220 N.L.R.B. 1125 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

Four Seasons Nursing Center of Aurora

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 6, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 1125 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

FOUR SEASONS NURSING CENTER OF AURORA Four Seasons Nursing Center of Aurora and Profes- sional & Health Care Employees Division , Local 98, Chartered by Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 13-RC-13653 October 6, 1975 ORDER DIRECTING HEARING By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election executed by the parties and ap- proved by the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board on April 8, 1975, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above- entitled proceeding on April 30, 1975, under the di- rection and supervision of the said Regional Direc- tor. The tally of ballots shows that there were approxi- mately 94 eligible voters and that 86 ballots were cast, of which 38 were cast for the Petitioner, 47 were against the Petitioner, 1 was challenged, and none were void. The challenged ballots are not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. On May 6, 1975, the Petitioner filed timely objec- tions to the election. The Regional Director conduct- ed an investigation of the issues raised by the objec- tions and , on July 30, 1975, issued and duly served on the parties his Report on Objections. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that Board ov- errule all the objections and issue a certification of results of election . Thereafter, on August 6, 1975, the Petitioner filed timely and limited exceptions with re- spect to the Regional Director's disposition of Objec- tion 2. In its exceptions, Petitioner argues that state- ments made by the Employer during an employee meeting 2 days prior to the election attributed violent activities to a sister local during an organizational campaign at the Four Seasons Nursing Home of Westmont, that this was a misrepresentation of fact, and that this misrepresentation had a coercive im- pact on the Employer's employees. In this connec- tion, Petitioner relies on the following employee statements contained in affidavits which it says were taken by a Board agent: Mr. Granstrom talked about Union organizing Westmont Four Seasons and said during the campaign the administrator's life was threatened and his tires slashed. While he didn't say the Union was responsible, I felt he was implying this. Granstrom (or Bergstrom) said that the Admin- istrator of Westmont Four Seasons Nursing 1125 Home had his tires slashed and his life threat- ened while the Union was trying to get in there. He said that employees at Westmont were also threatened and beat up. At one meeting Granstrom said that the Union had tried at Westmont Nursing Home and the Administrator of Westmont was threatened by having his tires slashed. Granstrom said that he didn't want this to happen here. I do not recall exactly what Granstrom said about Union threats. I was at that meeting but I must not have been paying attention. I only re- call that you said there was a lot of trouble at Westmont. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Having duly considered the matter, we are of the opinion that Petitioner's exceptions raise a material factual issue of whether the employer misrepresented on April 28, 1975, that Petitioner's sister local had engaged in violence during a preelection campaign at the Four Seasons Nursing Center of Westmont. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that a hearing be held before a duly designated Hearing Officer for the purpose of receiving evidence to resolve the issue raised by Petitioner's exception to Objection 2, as noted above.' IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing Officer designated for the purpose of conducting such hear- ing shall prepare and cause to be served on the par- ties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the dispositions of said issue. Within the time prescribed by the Board's Rules and Regulations, any party may file with the Board in Washington, D.C., eight copies of exceptions thereto. Immediately, upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof on each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed thereto, the Board will adopt the recommendations of the Hearing Officer. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-entitled mat- ter be, and it hereby is, referred to the Regional Di- rector for Region 13 for the purpose of arranging such hearing and that the said Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof. I Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 221 (1962). Judgment is reserved on all other matters raised by Petitioner's objections and excep- tions. 220 NLRB No. 179 1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBER PENELLO , dissenting: I would not remand this case for a hearing. I do not find in any version submitted that the Employer, in its talk to the employees, attributed the violence described to Petitioner's sister local. There- fore , the Petitioner 's denial that its sister local en- gaged in such violence cannot serve to raise the fac- tual question, found by my colleagues, of whether the Employer misrepresented that union 's role in the violence. But even if such a factual issue had been raised and there had been a hearing to establish that the Employer erroneously accused Petitioner' s sister lo- cal of violence during an organization campaign at another facility, I would not find, for the reasons ex- pressed in my dissenting opinions in Medical Ancil- lary Services, Inc., 212 NLRB 582 (1974), and Ereno Lewis, 217 NLRB No. 45 (1975), that there was an interference with the election herein which warrants setting it aside? Accordingly, I would proceed to a disposition of the case on the basis of the present record. 2 I would think that my colleagues would reach the same conclusion even under the Hollywood Ceramics rule to which they continue to subscribe.