ELKO General Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

331 NLRB No. 31
1
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
PHC-ELKO, Inc. d/b/a Elko General Hospital and
Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL–
CIO. Case 32–CA–18036-1
May 23, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN,
AND BRAME
Pursuant to a charge filed on March 21, 2000, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint on March 23, 2000, alleging that the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act by refusing the Union’s
request to bargain following the Union’s certification in
Case 32–RC–4587. (Official notice is taken of the “re-
cord” in the representation proceeding as defined in the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and
102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The
Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and deny-
ing in part the allegations in the complaint.
On April 10, 2000, the Ge neral Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On April 12, 2000, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not
be granted. The Union filed a joinder in the Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Respondent filed an opposition
to the Motion for Summary Judgment and a response to
the Notice to Show Cause.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to bar-
gain and to furnish information that is alleged to be rele-
vant and necessary to the Union’s role as bargaining rep-
resentative, but attacks the validity of the certification on
the basis of its objections to the election in the represen-
tation proceeding.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
We also find that there are no factual issues warranting
a hearing regarding the Union’s request for information.
The complaint alleges, and the Respondent admits, that
on about January 12, 2000, the Union requested the fol-
lowing information:

(1) A list of the name, job classification, date of
hire, and wage rate for each unit employee.
(2) Copies of the Respondent’s personnel man-
agement and employee benefit policies and proce-
dures, including a summary plan description and to-
tal costs of employee health insurance and pension
plans.
It is well established that the foregoing type of com-
pensation and employment information sought by the
Union is presumptively relevant for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and must be furnished on request unless
its relevance is rebutted.1 The Respondent has not at-
tempted to rebut the relevance of the information re-
quested by the Union. Instead, in its answer, the Re-
spondent relies solely on its challenge to the Union’s
certification as the basis for its denial that it has a duty to
provide the Union with the requested information. We
therefore find that no material issues of fact exist with
regard to the Respondent’s refusal to furnish the informa-
tion sought by the Union.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and will order the Respondent to bargain with the
Union and to furnish the Union with the information it
requested.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a Nevada corpo-
ration, has been engaged in the operation of an acute care
hospital in Elko, Nevada. During the 12-month period
preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in
conducting its business operations described above, re-
ceived gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and pur-
chased and received goods valued in excess of $5000,
which originated outside the State of Nevada. We find
that the Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.2

1 See, e.g., U.S. Family Care San Bernardino, 315 NLRB 108
(1994); Trustees of Masonic Hall, 261 NLRB 436 (1982); and Mobay
Chemical Corp., 233 NLRB 109 (1977).
2 The Respondent’s answer denies par. 4 of the complaint, which al-
leges that “[t]he Union each is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the
Act.” The Respondent contends that the use of the word “each” in this
paragraph constitutes an assertion that Local 3 is a distinct and separate
labor organization from the International Union, and the Respondent
denies that this is true. The Respondent also argues that this purported
“assertion” is contrary to the stipulated election agreement executed by
the parties in the underlying representation case. With respect to these
contentions, the General Counsel’s motion states that the inclusion of
the word “each” was “clearly an inadvertent typographical error and of
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the election held September 8 and 9, 1999,
the Union was certified on December 20, 1999, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:

All full-time and regular part-time non-professional
employees employed within technical, service, mainte-
nance, laboratory, nursing, business office, and medical
records and clinic classifications, employed by Re-
spondent at its Elko, Nevada facilities; excluding all
professional employees, temporary employees, confi-
dential and administrative employees, computer service
personnel, managers, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.

The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un-
der Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since January 12, 2000, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain and to furnish information, and
since about January 19, 2000, the Respondent has re-
fused. We find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful
refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after January 19, 2000, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate unit and to
furnish the Union requested information, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to bargain on request with the Union, and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement. We also shall order the Respon-
dent to furnish the Union the information requested.

no legal significance.” We find that this matter raises no factual issue
warranting a hearing. The first sentence of the complaint identifies
“Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, AFL–CIO,” as the Union that is referenced throughout
the remainder of the complaint, including in the assertion of labor or-
ganization status set forth in par. 4 of the complaint. That Union is the
union that is certified and with which the complaint alleges that the
Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain. Further, the Respondent
stipulated to the Union’s labor organization status in the underlying
representation case, and has offered no facts herein that would put that
status in question. Thus, we accept the General Counsel’s representa-
tion that the use of the word “each” in par. 4 of the complaint was
inadvertent and has no legal significance. The Respondent has failed to
show that there is any material factual issue in dispute concerning the
identity and labor organization status of the certified Union.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by the law, we shall construe the initial period of the cer-
tification as beginning the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB
226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert.
denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Co.,
149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th
Cir. 1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, PHC-ELKO, Inc., d/b/a Elko General Hos-
pital, Elko, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Operating Engineers Lo-
cal Union No. 3, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the bargaining unit, and refusing
to furnish the Union information that is relevant and nec-
essary to its role as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached, embody the under-
standing in a signed agreement:

All full-time and regular part-time non-professional
employees employed within technical, service, mainte-
nance, laboratory, nursing, business office, and medical
records and clinic classifications, employed by Re-
spondent at its Elko, Nevada facilities; excluding all
professional employees, temporary employees, confi-
dential and administrative employees, computer service
personnel, managers, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) Furnish the Union the information requested by it
on about January 12, 2000.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Elko, Nevada, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 32 after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.
ELKO GENERAL HOSPITAL 3
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since January 19, 2000.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 23, 2000

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

Wilma B. Liebman, Member

J. Robert Brame III, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Operating Engi-
neers Local Union No. 3, International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers, AFL–CIO as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the bargaining unit, and WE WILL
NOT refuse to furnish the Union information that is rele-
vant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit:

All full-time and regular part-time non-professional
employees employed within technical, service, mainte-
nance, laboratory, nursing, business office, and medical
records and clinic classifications, employed by us at our
Elko, Nevada facilities; excluding all professional em-
ployees, temporary employees, confidential and admin-
istrative employees, computer service personnel, man-
agers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.

WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested on about January 12, 2000.
PHC-ELKO, INC. D/B/A ELKO GENERAL
HOSPITAL