Gala Food Processing, Inc., 310 NLRB 1193 (1993), on which the Company relies, is distinguishable. In that case, the employer claimed that the parties had intended to include some, but not all, of the call-in employees in the stipulated bargaining unit.
Id. at 1193. The extrinsic evidence revealed just the opposite, however: during the stipulation negotiations, the employer proposed inclusion of the call-in employees in the unit and, prior to signing the stipulation, provided the names of
all—not just some—of the call-in employees to the union.
Id. Thus, the extrinsic evidence of the employer's own actions in negotiations contradicted the position it later took when challenging the election results.
See id. The Board found this evidence “resolve[d] the ambiguity in the stipulation” and therefore rejected the employer's claim that the parties had intended anything else.
Id. at 1193–94. No such extrinsic evidence exists to resolve the ambiguity here. The record does not suggest that either the Company or the Union switched its position from that taken prior to the signing of the stipulation agreement and the election; rather, the record shows disagreement, and hence ambiguity, regarding the scope of the bargaining unit throughout the negotiations and election.
Desert Palace, Inc., 337 NLRB 1096 (2002), on which the Company also relies, provides no support for its contention.
See id. at 1097–1101.