297 N.L.R.B. 258 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

Humboldt General Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 17, 1989

297 N.L.R.B. 258 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

258 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Humboldt General Hospital, Employer-Petitioner and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, and Professional, Clerical, Public and Miscellaneous Employees Local Union No. 533. Case A0-271 November 17, 1989 ADVISORY OPINION BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY Pursuant to Sections 102 98(a) and 102 99 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, on October 4 and 31, 1989, Humboldt Gener- al Hospital (the Petitioner) filed a petition and sup- porting brief, respectively, requesting an advisory opinion as to whether the Board would assert juris- diction over it In pertinent part the petition and brief allege as follows 1 A prohibited practices complaint, Case Al- 045459, is currently pending before the Nevada Local Government Employee-Management Rela- tions Board (EMRB) in which Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, and Professional, Clerical, Public and Miscellaneous Employees Local Union No 533, (the Union) alleges that the Petitioner committed various unfair labor practices under Chapter 288 of the Nevada Revised Statutes Prior to filing the complaint, the Union also wrote the EMRB and requested that the EMRB schedule an election to resolve the Union's claim for recog- nition In addition, a representation petition involv- ing the parties, Case 32-RM-623, is currently pending before the Board's Regional Office Nei- ther the EMRB nor the Board's Regional Director have yet made any findings with respect to these cases 2 The Petitioner is a nonprofit hospital orga- nized under the laws of Nevada 3 During the past year the Petitioner had gross revenues equal to or exceeding $250,000 and re- ceived goods and/or services exceeding $25,000 di- rectly from outside sources On November 1, 1989, the Union filed a response to the petition for advisory opinion Having duly considered the matter, we deny the Petitioner's request for an advisory opinion The Board's longstanding policy, based on sound princi- ples of administrative efficiency and economy, is that a petition for advisory opinion will not be en- tertained where, as here, a statutory representation proceeding is pending and there is no indication of a need for a more expeditious jurisdictional deter- mination I Moreover, the petition in the instant case appears to seek a determination not only on the issue of whether the Petitioner would meet the Board's commerce standards for asserting jurisdic- tion, but also on the issue of whether the Petitioner is an exempt entity under Section 2(2) of the Act Indeed, both the Petitioner's brief in support of the petition and the Union's response are devoted almost exclusively to this latter issue It is well es- tablished, however, that the Board's advisory opin- ion proceedings under Section 102 98(a) were not designed to address such issues 2 Thus, even if a statutory representation proceeding were not cur- rently pending, we would not grant the Petitioner's request Accordingly, it is ordered that, for the reasons set forth above, the petition for advisory opinion is dismissed ' See International Bureau for Protection & Investigation, 236 NLRB 1356 (1978) 2 See, e 5, Command Security Corp, 293 NLRB 593 (1989), and St Paul Ramsey Medical Center, 288 NLRB 913 (1988) 297 NLRB No 32