Hospital of Barstow Inc., d/b/a Barstow Community Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 2016

31-CA-090049 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

Barstow, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HOSPITAL OF BARSTOW, INC. d/b/a
BARSTOW COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
and Cases 31-CA-090049
31-CA-096140
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION/
NATIONAL NURSES ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
(CNA/NNOC), AFL-CIO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 15, 2016, acting pursuant to the court’s remand in Hospital of Barstow,
Inc. v. NLRB, 820 F.3d 440 (D.C. Cir. 2016), the Board issued a Supplemental Decision
and Order in this proceeding. The Board found that in the circumstances presented by
this case the Regional Director’s certification of representative in the underlying
representation proceeding was valid notwithstanding the absence of a Board quorum,
and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act in several respects.
364 NLRB No. 52 (2016).
On September 9, 2016, the Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In its
motion, the Respondent reiterates its prior arguments that the Regional Director lacked
authority in the absence of a Board quorum, and asserts that the Board’s Supplemental
Decision and Order “fails to analyze the questions posed to the Board by the D.C.
Circuit upon remand.” Motion, p. 12.
Having duly considered the matter, we find that the Respondent’s Motion for
Reconsideration raises nothing not previously considered and is lacking in merit. We
further find that the Respondent has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances
2
warranting reconsideration under Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations.1 Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of
the Board’s July 15, 2016 Decision and Order is denied.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 14, 2016
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

1 Board Member Miscimarra did not participate in the Supplemental Decision and Order
and does not reach or pass on its merits, but agrees with his colleagues that the
Respondent’s motion does not identify extraordinary circumstances warranting
reconsideration.