specifically indicated that the Region had received all the ballots of the
voters who indicated that they sent in their ballots, but on March 31 clarified her statement by
specifying that those were the original delayed ballots from the March 18 date. As correctly
found by the hearing officer, election procedures “may not always be met to the letter,
sometimes through neglect, sometimes because of the exigencies of circumstance. The question
which the Board must decide in each case in which there is a challenge to conduct of the election
is whether the manner in which the election was conducted raises a reasonable doubt as to the
fairness and validity of the election.” Polymers, Inc., 174 NLRB 282, 282 (1969), enfd. 414 F.2d
999 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1010 (1970).
Here, the admittedly confusing statements to the parties had no impact on the voters’ choice
or the mechanics of the election. The Board will only set aside an election when the conduct of
the Board agent tends to “destroy the confidence in the Board’s election process or could
reasonably be interpreted as impairing the election standards the Board seeks to maintain.”
Athbro Precision Engineering Corp. 166 NLRB 966, 966 (1967); Ensign Sonoma, LLC 342
NLRB 933, 933 (2004). The Board Agent’s statements were not made or communicated to the
voters and did not suggest that there were irregularities to the process that would reasonably be
interpreted as impairing the Board’s standards. See, Indeck Energy Services of Turner Falls,
Inc., 316 NLRB 300, 301 (1995) (“we cannot find under the circumstances of this case…[a
remark about opening the challenged ballots], made outside the presence of eligible voters other
than the Petitioner's observer who had already voted, even when considered cumulatively…
raised a ‘reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election.’”)
Furthermore, the Employer’s argument is almost entirely speculative. Whether the Employer
would have asked whether the parties would have agreed to, or the Region would have
authorized another extension of the count date based on one outstanding ballot is unknowable.
There is no duty of the Board agent or the Region to confirm the number of votes received before
a mail ballot count. There is no record evidence that either party requested or was denied a
second postponement of the count to allow for additional ballots to arrive at the Regional office.
As such, I agree with the hearing officer that the Board Agent’s statements were not sufficient to
demonstrate that confidence in the standards the Board seeks to maintain were destroyed.
7 Exhibit 8
Based on the above, I find that the Employer’s Exceptions to the hearing officer’s
recommendation to Objection 2 are without merit and I affirm the hearing officer’s
recommendation.
C. Finding Regarding the Employer’s Exceptions 7 to Hearing Officer’s

The Employer’s Exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule Objection 3

center on it claim that the Region arbitrarily contacted certain voters, but not all voters, to
confirm whether they had received a ballot and/or had returned their ballot resulting in disparate
treatment of voters and/or disenfranchisement that is outcome determinative. Specifically, the
Employer argues that the Board Agent caused an irregularity in the election when she inquired
with employee/voter Wratten by text message on March 15 as to whether Wratten received her
duplicate ballot but did not reach out to all other voters in the election whose ballots were
outstanding. I find that the Employer’s Exceptions regarding Objection 3 are without merit.
The Employer submits that in reaching out to Wratten on March 15 the Board Agent
“decided to confirm the receipt of ballot kits.” However, as found by the Hearing Officer, the
record evidence does not support that argument. The Board Agent did not reach out to Wratten
out of the blue – rather, the record evidence demonstrates that the Board Agent reached out to
Wratten to confirm the receipt of Wratten’s duplicate ballot kit following multiple
communications (and attempted communications) between Wratten and the Board Agent.
Thus, as correctly noted by the hearing officer, “the evidence establishes that the Board Agent
was not arbitrarily or selectively contacting certain voters, but not others. Instead, the evidence
shows the Board agent was responding to Wratten’s request for duplicate ballot.” The record is
absent of evidence that any other voters similarly initiated contact with the Region regarding
their ballot.” I find that the Board Agent’s conduct in this regard did not constitute an
irregularity or create a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of this election, as argued
by the Employer. As such, I find no merit to the Employer’s Exceptions to Objection 3 and
affirm the hearing officer’s recommendation.
D. Finding Regarding the Employer’s Exceptions 8 to Hearing Officer’s

The Employer’s Exception to the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule Objection

4 centers on its claim that the Region unilaterally forced a postponement of the ballot count from
March 22 to March 31. Specifically, the Employer asserts that the Regional Director abused his
discretion “[b]y extending the ballot count only once to count only some but not all known
outstanding ballots.” (emphasis added). Thus, the Employer argues, “[i]f the Regional Direct
had no intent of enforcing this standard throughout the course of the mail ballot process, the
Regional Director should have never extended the count date in the first place.” I find that the
Employer’s Exceptions regarding Objection 4 are without merit.
7
The Employer’s Exceptions regarding Objection 3 include Exceptions 23 and 24.
8
8 Exhibit 8
By Order issued on March 19, the Regional Director postponed the ballot count was
postponed from March 22 to March 31 per the parties’ Stipulated Agreement to postpone the
ballot count executed on the same date. The Stipulated Agreement was based on “a concern that
not all mail ballots mailed back to the Regional Office have been received” and specifically
noted that “[t]o date, only fifteen of the thirty mailed ballots have been received by the Regional
Office.” As found by the hearing officer, the postponement was by agreement of the parties and
not ordered by the Regional Director. As such, I find that the record does not support the
Employer’s assertion that the Region unilaterally forced a postponement of the ballot count from
March 22 to March 31.
The Employer also argues, in essence, that a second postponement should have been
ordered by the Regional Director on the basis of one outstanding ballot (Wratten). However, as
noted by the hearing officer, the parties’ February 2 Stipulated Election Agreement provides in
relevant part that “[i]f the election and/or count is postponed or canceled, the Regional Director,
in his or her discretion, may reschedule the date, time, and place of the election and/or count.”
(emphasis added). The record demonstrates that the first postponement served its purpose in
addressing the low voter participation rate in the election in that additional ballots were thereafter
received by the Region. The record does not support the Employer’s assertion that a second
postponement by the Regional Director would have been warranted “in the face of the continued
existence of ballots that had been mailed by but (sic) not yet received by the Region.” The
record is absent of evidence showing a continued low participation rate which might suggest a
second postponement was likewise warranted. Instead, there was one outstanding ballot out of
31. Moreover, nothing prevented either party from requesting a second postponement of the
ballot count. As noted by the hearing officer, “the record does not show that either party
requested or was denied a second postponement of the ballot count to allow for additional ballots
to arrive at the Regional office.” I find that the Employer’s Exceptions to the hearing officer’s
recommendation to overrule Objection 4 are without merit.
E. Finding Regarding the Employer’s Exceptions 9 to Hearing Officer’s

The Employer’s Exceptions regarding Objection 5 center on the Region’s failure to issue
a new notice of election updating employees regarding the new count date resulting in
insufficient notice to employees. Specifically, while not disputing that the Region duly issued a
notice of election containing the details of the election pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated
Election Agreement, the Employer contends that the Region’s failure to update or supplement
the notice of election “regarding the new particulars of the mail ballot election” following the
postponement of the mail ballot count from March 22 to March 31 constituted “either per se
objectionable conduct or an objectionable election irregularity.” I find that the Employer’s
Exceptions regarding Objection 5 are without merit.
It is undisputed that following the parties’ February 2 Stipulated Election Agreement,

the Region prepared and transmitted the notice of election to the parties for posting by the
Employer, informing the employees of the initial dates and times of the election and ballot count.
As found by the hearing officer, “the record supports that employees received notice of the
election and the parties agreed upon procedures before the election took place.” Such notice of
9
9 Exhibit 8
election issued per the procedures set forth in CHM Section 11314 and there is no basis to set
aside the election under Rule 102.62(e).
It is also undisputed that following the parties’ March 19 Stipulated Agreement to

postpone and extend the voting period for the mail ballot portion of the election from March 22
to March 29, no new or supplemental notice of election was prepared by the Region. The stated
purpose of the Stipulated Agreement was to address the parties’ concern to allow additional time
for outstanding mailed ballots to arrive at the Regional office, not to allow employees more time
to mail their ballots. While the Region might have, out of an abundance of caution, issued a new
or supplemental notice of election advising employees of additional time to return their ballots, I
find that its failure to do so did not raise a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the
election or affect the results of the election. See, Guardsmark, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 103, slip op.
at 5 (2016) (“The Board acknowledges both that ‘strict compliance with its election procedures
does not guarantee the validity of an election,’ and that ‘deviation from these procedures does
not necessarily require setting aside an election.’ There is no ‘per se rule that . . . elections must
be set aside following any procedural irregularity. The test for setting aside an election based on
regional office conduct is whether the alleged irregularity raised ‘a reasonable doubt as to the
fairness and validity of the election.’ The objecting party's showing of prejudicial harm must be
more than speculative to establish that a new election is required.” (other citations omitted)).
Here, the Employer's evidence of prejudicial harm is decidedly speculative – there is no

evidence in the record that any voters failed to vote because they did not think their ballot would
be returned to the Regional office on time. To the contrary, although it is unknown whether
employee Wratten was aware that the count date had been changed from March 22 to March 29,
there is record evidence demonstrating that she deposited her ballot in the mail on March 18,
four days before original count date and 11 days before the extended count date. I fail to see
how employees not being reminded that they had additional time to return their ballots resulted
in employees being unable to complete their ballots once received.
Additionally, I find the Employer’s reliance on The Woods Quality Cabinet Company,
340 NLRB 1355, 1356 (2003), in support of this objection, is misplaced. In that case, upon the
employer notifying the Region that the notice of election and sample ballot incorrectly
designated the petitioner-union as affiliated with the AFL-CIO and requesting that the notice and
ballots be corrected, the Region declined to take any action and the election was held
notwithstanding the incorrect designation. Thereafter, the employer contended in its objections
that the erroneous designation of the petitioner-union as affiliated with the AFL-CIO and the
Region's failure to correct the designation warranted setting aside the election. Finding that “the
designation of the [p]etitioner's affiliation with the AFL-CIO was erroneous on both the notice
and the ballots,” the Board held that such erroneous designation “reasonably tended to interfere
with the election process so that the election should be set aside.” Thus, the issue was not
whether a new or supplemental notice of election should have been issued, but rather, whether
the notice in question was defective by including an erroneous designation. As stated above,
there is no evidence in this case that the Notices of Election that were sent to the employees were
defective or misleading or that the extension of the time to receive ballots caused any confusion
or lack of action by voters.
10 Exhibit 8
Based on the above, the Employer’s Exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendation
to overrule Objection 5 are without merit. 10
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the above and having carefully reviewed the entire record, including the hearing
officer’s report and recommendations, the Exceptions by the Employer, 11 and the arguments
made by the parties, I overrule the objections, and I shall certify the Petitioner as the
representative of the appropriate bargaining unit.
IV. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881, and that it is the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time product specialists employed by the Employer
from its facility currently located at 923 W. Weed Street in Chicago, Illinois, but
EXCLUDING Managers, product specialist leads, agents in charge, office clerical
employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
V. REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 102.69(c)(2) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, any party may
file with the Board in Washington, DC, a request for review of this decision. The request for
review must conform to the requirements of Sections 102.67(e) and (i)(1) of the Board’s Rules
and must be received by the Board in Washington by August 19, 2021. If no request for review
is filed, the decision is final and shall have the same effect as if issued by the Board.
Pursuant to Section 102.5(c) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, a request for
review must be filed by electronically submitting (E-Filing) it through the Agency’s web
site (www.nlrb.gov), unless the party filing the request for review does not have access to
the means for filing electronically or filing electronically would impose an undue burden.
To E-File the request for review, go to www.nlrb.gov, select E-File Documents, enter the NLRB
Case Number, and follow the detailed instructions. If not E-Filed, the Request for Review should
be addressed to the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE,
10
In making my findings on this objection I do not rely on the hearing officer’s report in Case 09-RC-270027
(issued June 1), as urged by the Employer.
11
Employer’s Exceptions 1 through 8 do not pertain to its substantive Objections and are overruled.
11 Exhibit 8
Washington, DC 20570-0001. A party filing a request for review must serve a copy of the
request on the other parties and file a copy with the Regional Director. A certificate of service
must be filed with the Board together with the request for review.
Dated: August 5, 2021
Dennis R. Boren
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 05-200
Detroit, MI 48226
Attachment
12 Exhibit 8
NOTICE OF BARGAINING OBLIGATION
In the recent representation election, a labor organization received a majority of

the valid votes cast. Except in unusual circumstances, unless the results of the election
are subsequently set aside in a post-election proceeding, the employer’s legal obligation
to refrain from unilaterally changing bargaining unit employees’ terms and conditions of
employment begins on the date of the election.
The employer is not precluded from changing bargaining unit employees’ terms
and conditions during the pendency of post-election proceedings, as long as the employer
(a) gives sufficient notice to the labor organization concerning the proposed change(s);
(b) negotiates in good faith with the labor organization, upon request; and (c) good faith
bargaining between the employer and the labor organization leads to agreement or overall
lawful impasse.
This is so even if the employer, or some other party, files objections to the
election pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor
Relations Board (the Board). If the objections are later overruled and the labor
organization is certified as the employees’ collective-bargaining representative, the
employer’s obligation to refrain from making unilateral changes to bargaining unit
employees’ terms and conditions of employment begins on the date of the election, not
on the date of the subsequent decision by the Board or court. Specifically, the Board has
held that, absent exceptional circumstances,1 an employer acts at its peril in making
changes in wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment during the period
while objections are pending and the final determination about certification of the labor
organization has not yet been made.
It is important that all parties be aware of the potential liabilities if the employer
unilaterally alters bargaining unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment during
the pendency of post-election proceedings. Thus, typically, if an employer makes post-
election changes in employees’ wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of
employment without notice to or consultation with the labor organization that is
ultimately certified as the employees’ collective-bargaining representative, it violates
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act since such changes have the
effect of undermining the labor organization’s status as the statutory representative of the
employees. This is so even if the changes were motivated by sound business
considerations and not for the purpose of undermining the labor organization. As a
remedy, the employer could be required to: 1) restore the status quo ante; 2) bargain,
upon request, with the labor organization with respect to these changes; and 3)
compensate employees, with interest, for monetary losses resulting from the unilateral
implementation of these changes, until the employer bargains in good faith with the labor
organization, upon request, or bargains to overall lawful impasse.
_________________________________________
1
Exceptions may include the presence of a longstanding past practice, discrete event, or exigent
economic circumstance requiring an immediate response.
13 Exhibit 8
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL

WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 881,
Petitioner,
Case No. 13-RC-271360
v.
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A WINDY

CITY CANNABIS,
Employer.
EMPLOYER GHG MANAGEMENT LLC’S REQUEST FOR REVIEW
Dated: August 19, 2021 Stefan Marculewicz

Jeffrey E. Dilger
80 S. 8th St., Suite 1300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: 612-313-7628
Facsimile: 612-677-3818
E-mail: smarculewicz@littler.com
jdilger@littler.com
Attorneys for Employer GHG Management LLC.
1 Exhibit 9
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................5
II. FACTS ...........................................................................................................................7
III. THE ARD’S DECISION REGARDING OBJECTION 2, THE

MISREPRESENTATION OBJECTION, WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT,
SUBSTANTIALLY DEPARTED FROM BOARD PRECEDENT, AND RAISES
NOVEL ISSUES OF BOARD LAW OR POLICY ....................................................... 11
A. The ARD was factually and legally incorrect when he found that the
Board agent’s March 22 email was not an objectionable misrepresentation. ...... 11
1. There was a misrepresentation ............................................................... 12
2. The representation was material............................................................. 14
3. The misrepresentation induced agreement for an action ......................... 14
4. The reliance on the representation was justified ..................................... 14
5. The Board agent’s misrepresentation was and is objectionable............... 15
B. Contrary to the ARD’s conclusion, the Board agent’s post-election

“clarification” as to the intended meaning of the March 22 e-mail not only
does not resolve the misrepresentation, it is an admission of the Board
agent’s mistake. ................................................................................................ 17
C. The ARD’s conclusion that the “confusing statements” had no impact on

the voters’ choice or mechanics of the election is contrary to Board
precedent. ......................................................................................................... 19
D. The Board agent’s misrepresentation did not result in speculative harm—

the misrepresentation was the harm; the ARD’s conclusion is factually and
legally incorrect. ............................................................................................... 20
IV. THE ARD’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION 4 RAISES A

NOVEL ISSUE REGARDING A REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DISCRETION TO
POSTPONE BALLOT COUNTS ................................................................................. 22
V. THE ARD’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION 1 RAISE NOVEL

QUESTIONS OF BOARD LAW OR POLICY REGARDING THE CONDUCT
OF MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS DURING A PANDEMIC AND PROVIDE A
COMPELLING REASON FOR THE BOARD TO REVISIT ITS “VAGARIES
OF MAIL DELIVERY” CASES .................................................................................. 24
2 Exhibit 9
A. The Region’s lack of accessibility caused delays with Ms. Wratten’s ballot
that establish possible disenfranchisement. ........................................................ 24
B. The ARD’s conclusions regarding Board delay were factually and legally
incorrect. ........................................................................................................... 27
C. General delays with the USPS invalidate the election and the Board should
reconsider it its cases disenfranchising voters as a result of the “vagaries of
mail delivery”. .................................................................................................. 29
VI. THE ARD’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION 5 ARE

CONTRARY TO BOARD POLICY AND PRECEDENT ............................................ 31
VII. THE ARD’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION 3 ARE

FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND ARE CONTRARY TO BOARD
PRECEDENT............................................................................................................... 34
VIII. THE GENERAL COUNSEL’S DECISION TO DENY TESTIMONY FROM

THE BOARD TESTIMONY WAS CONTRARY TO BOARD PRECEDENT............. 35
IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 37
3 Exhibit 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Aspirus Keweenaw,
370 NLRB No. 45 (2020) ........................................................................................ 24, 25, 30
Athbro Precision Eng'g Corp.,

166 NLRB 966 (1967) ......................................................................................................... 15
Austill Waxed Paper Co.,

169 NLRB 1109 (1968) ....................................................................................................... 19
Avante At Boca Raton,

323 NLRB 555 (1997) ......................................................................................................... 26
Ensign Sonoma LLC d/b/a Sonoma Health Care Ctr.,

342 NLRB 933 (2004) ......................................................................................................... 15
Garda World Security Corp.,

356 NLRB 594 (2011) ......................................................................................................... 15
Horizon Group of New England,

347 NLRB 795 (2006) ......................................................................................................... 11
Indeck Energy Servs.,

316 NLRB 300 (1995) ......................................................................................................... 19
Jakel Inc.,
293 NLRB 615 (1989) ......................................................................................................... 19
Laidlaw Transit, Inc.,

327 NLRB 315 (1999) ......................................................................................................... 36
Lemco Construction, Inc.,

283 NLRB 459 (1987) ................................................................................................... 26, 30
National Van Lines,

120 NLRB 1343 (1956) ....................................................................................................... 29
Paprikas Fono,
273 NLRB 1326 (1984) ....................................................................................................... 19
Polymers, Inc.,
174 NLRB 282 (1969) ....................................................................................... 15, 17, 18, 26
4 Exhibit 9
Rattan Art Gallery, Ltd.,
260 NLRB 255 (1982) ......................................................................................................... 33
Visiting Nurses Ass’n of Metro. Atlanta, Inc.,

314 NLRB 404 (1994) ......................................................................................................... 15
Walker Vehicle Co.,

7 NLRB 827 (1938)............................................................................................................. 33
Waste Mgmt. of Nw. La., Inc.,

326 NLRB 1389 (1998) ................................................................................................. 15, 29
Wolverine Dispatch, Inc.,

321 NLRB 796 (1996) ................................................................................................... 15, 21
In Re Woods Quality Cabinetry Co.,

340 NLRB 1355 (2003) ....................................................................................................... 33
Other Authorities
363 NLRB No. 159 (Apr. 5, 2016) (Miscimarra, dissenting) ..................................................... 31
363 NLRB No. 23 (Oct. 23, 2015) (Miscimarra, dissenting) ...................................................... 31
Restatement of Contracts........................................................................................................... 15
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 159 (1981) ................................................................. 12, 13
5 Exhibit 9
Pursuant to Section 102.69(c) of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and
Regulations, GHG Management LLC (“Employer”) hereby files the following request for review
of the Decision and Certification of Representative issued on August 5, 2021 by Acting Regional
Director Dennis R. Boren, the ARD for Region 7.1 Region 7 is involved in this matter, acting on
behalf of Region 13, because this case involves Board agent misconduct. The Decision and
Certification of Representative affirmed the Hearing Officer’s Report on Objections. 2
The Employer’s core Objection in this case requires the Board to answer a fundamental
unanswered question regarding its election processes: Can a Board agent misrepresent a material
fact underlying a stipulated agreement to postpone a mail ballot election? The ARD is of the belief
that Board agents are permitted to misrepresent material facts to the parties of an election with
impunity. If the Board’s elections are to have any meaning, the Board must correct the ARD’s
plainly erroneous conclusion.
The credited evidence in this one-vote margin election is (1) on March 16, voter Lisa
Wratten told the Board agent via text message that she was going to place her ballot in the mail
that day, (2) on March 19, based on known United States Postal Service delays and the Region’s
understanding from voters that some ballots had been mailed by voters but not received by the
Region, the Parties stipulated (and the Region agreed) to postpone the ballot count from the
original count date of March 22 to March 31, 2021, (3) following the postponement on that basis,
on March 22, the Board agent represented in an email to the Parties that the Region had “received
ballots from all at least that have told me that they sent their ballots in”, (4) the March 22
1
Accompanying this request for review is an Appendix to Employer GHG Management LLC’s Request for Review.
These documents are referenced in the request for review using “(Tab __.)”. The Decision and Certification of
Representative is attached as Tab 1.
2
The Hearing Officer’s Report on Objections is attached as Tab 2.
6 Exhibit 9
representation by the Board agent was not correct as the Region had not yet received Ms.
Wratten’s ballot, (5) the Region did not correct its misrepresentation and proceeded to count the
ballots on March 31, 2021, (6) Ms. Wratten’s ballot was not counted, and (7) Ms. Wratten’s ballot
was received by the Region on April 1, 2021, the day after the ballot count.
The ARD justifies his ultimate conclusion that these facts do not require a new election in
three ways (1) the Board agent’s email representation that the Region had “received ballots from
all at least that have told me that they sent their ballots in” was “more of a misunderstanding than
misrepresentation”, (2) because the “confusing statement” was made to the parties as opposed to
voters, it could not raise a reasonable doubt regarding the fairness and validity of the election, and
(3) the Employer cannot obtain relief because the alleged harm is speculative. The ARD’s
conclusions are factually incorrect, depart from Board precedent, and/or there is an absence of
Board precedent addressing these issues. The Board should grant review of this case to clearly
establish that when Board agents misrepresent facts material to an election (either mistakenly or
intentionally and to either parties or voters) and the misrepresentation had the potential to impact
the outcome of the election, there is only one proper result: a rerun election.
Further, the Board should also review the Employer’s other objections, all erroneously
overruled by the ARD.
The Board should review Employer’s Objection complaining that the Regional Director
abused his discretion by unilaterally postponing, via a fait accompli, the ballot count from March
22, 2021 to March 31, 2021 but then failing to again postpone the count for Ms. Wratten’s
outstanding ballot or otherwise provide a means of curing Ms. Wratten’s known outstanding vote.
This Objection raises a substantial question of law or policy that is not presently answered by
Board precedent. The Board should take this opportunity to clearly establish that a Regional
7 Exhibit 9
Director abuses his or her discretion when he or she establishes safeguards for a ballot count in the
course of an election (taking action to ensure that outstanding but not yet received mail ballots are
counted), but then arbitrarily abandons those safeguards.
The Board should review Employer’s Objection regarding failures in Board and USPS
processes. In this case, there is no dispute that (1) the Board did not staff its phone line with a live
person, requiring voters to leave messages and that because of this it took Ms. Wratten one week
to finally request a duplicate ballot kit and (2) that the USPS irregularities impacted nearly ten
percent of all ballots mailed in this election—it took 14 days for Ms. Wratten’s ballot to make it
from a mailbox in Chicago to the Regional Office in Chicago, voter Anna Kaplan’s returned ballot
remains lost in the mail and has been since March 8, 2021, and voter Jonathan Coffman’s initial
ballot kit from the NLRB remains lost in the mail as has been since February 25, 2021. These
failures both create reasonable doubt regarding the fairness and validity of the election and
establish the possibility of voter disenfranchisement. As to Board processes, this case provides a
substantial question of law or policy raised because of the absence of law regarding the Board’s
processing of duplicate ballot requests while Regional offices are otherwise closed. As to delays
with the USPS, this case presents a compelling reason for the Board to revisit its “vagaries of mail
delivery” standard for representation elections. The Board should grant review to establish
standards for voter access to the Regional offices to request duplicate ballot kits and to establish
heightened safeguards for elections impacted by USPS irregularities.
The Board should review Employer’s Objection regarding postponed elections and
amendments to a Notice of Election. The NLRB Casehandling Manual and NLRB Rules and
Regulations required the Region to provide the Employer with an updated Notice of Election
following its decision to postpone the March 22 ballot count to March 31. The NLRB
8 Exhibit 9
Casehandling Manual requires that, in a mail ballot election, a Notice of Election contain the date,
time, and place for the ballot count. Yet, when the Region changed the date and time of the ballot
count, it did not update its Notice of Election. This was a per se violation of the Section 102.62(e)
and, even absent a per se violation, was an election “irregularity” under Board law. The ARD’s
decision is either a departure from Board precedent or raises a question of law of policy not
previously addressed by the Board.
The Board should also review Employer’s objection regarding disparate treatment of voters
by the Region through the varied communication decisions of the Board agent. The Board agent
contacted a subset of, but not all, voters to inquire as to the mailing of their ballots. The Board
agent’s selective communication creates reasonable doubts about the fairness and validity of the
election and opens the possibility of voter disenfranchisement of voters that did not return ballots.
The ARD’s decision was both factually incorrect and failed to follow Board precedent regarding
Board agent misconduct.
Finally, the Board should also review the General Counsel’s denial of Employer’s Section
102.118 request for Board testimony and documents related to Employer’s objection. 3
There are serious, objective concerns that the election held in this matter does not represent
the will of the majority of the voters in this election. As such, the election held in this matter did
not effectuate the purposes of the Act. In order to uphold the integrity of the Board’s election
standards, the Board should grant review of the ARD’s decision, ultimately sustain Employer’s
Objections, and order a re-run election.
3
The Employer’s Section 102.118 request is attached as Tab 3 and the General Counsel’s response to the 102.118
request is attached as Tab 4.
9 Exhibit 9
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The representation election at issue arises out of a Petition filed by the Petitioner, United
Food and Commercial Workers Local 881, on January 11, 2021. (Tab 2 at 2.) The Parties entered
into a Stipulated Election Agreement for a mail ballot election for the Employer’s Product
Specialists employed at the Employer’s location at 923 W. Weed Street in Chicago, Illinois. (Id.)
The Stipulated Election Agreement called for mail ballot kits to be mailed to eligible voters on
February 25, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. Central Standard Time. (Id.) The ballots were to be received by
the Region by the close of business on Friday, March 19, 2021 and were to be counted, via
videoconference, at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 22, 2021. (Id.) Pursuant to the Stipulated
Election Agreement, the Region issued a Notice of Election containing the details of the election.
(Id. at 14.) This was the only Notice of Election issued by the Region in this matter. (Id.)
During the pendency of the mail ballot period, on or about March 18, 2021, the Board agent
handling the election separately contacted the Parties and indicated to the Parties that the Region
was aware that a certain number of voters had indicated that they had returned ballots, but that
those ballots had not been received by the Region. As a result, the Board agent informed the
Parties that the ballot count scheduled for March 22, 2021 would need to be postponed to March
31, 2021. 4 Following the conversation with the Board agent, based on her representations, counsel
for the Petitioner and Employer executed a stipulation postponing the ballot count to March 31,
2021. (Id. at 5; Tab 6.) As a result of the Parties’ stipulation, the Region ordered that that the
ballot count be postponed to March 31, 2021. (Id.; Tab 7.) The ballot count was held on March
4
As the Board agent was not permitted to testify, there is no evidence in the record regarding these interactions
although the interactions are clearly supported by the stipulation entered into following these interactions. To the
extent this is material, it demonstrates the General Counsel’s error in denying testimony under Section 102.118.
10 Exhibit 9
31, 2021. (Tab 2 at 6.) The tally of ballots reflects 11 ballots cast in favor of representation by
Petitioner and 10 ballots cast against representation by Petitioner. (Id. at 2.)
Following the ballot count, on April 7, 2021, the Employer filed five objections
(“Objections”) to the conduct of the election:
OBJECTION 1: The accuracy and purpose of the mail ballot election

was defeated by delays with the National Labor Relations Board processing of
ballots and extraordinary and arbitrary delays with the United States Postal Service
which resulted in voter disenfranchisement that is outcome determinative.
OBJECTION 2: After postponing the ballot count on or about March

18, 2021 because of known outstanding ballots from voters that had not yet been
received by the Region, and then representing to the parties on March 22 that it had
received ballots from all voters that told the Region they had returned ballots, the
Board Agent failed to notify the parties that the Region was aware that at least one
voter had returned a ballot but it had not been received by the Region as of the
ballot count on March 31 resulting in the disenfranchisement that is outcome
determinative.
OBJECTION 3: The Board Agent engaged in misconduct by

arbitrarily and/or selectively contacting certain voters, but not all voters, to confirm
whether they had received a ballot and/or had returned their ballot resulting in
disparate treatment of voters and/or disenfranchisement that is outcome
determinative.
OBJECTION 4: On or about March 18, 2021, the Board Agent

contacted the Employer’s attorney and explained that the ballot count would be
postponed to March 31 regardless of whether the Employer stipulated to the new
date. The Region’s decision to unilaterally force postponement of the count to
March 31 was objectionable.
OBJECTION 5: Following forced postponement of the count, the

Region failed to issue a new notice of election updating employees regarding the
new count date resulting in insufficient notice to employees.
(Tab 1 at 2.) A video hearing was held on April 28, 2021 via Zoom in front of Hearing Officer
Matthew Ritzman. On June 25, 2021, the Hearing Officer issued his Report on Objections
recommending that all five of the Employer’s Objections be overruled. (Tab 2.) The Employer
11 Exhibit 9
filed timely exceptions and the ARD issued his Decision and Certification of Representative on
August 5, 2021. (Tab 1.)
II. FACTS
Following the mailing of ballots on February 25, voter Lisa Wratten did not receive a mail
ballot from the Region. (Tab 2 at 4.) As Ms. Wratten testified, she did not receive a ballot because
she had recently moved and changed addresses. (Id.) Around March 3 or March 4, Ms. Wratten
attempted to contact the Region to request a duplicate ballot. (Id.) Despite calling the numbers
listed on the Notice of Election posted in the workplace, Ms. Wratten was unable to speak directly
with anyone at the Region to request a new ballot kit. (Id.) Ms. Wratten left a voicemail with the
Region requesting a new ballot kit on Thursday, March 4. (Id.) After she left the voicemail, Ms.
Wratten believes she received a few calls from the Region. (Id.) Ultimately, despite leaving a
voice message for the Region on or about March 4, 2021, the Region did not ultimately get into
contact with Ms. Wratten until Wednesday, March 10, 2021. (Id. at 5.) The Region mailed the
duplicate ballot on March 10, 2021. (Id.)
After the Region mailed Ms. Wratten’s duplicate mail ballot kit, the Board agent
communicated via text message with Ms. Wratten regarding the status of her mail ballot.
Specifically, on March 15, 2021, the Board agent sent a text message to Ms. Wratten asking, “Hi
Lisa, Had you received your duplicate ballot? We received your original one from the USPS as
attempted not known unable to forward.” (Tab 5.) Ms. Wratten testified that on March 15, 2021,
she received the ballot kit in the mail. (Tab 2 at 5.) The following day, on March 16, Ms. Wratten
responded to the Board agent, “Yes I got my duplicate and am sending it out today! Thank you
for your help[.]” (Tab 5.) On March 18, 2021, Ms. Wratten placed her mail ballot in the mail in
the mailbox at her apartment in Chicago, Illinois. (Tab 2 at 5.)
12 Exhibit 9
During the pendency of the mail ballot period, on or about March 18, 2021, the Board agent
separately contacted the Parties and indicated to the Parties that the Region was aware that a certain
number of voters had indicated that they had returned ballots, but that those ballots had not been
received by the Region. There is no dispute that, as of this date, the Region was under the
impression that Ms. Wratten’s ballot had been mailed and the Region had not received Ms.
Wratten’s ballot. As a result of Ms. Wratten’s ballot and others, the Board agent informed the
Parties that the ballot count scheduled for March 22, 2021 would need to be postponed to March
31, 2021. At the time the Parties were told the ballot count would need to be postponed, the Board
agent offered the proposition as a “fait accompli”—if the Parties did not agree to postponement of
the ballot count, the Region would act to postpone the ballot count unilaterally. 5 (Id. at 5) (citing
Employer’s offer of proof as to a fait accompli.)
Following the conversation with the Board agent, based on her representations, counsel for
the Petitioner and Employer executed a stipulation postponing the ballot count to March 31, 2021.
(Tab 6.) As indicated in the Parties’ stipulation, the reason for the postponement of the ballot
count was that, “[t]here is a concern that not all mail ballots mailed back to the Regional Office
have been received.” (Id.) As a result of the Parties’ stipulation, the Region Ordered that that the
ballot count be postponed to March 31, 2021. (Tab 7.) The Order specifically referenced that the
ballot count was being postponed because, “The Regional Office has experienced intermittent
delays in mail delivery by the United States Postal Service and as there is a concern that not all
ballots mailed back to the Regional Office have been received.” (Id.)
The Monday following the stipulation, the Board agent emailed counsel for the Parties:
5
As was indicated above, the Employer requested consent from the General Counsel for testimony from the Board
agent. (Tab 3.) The request for testimony was denied. (Tab 4.) The denial of testimony from the Board agent
prejudiced the Employer as to some of its Objections, including to the extent that the Board agent would have provided
factual testimony related to her conversations with counsel from both Parties.
13 Exhibit 9
Happy Monday! Wanted to let you both know that the 3 ballots I had been expecting
plus a couple more came in to our office late Friday. So we’ve received ballots
from all at least that have told me that they sent their ballots in. We are at about
20 received as of this past Friday. Thus, I’d expect we’ll be going forward with the
count on 3/31.
(Tab 2 at 6.) The Board agent’s representation was not correct. As of March 22, the Region had
not received Ms. Wratten’s ballot. (Id.) This misrepresentation was not corrected as of the ballot
count on March 31, 2021.
Immediately following the Board agent’s transmission of the Tally of Ballots, on March
31, 2021, counsel for the Employer sent an email to the Board agent explaining the Employer’s
general belief, based on turnout, that there may have been ballots that were mailed but not received
by the Region.
Thank you for sending this. Given the count, there is a possibility that delays with
the USPS affected the outcome of the election. As it may be relevant to potential
objection filings, the Company requests that the Region preserve any ballot
envelopes received after your trip to the Region this morning. The Company further
requests that the NLRB notify the parties if additional ballot envelopes in this
matter are received.
(Id.) The Board agent immediately responded, affirming that the Region would inform counsel of
any late received ballots. Once again, the Board agent did not accurately relay the facts.
My office will inform me of any ballots should they come in. If there are any ballots
received by our office after the count this morning, I will advise you both. As you
both know, as of Thursday 3/18 before the original count scheduled on 3/22,
there were 3 voters that had separately informed me they mailed their ballot
but we had not received them at my office. That led us to reschedule the count.
Those 3 voters’ ballots were then received the following day, on Friday 3/19.
Thus, we received a ballot from each voter that had contacted me.
I will be in touch if we receive additional ballots.
(Id.) (emphasis added.) The Board agent’s representation again failed to account for Ms.
Wratten’s outstanding mail ballot.
14 Exhibit 9
On April 2, 2021, the Board agent informed the Parties that the Region received Ms.
Wratten’s ballot on April 1, 2021, after being in the mail for 14 days. Then, the Board agent
attempted to qualify her prior objective misrepresentation to the Parties.
We received Lisa Wratten’s duplicate mail ballot at our office yesterday afternoon.
It was postmarked March 18. We sent the duplicate on March 10 per Ms. Wratten’s
request as she said she had a different address than what was on the voter’s list.
While she contacted me to request the duplicate, she did not request that I
confirm we received her ballot, so she was not “on my radar” to contact upon
receiving her ballot. In any event, I’d like to clarify my statement below, “we
received a ballot from each voter that had contacted me,” such that we
received a ballot from those that contacted me to ask that I confirm when their
ballot has been received by my office. Of the remaining voters whose ballots we
have not received (I believe there are 8), I did not receive any contact from them to
request a duplicate ballot or otherwise concerning this election.
In the meantime, I’ll let you know if any other ballots come in.
(Id.) (emphasis added.) The Board agent’s qualification was an entirely different representation
than the representation she made on March 22. Inspection of Ms. Wratten’s ballot at the hearing
indicated that Ms. Wratten’s signed yellow ballot envelope was received by the Region on April
1, 2021. (Id.)
Beyond evidence pertaining to Ms. Wratten’s ballot, evidence adduced at the hearing
showed that eligible voter Anna Kaplan also mailed a ballot in the underlying election, but that the
ballot has not been received by the Region. Ms. Kaplan testified that that she received her ballot
on or about March 5, 2021 and mailed it on March 8, 2021. (Id. at 4.) Ms. Kaplan further testified
that no one from the NLRB contacted her from February 25 to March 31 to inquire if she had
received or returned her ballot. (Id.) As of the date of the hearing, on April 28, 2021, the Region
had not received Ms. Kaplan’s ballot.6 (Id.)
6
Presumably, Ms. Kaplan’s ballot remains lost as the Region has not contacted counsel regarding Ms. Kaplan’s ballot.
15 Exhibit 9
Corroborating the fact that Ms. Kaplan actually mailed her ballot to the NLRB but it
remains lost in the mail, eligible voter Jonathan Coffman testified that, despite his address being
listed correctly on the voter list, Mr. Coffman never received a ballot kit from the NLRB. (Id.)
Like Ms. Kaplan, Mr. Coffman was not contacted by the NLRB to inquire as to whether he had
received or returned a ballot. (Id.)
III. THE ARD’S DECISION REGARDING OBJECTION 2, THE

MISREPRESENTATION OBJECTION, WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT,
SUBSTANTIALLY DEPARTED FROM BOARD PRECEDENT, AND RAISES
NOVEL ISSUES OF BOARD LAW OR POLICY
Objection 2 challenges the results of the election on the basis that the Board agent
misrepresented the status of ballots that had been mailed but not yet received by the Region prior
to the ballot count on March 31.
The ARD’s decision overruling the misrepresentation Objection was premised on three
grounds. First, the ARD denied that the Board agent’s March 22 email statement was a
misrepresentation, instead calling it “more of a misunderstanding than a misrepresentation.” (Tab
1 at 7.) Second, the ARD overruled the objection because the “confusing statements to the parties
had no impact on voter’s choice or the mechanics of the election”. (Id.) Third, the ARD found
that the harm from the misrepresentation was entirely speculative. (Id.) Each of these bases are
factually and/or legally incorrect requiring Board review.
A. The ARD was factually and legally incorrect when he found that the Board
agent’s March 22 email was not an objectionable misrepresentation.
The ARD’s conclusion that the Board agent did not engage in misrepresentation is contrary
to fact and law. In addressing cases involving pure legal issues such as misrepresentation, the
National Labor Relations Board has relied on external common law principles from federal courts
and secondary sources. See Horizon Group of New England, 347 NLRB 795, 797 (2006) (quoting
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 163 (1981)). While the Employer believes that the standard
16 Exhibit 9
for Board agent conduct requires greater candor than proven breach of the law governing
misrepresentation, the Board has not explicitly stated the obligations of Board agents regarding
representations. As such, the concepts outlined in misrepresentation law are clearly instructive in
outlining actions that the Board should find constitute Board agent misconduct.
“A misrepresentation is an assertion that is not in accord with the facts.” Restatement
(Second) of Contracts § 159 (1981). A misrepresentation of the type alleged in this case has four
elements: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) that is material, (3) which induces agreement for an action,
and (4) reliance on the misrepresentation was justified. Id. at Chapter 7, Topic 1 Intro. Note.
“Whether a statement is false depends on the meaning of the words in all the circumstances,
including what may fairly be inferred from them.” Id. at § 159 cmt. a. “[A] statement intended to
be truthful may be a misrepresentation because of ignorance or carelessness . . . .”7 Id. “A
misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest his
assent, or if the maker knows that it would be likely to induce the recipient to do so.” Id. at § 162.
“A misrepresentation induces a party’s manifestation of assent if it substantially contributes to his
decision to manifest his assent.” Id. at § 167. “It is not necessary that this reliance have been the
sole or even the predominant factor in influencing his conduct.” Id. at § 167 cmt. a.
The record evidence establishes all four elements of misrepresentation.
1. There was a misrepresentation
Ms. Wratten and the Board agent exchanged text messages regarding her duplicate ballot
kit that culminated on March 16, 2021 with Ms. Wratten telling the Board agent, “Yes I got my
duplicate and am sending it out today! Thank you for your help[.]” (Tab 2 at 5.)
7
This is an important point. The Employer does not possess any evidence that the Board agent had any intent or
malice in her misrepresentation. But intent or malice is not relevant. What matters is the effect of the
misrepresentation on the actions and rights of the Parties and the concomitant effect on the fairness and validity of the
election.
17 Exhibit 9
On March 18, the Board agent contacted the Parties to inform them that some voters had
told the Region that they returned ballots and ballots from those voters had not been received. As
a result of these known outstanding ballots, the Board agent informed the Parties that the ballot
count scheduled for March 22, 2021 would need to be postponed to March 31, 2021.
Following the conversation with the Board agent, based on her representations, counsel for
the Petitioner and Employer executed a stipulation postponing the ballot count to March 31, 2021.
(Tab 6.) As was indicated in the Parties’ stipulation, the reason for the postponement of the ballot
count was that, “[t]here is a concern that not all mail ballots mailed back to the Regional Office
have been received.” (Id.) As a result of the Parties’ stipulation, the Region Ordered that that the
ballot count be postponed to March 31, 2021. (Tab 7.) The Order specifically referenced that the
ballot count was being postponed because, “The Regional Office has experienced intermittent
delays in mail delivery by the United States Postal Service and as there is a concern that not all
ballots mailed back to the Regional Office have been received.” (Id.)
The Monday following the stipulation, March 22, the Board agent emailed counsel for the
Parties:
Happy Monday! Wanted to let you both know that the 3 ballots I had been expecting
plus a couple more came in to our office late Friday. So we’ve received ballots
from all at least that have told me that they sent their ballots in. We are at about
20 received as of this past Friday. Thus, I’d expect we’ll be going forward with the
count on 3/31.
(Tab 2 at 6.) The Board agent’s representation was objectively not correct. As of March 22, as
far as the Board agent knew, Ms. Wratten had told the Board agent she had returned her ballot and
the Region had not received Ms. Wratten’s ballot. (Id.) This misrepresentation was not corrected
as of the ballot count on March 31, 2021. (Id.)
18 Exhibit 9
2. The representation was material
Central to the misrepresentation here is whether this misrepresentation would be likely to
induce the Parties to proceed with the ballot count on March 31, 2021 or instead propose some
other action regarding known outstanding ballots that had been mailed but not yet received by the
Region. Using this basis for materiality, the representation was objectively material. The
misrepresentation pertained to the express basis for the initial postponement of the ballot count
and to the propriety of holding the count on March 31, 2021. Both the stipulation to postpone the
ballot count and the Order postponing the ballot count reference the exact subject of the
misrepresentation. (Tabs 6, 7.)
Further, applying the Restatement of Contracts, the Board agent’s misrepresentation is and
was objectively likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest his or her assent to proceed with
the March 31 ballot count. Similarly, the Board agent knew or should have known that her March
22 representation would be likely to induce the Parties to proceed with the March 31 ballot count.
3. The misrepresentation induced agreement for an action
Not only was the representation likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest his assent
to proceed with the March 31 ballot count, the uncontroverted evidence is that the
misrepresentation did induce the Parties to proceed. The ballot count proceeded on March 31,
2021. (Tab 2 at 6.) There can be no dispute that the Board agent’s representation substantially
contributed to the Parties’ decision to proceed with a March 31 ballot count.
4. The reliance on the representation was justified
The Parties in this matter relied upon the representations of the Board agent. Parties to a
Board election must be entitled to rely upon the representations of Board agents in making
decisions regarding matters material to the election. There is no record evidence upon which to
base a conclusion that the Employer’s reliance was not justified.
19 Exhibit 9
5. The Board agent’s misrepresentation was and is objectionable
In attempting to discount the misrepresentation, the ARD seemed to concede that the Board
agent erred, explaining that “election procedures ‘may not always be met to the letter, sometimes
through neglect . . .’” (Tab 1 at 7.) The ARD then went on to cite that, ultimately, “The question
which the Board must decide in each case in which there is a challenge to conduct of the election
is whether the manner in which the election was conducted raises a reasonable doubt as to the
fairness and validity of the election.” (Id.) (citing Polymers, Inc., 174 NLRB 282, 282 (1969)).
The ARD’s apparent legal conclusion that the Board agent’s failure does not raise a reasonable
doubt regarding the fairness and validity of the election is facially deficient.
Under Board law, although employees have some responsibility for overcoming obstacles
to voting, if the Board itself causes an “irregularity” and the number of voters possibly
disenfranchised could affect the outcome of an election, no certification of the result is appropriate.
Garda World Security Corp., 356 NLRB 594 (2011); Waste Mgmt. of Nw. La., Inc., 326 NLRB
1389 (1998); Visiting Nurses Ass’n of Metro. Atlanta, Inc., 314 NLRB 404 (1994); Wolverine
Dispatch, Inc., 321 NLRB 796, 797 (1996). The central test is “whether the conduct of the Board
agent in conducting the election tended to destroy confidence in the Board's election process, or
could reasonably be interpreted as impairing the election standards the Board seeks to maintain.”
Ensign Sonoma LLC d/b/a Sonoma Health Care Ctr., 342 NLRB 933, 934 (2004) (quoting Athbro
Precision Eng'g Corp., 166 NLRB 966, 966 (1967) (internal quotations omitted). Ultimately, the
Board will set aside an election if the irregularity is sufficient to raise “a reasonable doubt as to the
fairness and validity of the election.” Polymers, 174 NLRB at 282.
No matter the formulation of the standard applied, the Board agent’s misrepresentation in
this case warrants setting aside the election.
20 Exhibit 9
Taking the broadest view, the view of the general public and participants in the NLRB
election process, any individual reviewing the facts of this case would be shocked if the Board
permitted such a consequential irregularity in its election process. The manner and conduct of
elections, especially Board elections, are intended to be confidence inspiring, accurately reflecting
the will of the voters. The results here do not inspire such confidence. The Parties and Region
expressly postponed the original ballot count because of the Region’s knowledge of ballots that
had been mailed but not yet received by the Region. Therefore, for all Parties involved, the
propriety of the election and timing of the ballot count turned upon the status of ballots that the
Region knew had been mailed but had not yet been received by the Region. On this basis, the
Board agent’s misrepresentation tended to destroy confidence in the Board’s election process or
could reasonably be interpreted as impairing the election standards the Board seeks to maintain.
Taking a narrow, legalistic view, the Board agent’s misrepresentation in this case was an
“irregularity”—an action that does not comport with Board standards or procedures requiring
candor and accuracy—that disenfranchised voter Lisa Wratten. In a one-vote margin election, Ms.
Wratten’s ballot was potentially outcome determinative. Had the Parties known about Ms.
Wratten’s outstanding ballot, the Parties could have taken action to ensure that Ms. Wratten’s
ballot was received and counted. 8 Therefore, under Board law, certification is not appropriate, and
a rerun election is required. This is the rare case that presents uncontroverted evidence establishing
something far beyond reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election.
8
As three potential options, the Parties could have requested a second postponement, that the Region reach out to Ms.
Wratten to provide an alternative arrangement for receiving her vote (i.e. completing a mail ballot at the Regional
Office), or the Region propose that the ballot be opened and counted.
21 Exhibit 9
B. Contrary to the ARD’s conclusion, the Board agent’s post-election
“clarification” as to the intended meaning of the March 22 e-mail not only does
not resolve the misrepresentation, it is an admission of the Board agent’s
mistake.
In overruling Objection 2, the ARD credits the Board agent’s post-ballot count e-mail
explanation of her intended meaning as somehow curing or resolving her March 22, 2021
misrepresentation, somehow concluding that (based on the March 31 e-mail) the basis for the
initial postponement were three ballots that did not include Ms. Wratten’s ballot. (Tab 1 at 6-7.)
This is factually and legally erroneous. Plainly, the Board agent’s post-election explanation does
not resolve the misrepresentation and, in fact, proves that the Board agent misrepresented the status
of outstanding mail ballots.
Original Misrepresentation – March 22, 2021:
Happy Monday! Wanted to let you both know that the 3 ballots I had been
expecting plus a couple more came in to our office late Friday. So we’ve received
ballots from all at least that have told me that they sent their ballots in. We are
at about 20 received as of this past Friday. Thus, I’d expect we’ll be going forward
with the count on 3/31.
(Tab 2 at 6) (emphasis added.)
Post-Ballot Count Clarification #1 – March 31, 2021:
My office will inform me of any ballots should they come in. If there are any ballots
received by our office after the count this morning, I will advise you both. As you
both know, as of Thursday 3/18 before the original count scheduled on 3/22,
there were 3 voters that had separately informed me they mailed their ballot
but we had not received them at my office. That led us to reschedule the count.
Those 3 voters’ ballots were then received the following day, on Friday 3/19.
Thus, we received a ballot from each voter that had contacted me.
I will be in touch if we receive additional ballots.
(Id.) (emphasis added.)
Post-Ballot Count Clarification #2 – April 3, 2021:
We received Lisa Wratten’s duplicate mail ballot at our office yesterday afternoon.
It was postmarked March 18. We sent the duplicate on March 10 per Ms. Wratten’s
22 Exhibit 9
request as she said she had a different address than what was on the voter’s list.
While she contacted me to request the duplicate, she did not request that I confirm
we received her ballot, so she was not “on my radar” to contact upon receiving her
ballot. In any event, I’d like to clarify my statement below, “we received a
ballot from each voter that had contacted me,” such that we received a ballot
from those that contacted me to ask that I confirm when their ballot has been
received by my office. Of the remaining voters whose ballots we have not received
(I believe there are 8), I did not receive any contact from them to request a duplicate
ballot or otherwise concerning this election.
In the meantime, I’ll let you know if any other ballots come in.
(Id.) (emphasis added.)
Objectively, contrary to the ARD’s conclusion, the March 31 e-mail does not explain away
the basis for the initial count. First of all, legally, it is not possible to retroactively explain away a
misrepresentation after the harm has occurred. Second, even assuming it was possible, the Board
agent’s March 31 explanation is contrary to fact. The Board agent had knowledge as of March 16
that Ms. Wratten was returning her ballot and, as of March 22, under the law pertaining to
misrepresentations, the Board agent was required to presume that the ballot was in the mail. Thus,
at the time of her initial misrepresentation on March 22, there was no set of facts under which Ms.
Wratten’s ballot could be excluded from the statement, “So we’ve received ballots from all at least
that have told me that they sent their ballots in.” Third, and even worse for the ARD, the Board
agent’s April 3 e-mail entirely undermines any conclusion that the March 31 e-mail explained the
misrepresentation. The original March 22 representation and March 31 “clarification” convey
such an entirely different meaning from the April 3 e-mail that a misrepresentation finding is
required. No reasonable person would interpret the original representation—or even the March
31 e-mail—as having the ultimate post-ballot count clarification meaning proffered by the Board
agent.
As to this finding and conclusion, the ARD’s decision is contrary to fact and law.
23 Exhibit 9
C. The ARD’s conclusion that the “confusing statements” had no impact on the
voters’ choice or mechanics of the election is contrary to Board precedent.
After discounting the Board agent’s misrepresentation, the ARD went on to conclude that
regardless of the statements, the statements did not impact the election because “[t]he Board
agent’s statements were not made or communicated to the voters and did not suggest that there
were irregularities to the process that would reasonably be interpreted as impairing the Board’s
standards.” (Tab 1 at 7.) Under Board law, there is no requirement that election irregularities be
broadly known or communicated to voters. The ARD’s decision is contrary to law.
For the proposition that the Board agent statements must be communicated to voters, the
ARD cited Indeck Energy Servs., 316 NLRB 300 (1995). Indeck Energy is plainly inapposite,
considering only fraternization with a union observer and whether a Board agent’s statement, “I
was almost tempted to open [the challenged ballots]” was objectionable. Id. at 300-01. This case
does not pertain to voter perception of neutrality or an offhand remark involving no actual impact
on the election. Instead of the ARD’s improperly narrow focus, Board law requires a broader
analysis of whether there is an irregularity that creates reasonable doubt as to the fairness and
validity of the election. Jakel Inc., 293 NLRB 615, 616 (1989) (finding removal of a ballot from
a ballot bag by Board agent objectionable conduct “which would destroy confidence in the Board's
election process.”); Paprikas Fono, 273 NLRB 1326, 1328 (1984) (setting aside an election for a
Board agent’s failure to properly secure challenged ballots); Austill Waxed Paper Co., 169 NLRB
1109, 1–1110 (1968) (setting aside an election where the Board agent left a ballot box unattended
and unsealed for 2 to 5 minutes). Here, the Board agent’s conduct impacted the number of votes
cast in the election. As in the Board’s other cases focusing on irregularities, the Board agent’s
misrepresentation plus the potentially determinative impact created a reasonable doubt as to the
fairness and validity of the election. It is not Board law that elections can be unfair and invalid
24 Exhibit 9
provided voters never discover the unfairness or invalidity. The ARD’s conclusion is contrary to
Board precedent.
D. The Board agent’s misrepresentation did not result in speculative harm—the

misrepresentation was the harm; the ARD’s conclusion is factually and legally
incorrect.
As a final finding and conclusion related to Objection 2, the ARD concludes that “the
Employer’s argument is almost entirely speculative. Whether the Employer would have asked
whether the parties would have agreed to, or the Region would have authorized another extension
of the count date based on one outstanding ballot is unknowable.” (Tab 1 at 7) (emphasis original.)
The ARD’s conclusion is factually incorrect and does not state the Board standard regarding
misrepresentations.
Beginning with the incorrect factual nature of the ARD’s conclusion, establishing the four
elements of a misrepresentation claim, in and of itself, establishes the harm. Directly contrary to
the ARD’s conclusions, the harm caused by the misrepresentation in this case is not speculative—
it is tangible and real. The harm was and is misrepresentation of facts necessary to evaluate a
party’s legal rights. The harm occurred when the Board agent’s misrepresentation caused the
Employer to refrain from considering and requesting a second postponement. If the Region truly
had received all known mailed ballots prior to March 31, then proceeding to a ballot count was
almost certainly appropriate in this case. 9 If the Region had not, there was a basis for requesting
further postponement.
The Employer’s interpretation of harm finds additional support in the standard regarding
Board agent misconduct. Under this standard, an election will be set aside if the objecting party
9
Importantly, on this point, proceeding to the ballot count on March 31 and the overall fairness and validity of the
election addressed in the Employer’s other Objections are separate matters.
25 Exhibit 9
shows that the number of voters possibly disenfranchised by an election irregularity is sufficient
to affect the election outcome. See Wolverine Dispatch, Inc., 321 NLRB 796, 796 (1996). Here,
the harm caused by the misrepresentation creates the possibility of disenfranchisement and is
sufficient to affect the outcome of the election.
Separate and apart from the fact that establishing the elements of misrepresentation
establishes an actual harm, the record evidence is far from speculative, indicating that the result of
this election either could or would have been different. The record evidence is that (1) the Region
first reached out to the parties because of its concern about ballots that had been mailed by voters
but not received by the Region and (2) the Parties and Region cited this as a basis for postponing
the ballot count. The Parties and Region, as they should have, cared about counting all of the
ballots cast by voters. Put another way, there is actually no record evidence supporting the ARD’s
conclusion that harm is speculative All record evidence demonstrates the Parties and Region, in
guidance of the principles of the original postponement, would have postponed the election a
second time to allow the lone remaining ballot to reach the Region or otherwise worked with the
Region to enfranchise Ms. Wratten (whose identity was obviously not known at the time of the
pending count). If the Parties and Region did not care about counting all outstanding ballots, the
ballot count simply would have proceeded as originally scheduled on March 22, 2021.
Finally, as a matter of law, the ARD’s conclusion of speculative harm cannot stand because
it would have the effect of barring all Board agent misconduct claims based on misrepresentation.
This cannot accurately reflect the Board’s position on misrepresentation claims. By their very
nature, misrepresentation claims alter the occurrence of events. All that is ever known is that, had
the misrepresentation not occurred, things might be different. But because no one can relive the
past, no one can demonstrably prove what would have happened absent the misrepresentation.
26 Exhibit 9
This, however, does not mean there is no legal relief for misrepresentations. The relief attempts
to place the parties in the place they would have been had there not been a misrepresentation. As
that applies here, it requires a rerun election. This is both because the number of voters possibly
disenfranchised by an election irregularity is sufficient to affect the election outcome and because,
by its very nature, the misrepresentation raises a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of
the election.
As to this finding and conclusion, the ARD’s decision is contrary to fact and law.
Objection 2 raises a fundamental question regarding the Board’s election process and
procedure. The Board should grant review on Objection 2 because the ARD’s decision was
factually erroneous, departed from Board precedent, and raises a substantial question of law or
policy that the Board has not previously addressed.
IV. THE ARD’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION 4 RAISES A NOVEL

ISSUE REGARDING A REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DISCRETION TO
POSTPONE BALLOT COUNTS
Objection 4 challenges the results of the election on the grounds that, if the Region was not
intent on postponing the ballot count until it had received the ballots that it had been informed
were mailed but not yet received by the Region, then the Region should have never forced
postponement of the ballot count in the first instance.
As to Objection 4, the ARD overruled the Objection reasoning that (1) there is no record
evidence that the Region forced the postponement of the March 22 count and (2) the Stipulated
Election Agreement gave the Regional Director discretion to reschedule, in his or her discretion,
the date, time, and place of the election and/or count. (Tab 1 at 8-9.) The ARD’s conclusions
should be reviewed because the Employer was prejudiced by the General Counsel’s decision to
deny testimony from the Board agent, which would have established a fait accompli, and because
the Board should find that the Regional Director abused his discretion in postponing the ballot
27 Exhibit 9
count in order to receive some, but not all, outstanding ballots. If that was the case, the Regional
Director should not have forced postponement of the ballot count in the first place.
To begin, beyond the Employer’s offer of proof, there is no evidence of a “fait accompli”.
But the failure to adduce evidence on this issue is not the fault of the Employer. Instead, the
General Counsel refused to grant the Employer permission for testimony on this issue. (Tab 4.)
To the extent this is a basis for overruling Objection 4, the Employer has been prejudiced by the
General Counsel’s decision.
The ARD then concluded that the Stipulated Election Agreement providing the Regional
Director with discretion to reschedule the ballot count justified overruling the objection. (Report
at 14.) In so finding, the ARD failed to consider that the Regional Director abused his discretion
in postponing the original count date. If Objection 2 is not sustained, the Regional Director abused
his discretion by postponing the March 22 ballot count.
The Board should grant review in order to address the standard for abuse of discretion in
this unique context. Once the Regional Director initially decided that the March 22 ballot count
must be postponed because it was aware of issues with the USPS and that ballots had been mailed
but not yet received, in the face of the continued existence of ballots that had been mailed but not
yet received by the Region, the Regional Director was committed to either: (1) again postponing
the ballot count, or (2) contacting known voters whose ballots had not been received to notify them
of the status of their individual ballots and providing an opportunity to remedy the situation. By
extending the ballot count only once, to count only some but not all the known outstanding ballots,
the Regional Director arbitrarily enforced his own standard. If the Regional Director had no intent
of enforcing this standard throughout the course of the mail ballot process, the Regional Director
should have never extended the count date in the first place.
28 Exhibit 9
V. THE ARD’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION 1 RAISE NOVEL
QUESTIONS OF BOARD LAW OR POLICY REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF
MAIL BALLOT ELECTIONS DURING A PANDEMIC AND PROVIDE A
COMPELLING REASON FOR THE BOARD TO REVISIT ITS “VAGARIES OF
MAIL DELIVERY” CASES
Objection 1 is composed of two arguments: (1) Board processing delays resulted in
possible voter disenfranchisement and (2) USPS delays resulted in possible voter
disenfranchisement.
The Board should grant review of Objection 1 as to both arguments. As to the former, the
argument presents substantial questions of law or policy related to the processing of mail ballot
elections during the pandemic that have not been addressed by the Board. As to the latter, the facts
provide a compelling reason for the Board to reconsider its policy of disregarding ballots “lost
through the vagaries of mail delivery.”
A. The Region’s lack of accessibility caused delays with Ms. Wratten’s ballot that
establish possible disenfranchisement.
The Board should grant review of this case because this case presents a substantial question
of law or policy related to delays in the processing of duplicate mail ballot kits during the
pandemic. 10
In this case, the Region caused delays in the voting process for three reasons (1) using
Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (2020), Region 13 refused to conduct anything other than
mail ballot elections during the time frame of the instant election, (2) despite knowing that all
elections were conducted via mail ballot (whether stipulated or through issuance of a decision and
Direction of Election), which may require voters to contact the Region to request duplicate ballot
kits, the Region failed to staff the phone numbers listed in the Notice of Election with Board
10
As the COVID-19 virus may become endemic, requiring occasional closing of Regional offices and forcing mail
ballot elections, the Board’s treatment of mail ballot elections during periods of Regional office closures is an
extraordinarily important area of Board law which must be developed.
29 Exhibit 9
personnel, and (3) in at least the instance of Ms. Wratten, had the Region staffed the phone numbers
listed in the Notice of Election with Board personnel, Ms. Wratten’s ballot more likely than not
would have been timely received.
In mail ballot elections, voter contact with the National Labor Relations Board should have
been expected. The Notice of Election expressly contemplates, and calls for, voter contact with
the Region by telephone in the event the voter does not receive a ballot kit. (Id.) The evidence
presented at the hearing established that the Region did not staff either of these phone lines with a
human being. At hearing, Ms. Wratten testified that she attempted to call Region 13 on March 3
and 4 on two occasions but was unable to reach a human being over the phone. (Id.) After being
unsuccessful with her first two calls, on a third call on March 4, Ms. Wratten left a voicemail
message. 11 After leaving the voicemail message, Ms. Wratten received return phone calls from
the Region but was unable to answer them. (Id. at 3-4.) It is not disputed that the Region did not
ultimately mail a duplicate ballot kit to Ms. Wratten until March 10, 2021. (Tab 1 at 4.)
Ms. Wratten’s experience was not unique, the Board’s general phone lines—including the
phone numbers listed in the Notices of Election—were not staffed during the relevant time period,
resulting in all calls to the numbers listed in the Notice of Election ringing through to voicemail.12
11
The ARD erred in his conclusion that, “The Employer’s statement in its brief supporting its Exceptions that ‘[a]fter
being unsuccessful with her first two phone calls, on a third call on March 4, Mr. (sic) Wratten left a voicemail
message’ is not supported by the record.” (Tab 1 at 3.) First, this was Ms. Wratten’s testimony. (Tr. 46, 47.) Second,
it is undisputed that the Region began calling Ms. Wratten sometime after March 4. The Region would have not had
reason to call Ms. Wratten if she did not leave a message. As this is a basis for the ARD’s decision to overrule the
Employer’s objection, this conclusion is prejudicial to the rights of the Employer.
12
This is another example in which the Employer was prejudiced by the General Counsel’s decision to deny documents
and testimony from the Region. The Employer specifically requested testimony from “the custodian(s) of records
and/or individual(s) at the Region responsible for receiving, recording, and processing replacement ballot requests.”
(Tab 3.) Such a witness clearly could and would have testified regarding the staffing of phone lines both prior to and
during the pandemic.
30 Exhibit 9
In mail ballot cases, eligible voters must be given “adequate notice and opportunity to
vote,” and not be “prevented from voting by the conduct of a party or by unfairness in the
scheduling or mechanics of the election.” Lemco Construction, Inc., 283 NLRB 459, 460 (1987).
And, again, when a party’s objections are based on alleged misconduct by the Board Agent
conducting the election, the Board will consider “whether the manner in which the election was
conducted raises a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election.” Polymers, Inc.,
174 NLRB 282, 282 (1969), enfd. 414 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1969); see also Avante At Boca Raton,
323 NLRB 555, 558 (1997).
Here, Ms. Wratten encountered delays in the processing of her duplicate mail ballot kit as
a direct result of the Board’s inexplicable decision to provide unstaffed phone numbers in the
Notice of Election. The Board’s decision and resultant delays constitute unfairness in the
mechanics of the election. As to Ms. Wratten’s delay specifically, the evidence shows that Ms.
Wratten began her attempts to contact the Region on or about March 3 or 4, 2021, but was not
mailed a duplicate ballot kit until March 10, 2021. This delay was primarily caused by the
Region’s decision to not staff its phones. Had the Region staffed its phones, more likely than not,
someone would have answered during one of Ms. Wratten’s three initial calls. Had someone
answered, Ms. Wratten would have been able to directly provide her new mailing address, resulting
in the duplicate ballot kit being mailed up to 7 days earlier than it ultimately was. As Ms. Wratten’s
ballot arrived only one day after the ballot count, the Board’s multi-day delay created the
possibility of disenfranchisement. And, of course, in this one-vote margin election, the possibility
of disenfranchisement was potentially outcome determinative. The delay raises a doubt as to the
fairness and validity of the election. The Board should grant review in order to answer this
substantial question of law or policy related to minimum standards for mail ballot elections.
31 Exhibit 9
B. The ARD’s conclusions regarding Board delay were factually and legally
incorrect.
In overruling the Employer’s Objection pertaining to Board delay, the ARD relied upon
two key conclusions (1) there was no evidence that Ms. Wratten requested a duplicate ballot, and
(2) that it was Ms. Wratten’s delay, not the Region’s, that caused her ballot to be late. The ARD’s
former conclusion is factually incorrect and fails to fully consider the Employer’s argument. The
ARD’s latter conclusion improperly shifts blame onto Ms. Wratten.
As to the ARD’s conclusion that there was no evidence that Ms. Wratten requested a
duplicate ballot, the ARD found “there was no record evidence demonstrating whether a duplicate
ballot was actually requested by Wratten or that the duplicate was sent out in an abundance of
caution by the Region when it was unable (after numerous attempts) to contact her directly.” (Tab
1 at 4.) This is obviously factually incorrect. The record evidence shows the duplicate ballot kit
was mailed to Ms. Wratten’s new address. (GC Ex. 2, Region Ballot Tracking Spreadsheet.)13
The only way the Region would have sent a duplicate ballot kit to her new address is if Ms. Wratten
requested that a duplicate be sent to her new address—there was no other way for the Region to
know about Ms. Wratten’s new address. As this is a basis for the ARD’s decision to overrule the
Employer’s objection, this conclusion is prejudicial to the rights of the Employer and warrants
Board review.
Even beyond this error, however, the ARD ignores the core of Employer’s argument. Ms.
Wratten commenced her attempts to contact the Region on March 3, ultimately calling the Region
three times between March 3 and March 4. Yet, because the Region did not staff its phones, Ms.
Wratten was unable to make direct contact with anyone. If Ms. Wratten had called 100 times, the
13
GC Ex. 2 is not included herein under Rule 102.67(e) as the document contains personal identifying information of
voters. The Employer requests that, if the Board requires verification, the Board use its discretion to review this
evidence.
32 Exhibit 9
result would have been the same. The phone lines were not staffed. The decision to provide voters
with unstaffed phone lines undoubtedly had the potential to cause delay in the processing of Ms.
Wratten’s duplicate ballot and, more likely than not, did cause delay in the processing of Ms.
Wratten’s duplicate ballot kit. The evidence shows that Ms. Wratten left a message on March 4
and that a duplicate ballot was not mailed until March 10. (Footnote 11; Tab 1 at 4.) Given that
Ms. Wratten’s ballot was received one day after the count, any delay greater than one day was
potentially outcome determinative.14 Contrary to the ARD’s conclusion, the Region’s actions in
this matter were not “timely and reasonable.”
The ARD’s next conclusion was that the late return of Ms. Wratten’s ballot was beyond
the control of the Region and attributable to Ms. Wratten’s failure to overcome obstacles to casting
a ballot. (Tab 1 at 4.) The ARD faulted Ms. Wratten for an apparent “lack of diligence and
interest” in voting. (Id.) The timeline demonstrates that this is both factually and legally incorrect.
March 3 Ms. Wratten calls the Region to request a duplicate ballot kit, does not leave
a message
March 4 Ms. Wratten calls the Region to request a duplicate ballot kit, leaves a
message
March 4 Date in Notice of Election by which employees should call the Region to
request a duplicate ballot kit
March 10 Duplicate ballot kit sent to Ms. Wratten by Region
March 15 Duplicate ballot kit received by Ms. Wratten
March 18 Duplicate ballot returned by Ms. Wratten via U.S. mail
March 31 Ballot count
April 1 Duplicate ballot received by Region
14
To the extent that the evidence regarding dates and times of calls and/or requests is lacking, the General Counsel’s
decision to deny the Employer’s request for Board testimony and documents prejudiced the Employer. The General
Counsel’s deprived the parties and the Board from obtaining an official, documented record from the Region.
33 Exhibit 9
(Tab 1 at 3, 4, 5.) The record evidence shows that out of the 28 days between March 3 and the
ballot count on March 31, Ms. Wratten was solely responsible for a delay of three days—the period
from the time of the receipt of her duplicate ballot kit on March 15 and her mailing the duplicate
ballot on March 18. Objectively, a three-day turnaround, mailing the ballot thirteen days prior to
the ballot count, is not and never has been a “lack of diligence” excusing the delays beyond her
control both before she received her duplicate ballot kit and after she mailed the duplicate ballot
kit. The ARD’s case citations demonstrate as much. In National Van Lines, 120 NLRB 1343
(1956), the Board found that voters lacked diligence and interest in voting where the voters mailed
their ballots between two and five days prior to the ballot count. Id. at 1346. In Waste Management
of Northwest Louisiana, 326 NLRB 1389 (1998), the voter at issue simply never arrived at the
polling location. Id. at 1389. Of import, National Van Lines appears to support the Employer’s
position. In applying the lack of diligence test, the Board must consider whether there was a “lack
of diligence and interest in mailing their ballots on a date which would have assured their timely
receipt by the Regional Director.” 120 NLRB at 1346 (emphasis added). Here, Ms. Wratten’s
mailing thirteen days in advance of the ultimate ballot count excuses her from any finding of fault.
Voters in this election had a right to expect that first-class mail would be delivered within the City
of Chicago within 13 days. The ARD’s finding that Ms. Wratten was to blame for the Region’s
untimely receipt of her ballot is not supported by Board precedent.
C. General delays with the USPS invalidate the election and the Board should
reconsider it its cases disenfranchising voters as a result of the “vagaries of
mail delivery”.
This case also provides an occasion for the Board to reconsider its cases disenfranchising
voters where ballots are received late or lost as a result of the “vagaries of mail delivery”.
In mail ballot cases, eligible voters must be given “adequate notice and opportunity to
vote,” and not be “prevented from voting by the conduct of a party or by unfairness in the
34 Exhibit 9
scheduling or mechanics of the election.” Lemco Construction, Inc., 283 NLRB 459, 460 (1987)
(emphasis added). Here, problems and delays with the USPS establish unfairness in the mechanics
of the election.
Overall, the record evidence shows that (1) Ms. Wratten’s ballot took fourteen days to be
mailed from Ms. Wratten’s apartment in Chicago to the Region’s office in downtown Chicago—
only 8 miles away from the Region 13 office (Tab 2 at 5, 6), (2) Ms. Kaplan’s ballot was mailed
in Chicago on March 8, 2021, but to date has never been received by the Region—this despite the
fact the ballot only had to travel some 6 miles from the drop box to the Region 13 office (Id. at 4)
and (3) the Region allegedly mailed Mr. Coffman’s ballot on February 25, 2021, but it has never
been received by the Region nor returned as undeliverable to the Region. (Id.)
Thirty-one ballots were mailed out by the Region in this election. At hearing, the Employer
provided evidence that three of these ballots were impacted by problems with the USPS. It cannot
be the case that the Region, through the Board’s guidance under Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB
No. 45 (2020), would exclusively require mail ballot elections and then accept the results of a mail
ballot election where there is evidence that nearly ten percent of the ballots mailed were impacted
by the flaws with the Board’s method of voting. For context, in a manual election, the Board
would clearly not accept a voting mechanism whereby, arbitrarily, ten percent of the voters would
be disenfranchised through no fault of their own.15
Here, the ARD attempts to justify the failure of the USPS noting that the issues with the
USPS were “beyond the control of a party or the Board”. (Tab 1 at 5.) This argument proves too
much. The Board is the entity that ultimately required the Parties, under Aspirus Keweenaw and
15
For example, absurdly (but congruous to this case), if the Region notified voters that ten percent of writing utensils
did not work and that if employees selected a non-functional writing utensil they would not be permitted to cast a
ballot, the Board would clearly set aside that election reasoning that the mechanics of the election were not fair.
35 Exhibit 9
the pandemic conditions existent at the time of the pre-election discussions, to conduct a mail
ballot election. In this situation, the Board and the USPS are one in the same. There was no other
defined method for voting—mail balloting was the exclusive choice.
At some point, the broad problems with the performance of the USPS warrant a finding
that the prevalence of issues with mail delivery exceed the “vagaries of mail delivery” and
constitute unfairness in the mechanics of the election. As former Chairman Miscimarra noted in
Premier Util. Servs., LLC and Classic Valet Parking, Inc., “‘in an extremely unusual case . . . when
our regular procedures have been deficient,’ the Board's normal rules must be balanced against our
statutory responsibility to assure that employees have been reasonably permitted to freely exercise
their rights under the Act.” 363 NLRB No. 159 (Apr. 5, 2016) (Miscimarra, dissenting); 363
NLRB No. 23 (Oct. 23, 2015) (Miscimarra, dissenting).
The flawed mail ballot election conducted in this case is precisely the extremely unusual
case former Chairman Miscimarra contemplated. It is frustrating for everyone involved in this
election, from the Board, to the Parties, to the voters, but the problems with this election undermine
any confidence in the NLRB election process. The mail ballot election conducted in this case
failed to effectuate the purposes of the Act— there is no basis for concluding that the 11-10 tally
in favor of representation represents the will of the employees. There is substantial reasonable
doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election. The fundamental failure of the mail ballot
election in this case warrants Board review and the establishment of safeguards to protect the will
of the voters and the purposes of the Act.
VI. THE ARD’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION 5 ARE CONTRARY TO

BOARD POLICY AND PRECEDENT
Objection 5 addresses the Region’s failure to issue an amended Notice of Election
accurately reflecting the alteration of the date and time of the ballot count. The ARD overruled
36 Exhibit 9
the Employer’s objection finding that nothing in the Board’s Rules and Regulations or procedures
required the Region to issue an amended notice of election and because the alleged harm was
speculative. The Board should grant review on Objection 5 because there are substantial questions
of law or policy regarding whether an amended Notice of Election is required following a change
in the terms of an election. The ARD’s decision is facially contrary to Board policy and precedent.
Failure to provide an accurate Notice of Election outlining the terms of the election
constitutes either per se objectionable conduct or an objectionable election irregularity. Contrary
to the ARD’s decision, there is no language in Section 102.62(e) indicating that issuance of a
Notice of Election is a one-time event. (Tab 1 at 9-10.) Section 102.62(e) provides:
(e) Notice of Election. Upon approval of the election agreement pursuant to

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section or with the direction of election pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section, the Regional Director shall promptly transmit the
Board's Notice of Election to the parties and their designated representatives by
email, facsimile, or by overnight mail (if neither an email address nor facsimile
number was provided). The employer shall post and distribute the Notice of
Election in accordance with §102.67(k). The employer's failure properly to post or
distribute the election notices as required herein shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper and timely objections are filed under the provisions
of §102.69(a)(8). A party shall be estopped from objecting to the nonposting of
notices if it is responsible for the nonposting, and likewise shall be estopped from
objecting to the nondistribution of notices if it is responsible for the nondistribution.
Here, the Parties stipulated, and the Region agreed, to modify the Stipulated Election
Agreement originally entered into under Section 102.62(b) by changing the date and time of the
ballot count. By Rule, a 102.62(b) stipulated election agreement must contain “the time and place
of holding the election.” Id. Thus, under Section 102.62(e), after the modification to the Stipulated
Election Agreement was approved, the Regional Director was required to transmit a Notice of
Election reflecting the modified Stipulated Election Agreement. Failure of the Regional Director
to issue the required Notice of Election was per se objectionable under Section 102.62(e), requiring
37 Exhibit 9
an election to be set aside when an employer fails to properly post or distribute the required election
notices.
Beyond a per se effect, the NLRB’s Casehandling Manual (Part 2), Section 11314 requires
a Notice of Election posting to contain the date, time, and place where ballots will be commingled
and counted. As the postponement of the ballot count changed a required term of the Notice of
Election pursuant to the Casehandling Manual, a new Notice of Election was required. This
follows because where a Notice of Election is not accurate in any significant way and could cause
confusion among the voters, the election must be set aside. In Re Woods Quality Cabinetry Co.,
340 NLRB 1355, 1356 (2003). The ARD attempted to sidestep In Re Woods Quality Cabinetry
by claiming that the erroneous Notice of Election in that case required a rerun only because the
erroneous designation “reasonably tended to interfere with the election process . . .” (Tab 1 at 10.)
The ARD’s argument presents a distinction without a difference. Substantial errors or omissions
on a Notice of Election will reasonably tend to interfere with the election process. See Rattan Art
Gallery, Ltd., 260 NLRB 255, 257 (1982) (setting aside election because the Notice was posted in
such a manner as to cover the “Rights of Employees” section); Walker Vehicle Co., 7 NLRB 827,
833 (1938) (finding incorrect naming of Union caused disadvantage in balloting—even with
subsequent correction of Notice). Listing the incorrect date and time of an election interferes with
the election process.
Also, contrary to the ARD’s decision, any potential harm from the failure to amend the
Notice of Election was not speculative. (Tab 1 at 10.) If the failure to post a substantially correct
Notice of Election was an objectionable election irregularity, the irregularity was potentially
outcome determinative because, excluding Ms. Wratten and Ms. Kaplan, there were nine
additional voters that did not return ballots. Had any one of these voters received proper notice
38 Exhibit 9
regarding the new ballot count date and time, these voters may have voted. Although the ARD
concluded that he “fail[ed] to see how employees not being reminded that they had additional time
to return ballots resulted in employees being unable to complete their ballots once received”, this
conclusion is erroneous and easily countered. The failure to provide an amended Notice of
Election causes harm if (1) an employee was of the belief that the count was proceeding on March
22, (2) did not learn of the postponed count, and (3) elected to not return a ballot believing that it
was too late to do so. As this is possible and any one vote would have been potentially outcome
determinative, even absent per se effect, the election must be set aside.
The Employer’s argument is not complicated: employees must be provided with a
substantially true and correct Notice of Election. Board policy requires voters to be informed as
to the date, time, and place where ballots will be commingled and counted. Here, the date and
time of the ballot count in the Notice, as defined by Section 11314, were not substantially accurate.
Board review is warranted.
VII. THE ARD’S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING OBJECTION 3 ARE FACTUALLY

INCORRECT AND ARE CONTRARY TO BOARD PRECEDENT
Objection 3 challenges the results of the election on the basis that the Board agent’s
decision to reach out to Ms. Wratten to ensure she received her ballot kit, while not contacting
other voters whose ballots had not been received, was objectionable. The ARD overruled this
objection on the basis that the Board agent’s contact with Ms. Wratten was justified. The ARD’s
decision is factually incorrect and contrary to Board precedent.
The specific basis under which the ARD overruled the Objection was that “the evidence
shows the Board agent was responding to Wratten’s request for duplicate ballot.” (Tab 1 at 8.)
The ARD was not factually correct. The evidence shows that the Board mailed a duplicate ballot
kit to Ms. Wratten on March 10, 2021. (Tab 1 at 4.) The Board agent’s message to Ms. Wratten
39 Exhibit 9
on March 15 read, “Hi Lisa, had you received your duplicate ballot? We received your original
one from the USPS as attempted not known unable to forward.” (Tab 5.) Objectively, the Board
agent was not responding to Ms. Wratten’s request for a duplicate ballot. The duplicate ballot had
been mailed five days prior. Further, the undeliverable status of the original ballot should not have
raised any issues—it would have been expected given the duplicate ballot request. Instead, what
the Board agent did was confirm whether Ms. Wratten had received her ballot kit. There was no
basis for the Board agent to reach out to the voter to confirm receipt of the ballot kit.
The record evidence as to Mr. Coffman and Ms. Kaplan demonstrate that the Board agent
did not extend the same courtesy to these individuals—and presumably the remainder of the voters
whose ballots had not been received by the Region. 16 The evidence further establishes that eight
voters did not vote in this election. (Tab 2 at 2.) Had the Board agent contacted all voters with
outstanding ballots to inquire as to receipt of the ballot kits, it is possible that more votes would
have been cast. If one more vote was cast in this one-vote margin election, the outcome may have
been different. The Board agent’s misconduct was potentially outcome determinative.
The Board should grant review to apply the general standard regarding Board agent
conduct. The Board agent’s conduct created a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of
the election.
VIII. THE GENERAL COUNSEL’S DECISION TO DENY TESTIMONY FROM THE

BOARD TESTIMONY WAS CONTRARY TO BOARD PRECEDENT
Prior to the hearing at issue, Employer filed a request for Board testimony and documents
with the General Counsel under Section 102.118. The evidence sought was uniquely in the
possession of the Region and that was directly pertinent to Employer’s objections. The General
16
Again, this evidence (testimony and documents) was requested in Employer’s Rule 102.118 request. (Tab 3.) This
is evidence solely in possession of the Board that could not be obtained through other means. To the extent this
evidence is necessary to rule on this Objection, the Employer was prejudiced by the General Counsel’s denial.
40 Exhibit 9
Counsel’s office, through Region 7 Region Director Terry Morgan, denied the Employer’s request
for testimony in full and denied nearly all requests for documents, ultimately agreeing only to
produce “the voter list used during the ballot count and the Region’s internal list showing the dates
it received ballots and the dates any duplicate mail-ballot kits were sent to voters. In addition, at
the hearing, the late arriving yellow mail-ballot envelope (both front and back) will be made
available for examination via video.” (Tab 4.) The only legal support offered by the General
Counsel for denial of the Employer’s request was that this case did not involve “unusual
circumstances” under Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 327 NLRB 315 (1999), concluding that the testimony
of witnesses other than the Board agent or any other Agency personnel would be sufficient. (Id.)
Contrary to the General Counsel’s conclusion, the evidence requested by Employer was
objectively not capable of being obtained through the testimony of other witnesses. The Board
should grant review to clearly establish that, in cases alleging Board agent misconduct, the General
Counsel has an obligation to make the Board personnel available for the objections hearing and to
produce all documentation relevant to the alleged misconduct. The General Counsel’s broad
denial of Board agent testimony and production of documents was contrary to Board precedent.
To the extent necessary to resolve any of the Employer’s objections, the General Counsel’s denial
of testimony and documents under Section 102.118 warrants Board review.
41 Exhibit 9
IX. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, GHG Management respectfully requests that the Board
grant the Employer’s Request for Review.
Dated: August 19, 2021
Respectfully submitted,

Stefan Marculewicz
Jeffrey E. Dilger
Telephone: 612-313-7628
Facsimile: 612-677-3818
E-mail: smarculewicz@littler.com
jdilger@littler.com
Attorneys for Employer GHG Management LLC
4850-8746-4951.1 / 108055-1000
42 Exhibit 9
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the the duplicate kit on March 15 and the Board agent texted
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. her that day to confirm receipt. Wratten replied to the
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can Board agent on March 16, confirming receipt and stating
be included in the bound volumes.
that she would mail her ballot that day, but did not in fact
GHG Management LLC d/b/a Windy City Cannabis mail it until March 18.
and United Food and Commercial Workers Lo- On March 19, the Acting Regional Director approved
cal 881. Case 13–RC–271360 the parties’ Stipulated Agreement to extend the voting
April 21, 2022 period to March 29 and to hold the vote count on March
31 because of a concern that “not all mail ballots mailed
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
[to] the Regional Office have been received. . . .” On
BY MEMBERS KAPLAN, WILCOX, AND PROUTY March 22, the Board agent emailed the parties the fol-
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Re- lowing message:
gional Director for Region 7’s Decision and Certification Happy Monday! Wanted to let you both know that the
of Representative 1 is granted insofar as it raises substan- 3 ballots I had been expecting plus a couple more came
tial issues warranting review with respect to the Employ- in to our office late Friday. So we’ve received ballots
er’s objection alleging that the Board agent affected the from all at least that have told me that they sent their
outcome of the election by misrepresenting the status of ballots in. We are at about 20 received as of this past
an individual mail ballot (Objection 2). On review, we Friday. Thus, I’d expect we’ll be going forward with
affirm the Acting Regional Director’s overruling of Ob- the count on 3/31.
jection 2, but only for the reasons stated herein. In all On March 31, the Region conducted the ballot count (by
other respects, the Request for Review is denied. videoconference) and the Tally of Ballots showed the Peti-
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its tioner succeeding 11–10. After the count, the Employer’s
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. representative emailed the Board agent and asked her to
The parties’ stipulated election agreement provided preserve any late-arriving ballot envelopes and to notify the
that the election in this case would be conducted by mail parties. The Board agent responded:
ballot, that ballot kits would be mailed to eligible voters
. . . As you both know, as of Thursday 3/18 before the
on February 25, 2021, 2 that ballots had to be received by
original count scheduled on 3/22, there were 3 voters
the Region on or before March 19, and that the ballot
that had separately informed me they mailed their bal-
count would be held on March 22. The election agree-
lot but we had not received them at my office. That led
ment also provided that voters who had not received their
us to reschedule the count. Those 3 voters’ ballots
ballot kits could request duplicate kits by contacting the
were then received the following day, on Friday 3/19.
Region before 5 p.m. on March 4. 3 This schedule was
Thus, we received a ballot from each voter that had
included on the Notice of Election, which also provided
contacted me. . . .
two telephone numbers voters could call to request a
duplicate ballot kit. Wratten’s ballot arrived at the Region on April 1, and the
On March 3 and 4, voter Lisa Wratten called both next day the Board agent notified the parties via email that
numbers in order to request a duplicate ballot kit; when the ballot had been received, that it was postmarked on
her phone calls were not answered, she did not leave a March 18, and that the duplicate kit had been sent at Wrat-
voicemail message. A Board agent attempted to contact ten’s request on March 10. The Board agent stated that:
Wratten by phone and, on March 10, the Board agent While she contacted me to request the duplicate, she
mailed Wratten a duplicate ballot kit and informed her by did not request that I confirm we received her ballot, so
text message that it was in the mail. 4 Wratten received she was not “on my radar” to contact upon receiving
her ballot. In any event, I’d like to clarify my statement
1
The Acting General Counsel transferred this case from Region 13 below [in the email chain], “we received a ballot from
to Region 7 on April 13, 2021. each voter that had contacted me,” such that we re-
2
All dates are in 2021 unless otherwise indicated. ceived a ballot from those that contacted me to ask that
3
The agreement further provided that if the election and/or count
was postponed or canceled, the regional director had the discretion to I confirm when their ballot has been received by my of-
reschedule the date, time, and place of the election and/or count. fice. Of the remaining voters whose ballots we have not
4
Though not discussed by the Hearing Officer or Acting Regional received (I believe there are 8), I did not receive any
Director, the record supports the conclusion that Wratten received the contact from them to request a duplicate ballot or oth-
Board agent’s cellphone number from another employee, called the
Board agent’s cellphone in the beginning of March, and left a voicemail erwise concerning this election . . . .
stating that she needed a duplicate at a new address.
1 Exhibit 10
The Employer’s Objection 2 alleges that: the Board portunity to vote, and were not prevented from voting by
agent on March 22 represented that the Region had re- party conduct or the scheduling of the election).
ceived ballots from all voters who had told the Region Moreover, as our dissenting colleague acknowledges,
that they had returned their ballots; that the Board agent the effect of the Board Agent’s alleged misrepresentation
failed to notify the parties that the Region was aware of is speculative. Even assuming that the Employer would
at least one voter (i.e., Wratten) who had returned a bal- have sought an extension had the March 22 email ac-
lot that had not been received as of the ballot count; and counted for Wratten’s outstanding ballot, and that the
that this conduct resulted in “disenfranchisement that is Petitioner would have agreed to seek a second extension,
outcome determinative.” In adopting the hearing of- the Acting Regional Director was under no obligation to
ficer’s recommendation to overrule this objection, the grant a second extension (and it would not have been an
Acting Regional Director for Region 7 found that the abuse of discretion to deny a request for a second exten-
Board agent’s “admittedly confusing statements” did not sion based on one possibly outstanding ballot the voter
require setting aside the election because they did not had purportedly placed in the mail 2 weeks before). 5
raise a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of Under these circumstances, the Board Agent’s alleged
the election. misrepresentation did not raise a reasonable doubt as to
The test for setting aside an election based on regional the fairness and validity of the election. It did not hinder
office conduct is whether the alleged irregularity raises any voters from casting their ballots, and the harm the
“a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the Employer alleges it caused is speculative. The alleged
election.” Guardsmark, LLC, 363 NLRB 931, 934 misrepresentation therefore does not require setting aside
(2016) (quoting Polymers, Inc., 174 NLRB 282, 282 the election and directing a rerun election, and the Acting
(1969), enfd. 414 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied Regional Director properly overruled the Employer’s
396 U.S. 1010 (1970)). To meet this standard, the ob- objection. 6 Accordingly, we affirm the Acting Regional
jecting party must put forward evidence of actual preju- Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative. 7
dice, and this showing of prejudicial harm must be more
than speculative to establish that a new election is re- 5
As noted, the parties stipulated that the vote count would be held
on March 31 and that any rescheduling of the count was within the
quired. Id. (citing Transportation Unlimited, 312 NLRB regional director’s discretion. Additionally, the record reflects that the
1162 (1993)). Board agent’s conduct did not prevent Wratten from receiving and
We agree with the Acting Regional Director’s decision casting her ballot. Accordingly, contrary to our dissenting colleague,
to overrule this objection. Assuming, without deciding, we think it is entirely appropriate in these circumstances to recognize
that it would not have been an abuse of discretion if the Acting Region-
that the Board Agent’s March 22 email misled the parties
al Director denied a request for a second extension and held the vote
because it gave the incorrect impression that the Region count pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. See generally Community
had received all the outstanding ballots that had previ- Care Systems, 284 NLRB 1147, 1147 (1987) (“[W]here the election has
ously led the parties (and the Acting Regional Director) gone ahead pursuant to the parties’ stipulation . . . and it does not ap-
pear that the election arrangements were such that employees were
to agree to extend the voting period and the ballot count, prevented from voting, we see no basis for permitting the unsuccessful
this alleged misrepresentation does not raise a reasonable party to attack the election on the basis of a condition to which it stipu-
doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election. To lated.”).
the extent that the alleged misrepresentation deprived the 6
Contrary to the argument of the Employer, this case does not in-
volve conduct that “tends to destroy confidence in the Board’s election
Employer of the opportunity to seek a second extension process, or could reasonably be interpreted as impairing the election
of the ballot count, this circumstance is ultimately irrele- standards the Board seeks to maintain.” That test applies to conduct
vant to the question of whether the voting itself was val- that, for example, may undermine the Board’s appearance of neutrality.
id, given that there is no showing that the statements at See, e.g., Athbro Precision Engineering Corp., 166 NLRB 966 (1967).
Nothing in the Board Agent’s communications here impugned the
issue affected the ability of any employees to receive
Board’s neutrality, nor would we find that an alleged misrepresentation
their ballots and cast their votes. No voters were aware concerning the status of a single outstanding ballot tends to destroy
of the Board agent’s communications, and Wratten’s confidence in the overall election process.
ballot was already in the mail when the March 22 email 7
Member Kaplan respectfully dissents. In his view, the Employer’s
objections raise insurmountable concerns about the Region’s handling
was sent. Thus, nothing alleged in Objection 2 hindered of this mail-ballot election, the outcome of which turned on a single
the casting of any votes or otherwise undermined the vote. In Objection 2, the Employer raises a substantial issue regarding
integrity of the election process, as the dissent claims. the effect of the Board agent’s failure to inform the parties about the
Cf. Lemco Construction, Inc., 283 NLRB 459, 460 status of Wratten’s ballot. The Region’s inconsistent handling of bal-
lots—postponing the count out of concern for outstanding ballots, but
(1987) (low participation did not invalidate election then, by its misstatement, precluding any opportunity to request a sec-
where voters were given adequate notice, adequate op- ond postponement where that concern still existed—undermined the
integrity of the election process. As the majority acknowledges, no one
2 Exhibit 10
ORDER The Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Certifi-
cation of Representative is affirmed.
knows what steps might have been taken or what the outcome would Dated, Washington, D.C. April 21, 2022
have been had the Board agent accurately advised the parties about
Wratten’s outstanding ballot. But even assuming that the Board agent
had acted appropriately and that the Regional Director had thereafter
declined to authorize a second postponement, the Employer would have ______________________________________
had the opportunity to challenge that decision; for example, it could Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
have sought extraordinary relief under Sec. 102.67(j) of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations. And although his colleagues have prejudged
that, if the Employer had been allowed to challenge the Region's deci-
sion and that challenge had been presented to them, they would not ________________________________________
have found the challenge to be successful, that does not change the fact Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member
that the Employer never had the opportunity to bring that challenge
before a regular Board panel, the members of which may or may not
have agreed with my colleagues. Taken with the other potential elec-
tion irregularities raised by the Employer, Member Kaplan finds the ________________________________________
collective effect on the election of all issues raised in the Request for David M. Prouty, Member
Review require that the election results be set aside and a new election
ordered.
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 Exhibit 10
1 Exhibit 11
From: Joseph Torres
To: Ortega, Cristina M.
Subject: Fwd: Fw: GHG Management LLC d/b/a Windy City Cannabis
Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 1:20:43 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
image273457.png
image721053.png
CAUTION: The sender of this message is external to the NLRB network. Please use care when clicking on links and responding with sensitive information. Forward suspicious emails to nlrbirc@nlrb.gov.

Hi Cristina - Per our phone conversation, below is the email from Curalaf in-house counsel to Nick Morrisey, former field director for Local 881 UFCW.
---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Nick Morrissey <NickMorrissey@local881ufcw.org>
Date: Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:07 AM
Subject: Fw: GHG Management LLC d/b/a Windy City Cannabis
To: Powell, Steve <StevePowell@local881ufcw.org>, jon@karmellawfirm.com <jon@karmellawfirm.com>, Joseph Torres <joe@karmellawfirm.com>
Hello,
Please see response from Curaleaf's in-house labor counsel regarding Weed St. location below.
In Solidarity,
Nick Morrissey
Collective Bargaining
Local 881 UFCW
nickmorrissey@local881ufcw.org
(847) 294-5064 ext. 504
From: Cristina Nutzman (She/Her/Hers) <cristina.nutzman@curaleaf.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:59 PM
To: stevenpowell@local881ufcw.org
Cc: Nick Morrissey
Subject: GHG Management LLC d/b/a Windy City Cannabis

Steven,
I received a letter you sent via certified mail to Sarah Raasch dated April 26, 2022 (see image below). The company did not agree to recognize Local 881 as the exclusive representative of the employees at the “Weed Street” store as stated in your
letter. The letter also made a demand for the company to bargain with Local 881. We intend to challenge the NLRB decision issued on April 12, 2022 in case 13-RC-271360. As such, at this time will not agree to bargain.

Sincerely,
Cristina

1 Exhibit 12
7/26/2022
1 Exhibit 13
2 Exhibit 13
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
REGION 13
Dirksen Federal Building Agency Website: www.nlrb.gov Download
219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 808 Telephone: (312)353-7570 NLRB
Chicago, IL 60604-2027 Fax: (312)886-1341 Mobile App
July 26, 2022
Cristina Nutzman, Vice President, Assistant General Counsel

923 W. Weed Street
Chicago, IL 60642
Re: GHG Management LLC, d/b/a Windy City

Cannabis and d/b/a Curaleaf Weed Street
Case 13-CA-295623
Dear Ms. Nutzman:
Enclosed is a copy of the first amended charge that has been filed in this case.
Investigator: This charge is being investigated by Field Examiner Cristina M. Ortega

whose telephone number is (312)353-7169 and whose email address is
Cristina.Ortega@nlrb.gov. If the agent is not available, you may contact Supervisor Field
Examiner Joyce A. Hofstra whose telephone number is (312)353-7609.
Presentation of Your Evidence: As you know, we seek prompt resolutions of labor

disputes. Therefore, I urge you or your representative to submit a complete written account of
the facts and a statement of your position with respect to the allegations in the first amended
charge as soon as possible. If the Board agent later asks for more evidence, I strongly urge you
or your representative to cooperate fully by promptly presenting all evidence relevant to the
investigation. In this way, the case can be fully investigated more quickly.
Preservation of all Potential Evidence: Please be mindful of your obligation to

preserve all relevant documents and electronically stored information (ESI) in this case, and to
take all steps necessary to avoid the inadvertent loss of information in your possession, custody
or control. Relevant information includes, but is not limited to, paper documents and all ESI
(e.g. SMS text messages, electronic documents, emails, and any data created by proprietary
software tools) related to the above-captioned case.
Prohibition on Recording Affidavit Interviews: It is the policy of the General Counsel

to prohibit affiants from recording the interview conducted by Board agents when subscribing
Agency affidavits. Such recordings may impede the Agency’s ability to safeguard the
confidentiality of the affidavit itself, protect the privacy of the affiant and potentially
compromise the integrity of the Region’s investigation.
Procedures: Pursuant to Section 102.5 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, parties
must submit all documentary evidence, including statements of position, exhibits, sworn
statements, and/or other evidence, by electronically submitting (E-Filing) them through the
Agency’s web site (www.nlrb.gov). You must e-file all documents electronically or provide a
written statement explaining why electronic submission is not possible or feasible. Failure to
1 Exhibit 14
comply with Section 102.5 will result in rejection of your submission. The Region will make its
determination on the merits solely based on the evidence properly submitted. All evidence
submitted electronically should be in the form in which it is normally used and maintained in the
course of business (i.e., native format). Where evidence submitted electronically is not in native
format, it should be submitted in a manner that retains the essential functionality of the native
format (i.e., in a machine-readable and searchable electronic format). If you have questions
about the submission of evidence or expect to deliver a large quantity of electronic records,
please promptly contact the Board agent investigating the charge.
If the Agency does not issue a formal complaint in this matter, parties will be notified of
the Regional Director’s decision by email. Please ensure that the agent handling your case has
your current email address.
Very truly yours,
Angie C. Hamada
Regional Director
Enclosure: Copy of first amended charge
cc: Jeffrey E. Dilger, Attorney

Littler Mendelson, P.C.
80 South 8th Street, Suite 1300
Stefan J. Marculewicz, Attorney

815 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 400
Washington, DC 20006-4046
2 Exhibit 14
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC, D/B/A WINDY

CITY CANNABIS AND D/B/A CURALEAF
WEED STREET
Charged Party Case 13-CA-295623

and
LOCAL 881 UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL

WORKERS
Charging Party
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED CHARGE AGAINST EMPLOYER

on July 26, 2022, I served the above-entitled document(s) by regular mail upon the following
persons, addressed to them at the following addresses:
Cristina Nutzman, Vice President, Assistant

General Counsel
923 W. Weed Street
Chicago, IL 60642
Jeffrey E. Dilger, Attorney

80 South 8th Street, Suite 1300
Stefan J. Marculewicz, Attorney

815 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 400
Washington, DC 20006-4046
July 26, 2022 Timothy D. Bennett, Designated Agent of

NLRB
Date Name
/s/Timothy D. Bennett
Signature
3 Exhibit 14
REGION 13

STREET

LOCAL 881
COMPLAINT
This Complaint is based on a charge filed by United Food & Commercial Workers Local
881 (Charging Party or Union). It is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and Section 102.15 of the Rules and
Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) and alleges that GHG
Management LLC, d/b/a Windy City Cannabis and d/b/a Curaleaf Weed Street (Respondent) has
violated the Act as described below.
I.
(a) The charge in this proceeding was filed by the Union on May 11, 2022, and a
copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on May 11, 2022.
(b) The first amended charge in this proceeding was filed by the Union on July 26,
2022, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on July 26, 2022.
II.
(a) At all material times, Respondent, an Illinois limited liability company doing
business as Windy City Cannabis or Curaleaf Weed Street, with an office and place of business
in Chicago, Illinois, is an employing entity for a retail cannabis dispensary operator.
(b) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period ending July 15, 2022,
Respondent performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of
Illinois.
(c) At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
1 Exhibit 15
III.
At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
IV.
(a) The following employees of Respondent (the Unit) constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
Employer from its facility currently located at 923 W. Weed Street in Chicago, Illinois.
Excluded: Managers, product specialist leads, agents in charge, office clerical employees
and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) On August 5, 2021, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 issued a Decision
and Certification of Representative in case 13-RC-271360 certifying the Charging Party as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
(c) On April 21, 2022, the Board affirmed the Acting Regional Director’s Decision
and Certification of Representative in case 13-RC-271360.
(d) At all times since August 5, 2021, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Charging
Party has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
V.
(a) On April 26, 2022, the Charging Party, by letter, requested that Respondent meet
to bargain collectively with the Charging Party as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Unit.
(b) On May 5, 2022, by email, Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the
Charging Party as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
(c) Respondent’s purpose in refusing to bargain is to test the certification the Acting
Regional Director issued in case 13-RC-271360.
VI.
(a) By the conduct described above in paragraph V, Respondent has been failing and
refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
(b) The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 Exhibit 15
WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for Respondent’s unfair labor practices alleged
above in paragraphs V and VI, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to:
(1) bargain with the Union, on request, within 15 days of a Board Order;
(2) bargain in good faith with the Union, on request, for the period required by Mar-Jac
Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962), as the recognized bargaining representative in
the appropriate unit;
(3) bargain with the Union, on request, for a minimum of 15 hours a week until an
agreement or lawful impasse is reached or until the parties agree to a respite in
bargaining;
(4) bargain with the Union, on request, with the engagement of a mediator from Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service;
(5) prepare written bargaining progress reports every 15 days and submit them to the
Regional Director and also serve the reports on the Union to provide the Union with
an opportunity to reply;
(6) reimbursement of collective-bargaining expenses, e.g., requiring Respondent to

reimburse the Union for negotiation expenses incurred during the entire period in
which it failed to bargain in good faith;
(7) send by regular mail and e-mail any Notice to Employees that may issue in this
proceeding to all of its employees who were employed by it at any time from August
5, 2021 through the present, at its Chicago, Illinois facility described in paragraph II.
The General Counsel further seeks a broad cease-and-desist order requiring Respondent
to cease and desist “in any other manner” from interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, that the Order provides the full panoply of
remedies available to ensure that the victims of this unlawful conduct are made whole for losses
suffered as a result of Respondent’s unfair labor practices.
ANSWER REQUIREMENT
Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, it must file an answer to the complaint. The answer must be received by this office
on or before August 11, 2022, or postmarked on or before August 10, 2022. Respondent also
must serve a copy of the answer on each of the other parties.
The answer must be filed electronically through the Agency’s website. To file electronically, go
to www.nlrb.gov, click on E-File Documents, enter the NLRB Case Number, and follow the
3 Exhibit 15
detailed instructions. Responsibility for the receipt and usability of the answer rests exclusively
upon the sender. Unless notification on the Agency’s website informs users that the Agency’s E-
Filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure because it is unable to receive
documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours after 12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the
due date for filing, a failure to timely file the answer will not be excused on the basis that the
transmission could not be accomplished because the Agency’s website was off-line or
unavailable for some other reason. The Board’s Rules and Regulations require that an answer be
signed by counsel or non-attorney representative for represented parties or by the party if not
represented. See Section 102.21. If the answer being filed electronically is a pdf document
containing the required signature, no paper copies of the answer need to be transmitted to the
Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a complaint is not a pdf file
containing the required signature, then the E-filing rules require that such answer containing the
required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office by traditional means within
three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing. Service of the answer on each of the
other parties must still be accomplished by means allowed under the Board’s Rules and
Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile transmission. If no answer is filed, or if
an answer is filed untimely, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for Default Judgment, that
the allegations in the complaint are true.
Dated: July 28, 2022
/s/ Angie Cowan Hamada
Angie Cowan Hamada

Regional Director
Region 13
4 Exhibit 15
REGION 13

STREET

LOCAL 881
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF: Complaint
on , I served the above-entitled document(s) by certified mail or via E-Issuance, as noted
below, upon the following persons, addressed to them at the following addresses:
Cristina Nutzman, Vice President, Assistant Jeffrey E. Dilger, Attorney

General Counsel Littler Mendelson, P.C.
923 W. Weed Street 80 South 8th Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60642 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136
cristina.nutzman@curaleaf.com jdilger@littler.com
E-ISSUANCE E-ISSUANCE
Stefan J. Marculewicz, Attorney Joseph C. Torres, Attorney

Littler Mendelson, P.C. United Food and Commercial Workers
815 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 400 Union, Local 700
Washington, DC 20006-4046 20 S. Clark St. Suite 1720
smarculewicz@littler.com Chicago, IL 60603
E-ISSUANCE joe@karmellawfirm.com
E-ISSUANCE
Nicholas W. Clark, General Counsel Local 881 United Food & Commercial
United Food and Commercial Workers Workers
International Union (UFCW) 1350 E Touhy Suite 300E
1775 K Street NW, Basement Des Plaines, IL 60018
Washington, DC 20006-1598 CERTIFIED MAIL
nclark@ufcw.org
E-ISSUANCE
Maria Gavina-Arriola, Designated Agent of NLRB

July 28, 2022
Date Name
1 Exhibit 16
/s/ Maria Gavina-Arriola
Signature
2 Exhibit 16
3 Exhibit 16
REGION 13
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC, D/B/A WINDY CITY CANNABIS

AND D/B/A CURALEAF WEED STREET
UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL

WORKERS LOCAL 881
GHG MANAGEMENT LLC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
GHG Management LLC (“GHG” or “Respondent” or “Employer”), in accordance with the
National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) and the applicable Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), submits its Answer to the Complaint and Notice of Hearing (the
“Complaint”) issued by the Regional Director of Region 13 on July 28, 2022. In this regard, and in
Answer to the above-captioned unfair labor practice charge, GHG reiterates its denial of any and all
claimed violations of the Act.
I.
(a) The charge in this proceeding was filed by the Union on May 11, 2022, and a copy was
served on Respondent by U.S. mail on May 11, 2022.
(b) The first amended charge in this proceeding was filed by the Union on July 26, 2022,
and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on July 26, 2022.
ANSWER: Respondent admits that prior to receiving the present Complaint, it was served
with an unfair labor practice charge filed by United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 881
(the “Union”) dated May 11, 2022. Respondent denies that it was served with a first amended
charge in this matter. Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the alleged
date the charge and amended charge were filed or actually served and therefore, denies those
remaining allegations in paragraphs I(a) and I(b) of the Complaint.
1 Exhibit 17
II.
(a) At all material times, Respondent, an Illinois limited liability company doing business as
Windy City Cannabis or Curaleaf Weed Street, with an office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois,
is an employing entity for a retail cannabis dispensary operator.
(b) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period ending July 15, 2022, Respondent
performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in States other than the State of Illinois.
(c) At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
ANSWER: GHG admits the allegations contained in Paragraph II of the Complaint.
III.
At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
ANSWER: GHG admits the allegations contained in Paragraph III of the Complaint.
IV.
(a) The following employees of Respondent (the Unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
Employer from its facility currently located at 923 W. Weed Street in Chicago, Illinois.
Excluded: Managers, product specialist leads, agents in charge, office clerical employees
and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) On August 5, 2021, the Acting Regional Director for Region 7 issued a Decision and
Certification of Representative in case 13-RC-271360 certifying the Charging Party as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
(c) On April 21, 2022, the Board affirmed the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and
Certification of Representative in case 13-RC-271360.
(d) At all times since August 5, 2021, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Charging Party has
been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
ANSWER: GHG admits the allegations contained in Paragraph IV(a), IV(b), and IV(c) of
the Complaint. GHG denies the allegations contained in Paragraph IV(d) of the Complaint and
2 Exhibit 17
affirmatively alleges that the Union was improperly certified and is thus not the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the Unit.
V.
(a) On April 26, 2022, the Charging Party, by letter, requested that Respondent meet to
bargain collectively with the Charging Party as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the Unit.
(b) On May 5, 2022, by email, Respondent refused to recognize and bargain with the
Charging Party as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
(c) Respondent’s purpose in refusing to bargain is to test the certification the Acting
Regional Director issued in case 13-RC-271360.
ANSWER: GHG admits the allegations contained in Paragraph V of the Complaint.
VI.
(a) By the conduct described above in paragraph V, Respondent has been failing and refusing to
bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
(b) The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ANSWER: GHG admits the allegations contained in Paragraph VI(a) of the Complaint
insofar as the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union. GHG
denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph VI, including the allegation the Union is the
collective-bargaining representative of its employees. GHG affirmatively alleges that the Union
was improperly certified and is thus not the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the
Unit. Accordingly, GHG also denies any violation of the Act and the allegations of Paragraph
VI(b).
WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for Respondent’s unfair labor practices alleged above in
paragraphs V and VI, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to:
(1) bargain with the Union, on request, within 15 days of a Board Order;
3 Exhibit 17
(2) bargain in good faith with the Union, on request, for the period required by Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962), as the recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate unit;
(3) bargain with the Union, on request, for a minimum of 15 hours a week until an agreement or
lawful impasse is reached or until the parties agree to a respite in bargaining;
(4) bargain with the Union, on request, with the engagement of a mediator from Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service;
(5) prepare written bargaining progress reports every 15 days and submit them to the Regional
Director and also serve the reports on the Union to provide the Union with an opportunity to
reply;
(6) reimbursement of collective-bargaining expenses, e.g., requiring Respondent to reimburse

the Union for negotiation expenses incurred during the entire period in which it failed to bargain
in good faith;
(7) send by regular mail and e-mail any Notice to Employees that may issue in this proceeding
to all of its employees who were employed by it at any time from August 5, 2021 through the
present, at its Chicago, Illinois facility described in paragraph II.
The General Counsel further seeks a broad cease-and-desist order requiring Respondent to cease
and desist “in any other manner” from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights, that the Order provides the full panoply of remedies available to ensure that the
victims of this unlawful conduct are made whole for losses suffered as a result of Respondent’s unfair
labor practices.
ANSWER: To the extent any answer is necessary related to the remedies sought, GHG
denies the allegations contained in the WHEREFORE section of the Complaint. Respondent
further denies it has committed any unfair labor practices or that the General Counsel is entitled
to any remedial Order, any special or extraordinary remedies sought in the Complaint, and/or to
any other relief.
WHEREFORE except as specifically admitted above, Respondent denies each and every
remaining allegation or request for relief in the Complaint.
GENERAL DENIAL
GHG denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint not expressly admitted
herein.
4 Exhibit 17
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Certification of Representative issued by the Board as referenced in Paragraph IV is
invalid.
2. Respondent incorporates by this reference as though fully set forth herein all
documents related to Respondent's Brief and Request for Review, all of which were filed in Case 13-
RC-271360.
WHEREFORE, having answered, GHG Management LLC prays the Complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, that the Union’s certification be revoked, that the underlying representation
petition filed in NLRB Case 13-RC-271360 be dismissed with prejudice to refiling, that Respondent
recover its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred herein and for such other and further relief as may be
just and proper.
Date: August 11, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

Attorney for GHG Management, LLC
Jeffrey E. Dilger
jdilger@littler.com
80 S. 8th St.
Suite 1300
612-313-7628
5 Exhibit 17
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing, including attachments, is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Date: August 11, 2022 Signature: /s/ Jeffrey E. Dilger

Title or Position: Attorney for Respondent
Email: jdilger@littler.com Address: Littler Mendelson, P.C.

6 Exhibit 17
I, Jeffrey E. Dilger, an attorney, certify that on August 11, 2022, I caused a copy of the
foregoing Answer to Complaint to be served via Electronic Filing through the NLRB’s website upon:
Angie Cowan Hamada

Regional Director
Region 13
and via electronic mail upon:
Joseph Torres
Attorney
Karmel Law Firm
joe@karmellawfirm.com

Attorney for Respondent
7 Exhibit 17

Motion For Summary Judgment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Summary Judgment

Original Title:

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

GHG MANAGEMENT LLC, D/B/A WINDY CITY

and Case 13-CA-295623

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS

COUNSEL FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL’S MOTION

Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of product specialists employed by

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

copy of the Petition is attached as Exhibit 1.

stipulated election of the employees of Respondent, herein called “the Unit”:

Excluded: Managers, product specialist leads, agents in charge, office clerical

A copy of the Stipulated Election Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2.

3. Beginning on February 25, 2021, Respondent’s employees in the above-described

as to whether they desired to be represented by the Union.

Period and Rescheduling Ballot Count is attached as Exhibit 3.

challenged ballots. A copy of the Tally of Ballots is attached as Exhibit 4.

6. On April 7, 2021, Respondent filed Objections to the Conduct of the Election. A

copy of the Respondent’ s objections is attached as Exhibit 5.

and Notice of Hearing on Objections is attached as Exhibit 7.

and Certification of Representative wherein he overruled all of Respondents objections and

issued a Certification of Representative. A copy of the Decision and Certification of

Representative is attached as Exhibit 8.

the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative. A copy of

Respondent’s Request for Review (without exhibits) is attached as Exhibit 9.

Board’s Order is attached as Exhibit 10.

requested that Respondent recognize it as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of

attached as Exhibit 12.

Respondent’s Answer is attached as Exhibit 17.

as a matter of law for the General Counsel is appropriate.

bargaining representative in the certified Unit.

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of September 2022.

/s/ Rachel Stopchinski

GHG MANAGEMENT LLC, D/B/A WINDY CITY

and Case 13-CA-295623

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF: Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Board and

Cristina Nutzman, Vice President, Assistant Jeffrey E. Dilger, Attorney

Stefan J. Marculewicz, Attorney Joseph C. Torres, Attorney

Rachel Stopchinski, Designated Agent of NLRB

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE

________ If so, approximately how many employees are participating? ___________

10e. Fax No. 10f. E-Mail Address

GHG Management, LLC d/b/a Windy City Cannabis Case 13-RC-271360

The parties AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

3. LABOR ORGANIZATION. The Petitioner is an organization in which employees

By: /s/Jeffrey E. Dilger 2/2/21 By: /s/Moises Zavala 2/2/21

Print Name: Print Name:

Date approved: February 2, 2021

/s/Paul Hitterman (Acting RD-Acting ARD KMG)

ORDER EXTENDING MAIL BALLOT PERIOD AND

Dated this 19th day of March 2021.

/s/ Paul Hitterman

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF: ORDER EXTENDING MAIL BALLOT PERIOD AND

Jeffrey E. Dilger, Attorney Jason Neloms, General Manager

Brendan Zarling, Designated Agent of NLRB

/s/ Brendan Zarling

GHG Management LLC d/b/a Windy )

EMPLOYER GHG MANAGEMENT LLC’S OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT

(“Union”). The objectionable conduct includes the following:

If so, approximately how many employees are participating? ___