New Representation Case Procedures

Not necessarily.  In those circumstances, the burden of proof rests with the party seeking to contest the presumptively appropriate unit. If the party seeking to overcome that presumption presents evidence suggesting that the unit is not appropriate, the petitioning party may very well have to proffer evidence to rebut that showing and establish that the petitioned unit is, in fact, appropriate.    

Under Board case law, the party seeking to exclude any individual based on exclusions allowed under the statute or the Board’s policies, including supervisors, managerial employees, confidential employees, independent contractors and agricultural workers, has the burden of proof with respect to the exclusion.  However, depending on the number of individuals whose supervisory status is at issue, the introduction of evidence as to supervisory status might be deferred. 

You may request special permission to appeal from that ruling to the regional director.

You may also request to file for special permission to appeal from the regional director’s ruling to the Board, but this special appeal will only be considered by the Board under “extraordinary circumstances” when it appears that the “issue will otherwise evade review.”  This narrower standard is not applicable to requests for special permission to appeal rulings of the Hearing Officer to the regional director.

Not necessarily.  Parties may request a stay or that the ballots be impounded, but special appeals will not automatically stay the election or require ballots to be impounded unless specifically so ordered by Board.