Wendt: Completed Remedies and Posting Distinguished the Decertification Petition

The National Labor Relations Board denied a union’s request to halt a decertification election in Wendt Corporation, Case 03-RD-331940 (NLRB Jan. 20, 2026). The Board relied on stipulated completion of the remedies and notice posting before the petition, together with the later-dated showing of interest. Those facts distinguished earlier cases involving unremedied violations.

The Underlying Dispute and Procedural Posture

In Case 03-RD-331940, petitioner David Wilhelm sought a decertification election among workers represented by Shopmen’s Local Union No. 852. The union urged the Regional Director to dismiss the petition, arguing that prior employer unfair labor practices tainted the atmosphere and blocked a fair vote. After the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election, the union filed a Request for Review with the Board.

Board Members David M. Prouty, James R. Murphy, and Scott A. Mayer denied the union’s request, concluding that the appeal raised no substantial issues warranting review. The order allowed the directed election process to move forward under the National Labor Relations Act.

Decisive Record Facts and Governing Legal Authorities

The record contained critical factual stipulations between the parties: Prior to the filing of the decertification petition, Wendt Corporation had fully remedied its previous unfair labor practices. Furthermore, the mandatory notice-posting period imposed by the agency had completely run its course before employees submitted their petition. The Regional Director also took administrative notice that the employee showing of interest was signed entirely after the notice-posting period concluded.

The Board distinguished these facts from its earlier decision in Wendt Corporation, 371 NLRB No. 159 (2022). In that 2022 proceeding, the Board dismissed an initial decertification petition because the employer had never repudiated its unlawful conduct, pledged to cease it, or remedied the violations. Here, the stipulated remedy and posting history supplied the factual distinction on which the Board denied review.

The Board also distinguished the unremedied violations in the authorities the union cited. In United Supermarkets, Inc., 287 NLRB 119 (1987), enforced 862 F.2d 549 (5th Cir. 1989), the employer had neither offered reinstatement or backpay nor complied with the Board’s remedial order when the petition was filed. Similarly, in Robertshaw Controls Co., 263 NLRB 958 (1982), the employer was actively in the process of remedying violations, but the notice-posting period had not yet run when the petition reached the agency.

Practical Reach and Practical Consequence

The order denied review of the Regional Director’s election direction. It reported neither a later election result nor a universal waiting period. Its practical contribution is the need to compare the particular remedy, completed posting and showing-of-interest dates with the grounds asserted against the petition.