Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ORGANIZING, ELECTIONS—NLRB: Regional director erred in overruling employer challenges to hand-delivered election ballots, (Jul 23, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The Notice of Election, as well as the standard instructions for voting in mail-ballot elections, expressly state that ballots are to be sent and returned via U.S. Mail.

A three-member panel of the NLRB ruled that a regional director erred in overruling the challenges to the ballots of two voters who hand-delivered their mail ballots directly to the Regional Office, instead of submitting them via U.S. Mail pursuant to the instructions for voting. On the other hand, the regional director did not err in overruling the employer’s objections to the election, which were largely premised on the hand-delivery of ballots. Given that the results of the election stand at four votes in favor of the union and four votes against representation, the union did not receive a majority of votes cast in the election. Member Prouty filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part (Starbucks Corporation, 375 NLRB No. 7 (July 22, 2026)).

Mail-ballot election. On May 13, 2022, the union filed a petition seeking to represent a unit of all full-time and regular part-time baristas and shift supervisors employed at a Starbucks store location. On June 14, 2022, the regional director directed a mail-ballot election. The Tally of Ballots revealed that, of approximately 24 eligible voters, four ballots were cast in favor of the union and four ballots were cast against representation, with two determinative challenged ballots.

Employer objections. The employer challenged the ballots of two employees on the basis that their ballot envelopes did not have postmarks. The employer also filed timely objections to the election. On October 25, 2022, the regional director directed a hearing with respect to the employer’s objections.

On November 16, 2022, a hearing officer recommended that the employer’s challenges be overruled. The regional director adopted the hearing officer’s recommendations to overrule the employer’s objections and challenges. Thereafter, the employer filed a request for review of the regional director’s decision on certain objections.

The Board granted the employer’s request for review of the regional director’s decision on certain objections because it raised substantial issues warranting review. The Board reversed the regional director’s decision to overrule the challenges to the ballots of the two employees. On the other hand, it affirmed the regional director’s decision to overrule the employer’s objections.

Delivery of ballots. The record is clear that the voters in this case were specifically instructed to return their ballots via U.S. Mail, with no indication that ballots could be delivered in person. Further, there was no evidence that the region indicated to voters pre-election that anything other than voting by U.S. Mail was permitted. Nevertheless, the two employees did not follow the unambiguous instructions; instead, their ballots were hand-delivered directly to the Regional Office.

At the time of the election in this case, the Board had no policies or procedures permitting voters to pick up and/or drop off mail ballot kits directly at the Regional Office. The Notice of Election, as well as the standard instructions for voting in mail-ballot elections expressly state that ballots are to be sent and returned via U.S. Mail. Accordingly, the Board reversed the regional director’s decision and sustained both of the employer’s ballot challenges.

Employer objections. In its first objection, the employer contended that Board personnel engaged in election misconduct allowing voters to vote in person, rather than by mail. In overruling this objection, the Board agreed with the regional director that the employer had not met its burden to establish that the Region engaged in misconduct that would raise “a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election.” The employer introduced no evidence of pre-election communication from the Region indicating that voters could hand-deliver their mail ballots. Nor did it introduce evidence that the Region acted in concert with the union to permit select voters to hand deliver their mail ballots.

The Region’s conduct did not raise a reasonable doubt as to the fairness and validity of the election. After the employer challenged the ballots of the two employees at the ballot count, their ballots were properly segregated.

As to the employer’s second objection, it contended that the union was engaged in unlawful ballot harvesting by soliciting voters to vote in person rather than by mail. The Board agreed with the regional director that no evidence indicated that the union solicited, collected, or otherwise handled any ballots in this election or that one of the employees was an agent for the union. Accordingly, the employer’s second objection was also overruled.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part. Member Prouty concurred with the Board that the regional director properly overruled the employer’s objections in this case; however, he would affirm the regional director’s decision to overrule the challenges to the ballots of the two employees. He argued that the hand-delivery of mail ballots did not undermine the integrity of a mail ballot election. Thus, Prouty would find it generally permissible for voters to pick up and/or drop off mail ballots at the Regional Office in Board-conducted elections.

The slip opinion is 375 NLRB No. 7.

Attorneys: Ryan Hammond (Littler Mendelson) for Starbucks Corp. Marina Multhaup (Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt) for Workers United Affiliated with Service Employees International Union.

Companies: Starbucks Corp.; Workers United Affiliated with Service Employees International Union

Cases: Labor OrganizingElections AgencyNews