The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) denied DreamClinic Incorporated's request for review of the Regional Director's decisions. The Employer had sought to dismiss the representation petition and had also filed objections to the election and certification of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 3000.

In denying the review of the order dismissing the Employer's motion to dismiss, the Board affirmed the Regional Director's determination that DreamClinic Incorporated is a retail enterprise because it sells services to the ultimate consumer. This finding is consistent with established NLRB precedent.

Regarding the Employer's request for review of the decision on objections and certification, the Board found that the Employer improperly raised issues and alleged facts that were not timely presented to the Regional Director, violating Section 102.67(e) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Nevertheless, even considering the allegations, the Board found no substantial issues warranting review. The Employer's claims did not meet the criteria for an exception to the general rule that an employer is estopped from relying on its own failure to comply with voter list requirements to set aside an election, as per Section 102.67(l). Furthermore, the Employer did not allege facts that would bring its situation within the limited exceptions to the rule that a party to an election is estopped from profiting from its own misconduct. Specifically, the Employer did not allege that any voters who took reasonable steps to exercise their right to vote were unable to do so. The Board also noted that the Employer failed to demonstrate that a determinative number of employees were denied an adequate opportunity to vote due to election mechanics, referencing Lemco Construction.

The Regional Office had administratively confirmed that three named employees, including the one who filed an amicus brief, successfully cast ballots that were counted. The Employer's request for review and the amicus brief did not identify any other individuals who were prevented from voting despite taking reasonable steps. Even with a broad interpretation of the evidence presented, the Board determined that two employees who sought guidance on voting could not have cast determinative ballots, even when considering the four void ballots and one ballot that arrived after the count.

Finally, the Board rejected the Employer's contention that the Regional Director lacked the authority to continue processing the petition in the absence of a Board quorum, citing Satellite Healthcare (Santa Rosa).

Significant Cases Cited

• Marty Levitt, 171 NLRB 739 (1968): Established the principle that a business is a retail enterprise if it sells services to the "ultimate consumer."
• Republic Electronics, Inc., 266 NLRB 852 (1983): Affirms the general rule that a party to an election is estopped from benefiting from its own misconduct.
• Lemco Construction, 283 NLRB 459 (1987): Holds that a party must show a determinative number of employees were denied an adequate opportunity to vote due to election mechanics.
• Satellite Healthcare (Santa Rosa), 374 NLRB No. 25 (2026): Addresses the authority of Regional Directors to process petitions in the absence of a Board quorum.

This summary was generated using Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. It could contain errors.