Hall-Brooke Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 618 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DEI)(ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hall-Brooke Hospital, a Division of Hall-Brooke
Foundation, Inc. and Connecticut Health Care As-
sociales, Petitioner. Case 2 RC 18210
August 24, 1979
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHtAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND) PENEI.I.O
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered objections to an elec-
tion' held on March 8. 1979, and the Regional Direc-
tor's report recommending disposition of same. The
Board has reviewed the record in light of the excep-
tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Regional Di-
rector's findings and recommendations.2
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Connecticut Health Care
Associates. and that pursuant to Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said
labor organization is the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of all the employees in the following appro-
priate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment:
All full-time and regular part-time mental health
workers, activity workers, cooks, food service
workers, dietary aides, general maintenance
workers, grounds men, carpenters, painters, and
housekeepers employed by the Employer, at its
facility at 47 Long Lots Road, Westport, Con-
necticut, excluding guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act and all other employees.
CHAIRMAN FANNING, dissenting:
For reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, 236 NLRB 1082
(1978), 1 would set aside the election in this case. As
in Alyeska, I find that Rehmar, Inc.. 173 NLRB 1434
(1968), is dispositive of the issues in this case and that.
in order to insure the Board's nonpartisan role in con-
ducting elections, a new election must be held.
I The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election. The tally was 27 for. and 18 against, the Petitioner:
there were no challenged ballots and no valid ballots.
2 The pertinent parts of the Regional Director's Report on Objections and
recommendations is attached hereto and marked "Appendix."
APPENDIX
In Objection 2. the Employer alleges that the Petitioner
distributed campaign literature to which was attached,
without explanation. an exact copy of a portion of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Notice of' Election, including
the Agency seal and title, thereby creating the impression
that the Board endorsed the Petitioner and that b these
and other acts of misconduct employees were deprived of a
free and uncoerced choice of a bargaining representative?
The Petitioner admits including the aforementioned
document in its mailings to employees but contends that the
use of the document was not an abuse of the Board's pro-
cesses.
The investigation revealed that on or about January 30,
1979, the Petitioner mailed to employees a document con-
taining a duplication of that portion of the Board's Notice
of Election headed "Rights of Employees." which docu-
ment it stapled to a sheet of its campaign propaganda. 7
Petitioner's propaganda sheet does not refer to the Board
document, nor does its substance relate to anything in that
document, nor is there any evidence that the Petitioner re-
ferred to the Board document at any time during the elec-
tion campaign.
The Employer claims that it first learned of the Petition-
er's use of this document in its mailings approximately six
days before the election when the same employee referred
to in Objection I. supra, brought the document to the atten-
tion of [the Employer's administrator. Marshall] Spurlock.
As a general principle, the Board will not tolerate any
attempt to misuse its processes to secure partisan advantage
during an election campaign and will overturn an election
where a party either directly or indirectly suggests to the
voters that the Agency endorses a particular party.8 How-
ever, in the case at bar, Petitioner's mailing of that portion
of the Board's notice of election headed "Rights of Employ-
ees" cannot reasonably be said to create an impression that
this Agency was allying itself with or endorsing Petitioner's
campaign. As an examination of' the document will estab-
lish, the notice panel in issue sets out employee rights under
the Act. the Board's responsibility to protect employees in
the exercise of those rights, and specific examples of con-
duct which are proscribed under the Act. Conduct which
may not be engaged in by a union is described as fully as
that prohibited by an employer. The panel contains no
added language of union propaganda and was not altered
in any way. Significantly the Board document (panel) closes
with the statement that the National Labor Relations
Board as an agency of the United States Government does
not endorse any choice in the election (emphasis added). The
document itself was neutral. As for Petitioner's material to
which it was attached, such material could not reasonably
' No evidence was submitted by the Employer and none was adduced in
the investigation of "other" acts of misconduct, and it is found that none
such occurred.
7 The mailing is attached hereto as Appendix B omitted from publica-
tion]. The two sheets were folded and mailed without an envelope. The
portion of the Board's Notice of Election which was distributed was a verba-
tim duplication of the right hand panel of the Board's standard three-panel
notice.
I Columbia lanning Corporation. 238 NLRB 899 citing Allied Electric
Product. Inc.. 109 NLRB 1270.
244 NLRB No. 91
618
HALL-BROOKE HOSPITAL.
be construed by the employees as part of the Board's publi-
cation but was clearly identifiable as partisan campaign lit-
erature issued by Petitioner.9 As a matter of fact. Petition-
er's leaflet indicated on its reverse side that the source of
Petitioner's leaflet was "Your Committee to Elect CHCA'
and also gave the full name of Petitioner (CHCA) and its
address. Finally it should be noted that the Board's com-
plete three-panel notice containing the panel in issue was
posted prior to the election for employees to read in its full
perspective. so that they were in a position to tell it was part
of the overall government notice and not a partisan docu-
ment or part of any endorsement by the Board of Petitioner
or any party to the election.'°0
9 Monmouth Medical Center. 234 NLRB 328 (1978). citing A Brandt Com-
pany. Inc.. 199 NLRB 459.
'°There was apparently a delay in the Employer's receipt of the Board
notices which had been mailed to it eight days before the election scheduled
For the foregoing reasons I find that the document in
issue did not compromise the Board's neutrality nor give
the impression of Board endorsement of Petitioner and I
accordingly recommend that Objection No. 2 be over-
ruled.''
CONCLUSIONS A ND RECOMMENDA TIONS
It having been found that the Employer's objections are
without merit. it hereby is recommended that they be over-
ruled.
for Thursday. March 8. 1979. On Monday, March 5. the Regional Office ,as
notified by phone by the Employer's attorney that the notices had not yet
been received by the Employer though the attorney had received her copy. It
was arranged for the Employer's attorney to make phottlaltic copies of the
notice that very day and to give them to the Employer for posting
Cf. Alveska Pipeline Service Company, 236 NLRB 1082. and the Board
majority's ruling in Rebmar, Inc.. 173 NLRB 1434.
619