A Prior Labor Order and a Decertification Petition: Check Remedies, Posting and Dates

When an old unfair-labor-practice order is raised against a new decertification effort, compare the actual remedy and dates. Identify what the employer was required to do, when those obligations were completed, when required notices finished running and what the agency found about the petition’s showing of interest.

The January 20, 2026 Wendt Corporation order denied a union’s request for review because the record differed from earlier unremedied-violation cases. The parties stipulated that the employer had remedied its violations and completed notice posting before the petition. The Regional Director also took administrative notice that the showing of interest was dated after posting ended. Those were specific record facts, not a freestanding waiting-period formula.

Read what the earlier order actually required

Obtain the complete order or settlement, later compliance rulings and any relevant correspondence. List the requirements separately. A posting obligation may sit beside reinstatement, backpay or other relief; completing one item does not explain the status of the others.

Identify whether completion is stipulated, documented by the agency or disputed. If a party says the matter is “closed,” locate the source and what it closes. A docket label may not answer the particular compliance question being raised in the representation proceeding.

Separate posting from the other compliance events

Record the required posting period, actual start and end dates, any interruption and any electronic-distribution requirement stated in the order. Use the particular order rather than inserting a standard period from another case. Keep the supporting records with the chronology.

In Wendt, the Board distinguished Robertshaw Controls Co., 263 NLRB 958, 959–960 (1982), where the notice-posting period had not run when the petition was filed, and United Supermarkets, Inc., 287 NLRB 119, 119 (1987), where remedies remained outstanding. Wendt Corporation, order, page 1 n.1.

Use the agency record for the showing-of-interest question

The Board relied on the Regional Director’s administrative notice of the relevant dates. That does not authorize an employer to demand access to confidential employee support cards or question workers about their choices. Have counsel identify the information properly available through the representation process and what the agency has actually determined.

Keep any regional finding, request for review and resulting order together. Distinguish the petition’s filing date from the dates relevant to its showing of interest. They are separate events in the Wendt order.

Explain the comparison instead of predicting the election

Consider a hypothetical file in which required posting ended before a petition, but a reinstatement requirement is still disputed. A chronology showing only the posting end date would leave an important question unanswered. Conversely, if the parties stipulate that every required remedy was completed, preserve that stipulation rather than relying on an informal summary.

The comparison should identify the actual unresolved obligation or the evidence of completion. It should not pronounce an election valid solely from three dates. The Board denied review of the direction of election in Wendt; the order did not report a later vote result.

Keep the present proceeding and response requirements in view

Obtain the current regional decision and notices, and identify the grounds actually asserted against the petition. Ask counsel which response, review or compliance step applies now. Preserve filing receipts and any ruling affecting the next step.

Our regional-election authority guide addresses a different issue: Who can act during a Board quorum gap. This page addresses the remedial record and chronology, which require attention even when the agency’s authority is undisputed.