Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc.: Agency and Coercion Thresholds in Election Objections

On January 20, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision in Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service, Inc., Case 13-RC-356185, denying an employer’s request for review of a Regional Director’s decision overruling election objections and certifying Teamsters Local Union No. 743 as the bargaining representative. The Board concluded that the employer’s request raised no substantial issues warranting review, identifying gaps in the employer’s proffer on both apparent union agency and interference with voter choice.

Disavowing Invalid Two-Member Board Precedent

In denying the employer’s request for review, the Board explicitly declined to rely on the Regional Director’s citation of Colgate Scaffolding and Equipment Corp., 354 NLRB 544 (2009). Citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), the Board noted that Colgate Scaffolding was an invalid two-member Board decision issued when the Board lacked a statutory quorum, and declined to rely on it.

Strict Evidentiary Standards for Apparent Union Agency

The employer argued that an employee, Christopher Bonk, acted with apparent authority on behalf of the union when filing a workplace safety report. The Board rejected this contention, explaining that establishing apparent agency requires proof that the principal made manifestations to third parties. Applying Southern Bag Corporation, Ltd., 315 NLRB 725 (1994), the Board emphasized that the employer offered no evidence that the union ever manifested to unit employees that it authorized Bonk to file safety reports or act as its general agent.

Evidentiary Failure to Show Election Interference

The Board further held that even if Bonk had acted as a union agent, the employer failed to prove that his conduct interfered with employee free choice under Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 280 NLRB 580 (1986) and Baja’s Place, 268 NLRB 868 (1984). The record contained evidence demonstrating only that Bonk submitted a single private safety report regarding one employee to proper authorities. The employer failed to proffer specific evidence showing that:

• The safety report was related to the union election campaign;
• Bonk communicated with the reported employee about the submission; or
• News of the safety report was disseminated among unit employees.

Practical Impact on Representation Proceedings

The order keeps agency and interference analytically distinct. The employer’s proffer failed to establish the union’s manifestations of authority; even assuming agency, it also failed to establish the report’s connection to election interference. A useful objection must identify the actual evidence supporting the theory rather than relying on the existence of a private safety report.

The operative reasoning appears in footnote 1 of the short order. For apparent authority, the relevant manifestations are the union’s: What the union said or did to lead unit employees reasonably to believe Bonk was authorized. Bonk’s own independent conduct could not supply that missing union manifestation. Superior Air-Ground Ambulance, order, page 1 n.1.