365 NLRB No. 8 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

Linwood Care Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 23, 2017

365 NLRB No. 8 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 8 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. CPL (Linwood) LLC d/b/a Linwood Care Center and its Successor, 201 New Road Operations, LLC d/b/a Linwood CARE Center1 and 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Case 04–RM– 145463 January 23, 2017 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY ACTING CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN On February 17, 2016, the National Labor Relations Board issued an Order denying CPL (Linwood) LLC d/b/a Linwood Care Center’s (“the Employer”) request for review of the Regional Director’s dismissal of the instant petition. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely motion for reconsideration, re- questing that we vacate the dismissal and remand for a causation hearing under Saint Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 342 NLRB 434 (2004). The Employer subsequently filed a request to supplement nunc pro tunc its motion for reconsideration and a request for reconsideration of the Board’s June 3, 2016 denial of its request to supplement nunc pro tunc. The Employer’s motion for reconsidera- tion of the Order denying review and request for recon- sideration of the Order denying its request to supplement are granted. After careful consideration, we find that dismissal of the petition is warranted. A Regional Director may be required to hold a Saint Gobain hearing when dismissing a petition based on charges that raise an issue of a causal relationship be- tween the unfair labor practices and an incumbent un- ion’s subsequent loss of majority support. See Saint Go- bain, 342 NLRB at 434; NLRB Casehandling Manual Part Two (CHM) Section 11730.3(c). Here, by contrast, the charges challenge the circumstances surrounding the petition and directly affect the petition and no causation hearing is required. See CHM Section 11730.3(a). Further, a hearing was held on the unfair labor practice charges in the related consolidated unfair labor practice case (04–CA–146362 et al.). On April 5, 2016, Admin- istrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his deci- sion, and on November 30, 2016, the Board issued a de- 1 Pursuant to the answer of the Employer and Successor 201 New Road Operations, LLC d/b/a Linwood Care Center to the Board’s July 28, 2016 notice to show cause, we have added the Successor as an employer/petitioner in interest. cision adopting, in the absence of exceptions, the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when its agents Jon Buress and Dan Bryan solic- ited employees Mary Jo Halpin, Cassandra Morton, and Henry Waugh to sign a decertification petition; solicited employee grievances and promised to remedy them if employees abandoned their support for the Union; told employees that no changes in working conditions would be made unless either employees got rid of the Union or a collective-bargaining agreement was signed; interro- gated employees concerning their support for the Union; and threatened employees by suggesting that it was futile to continue supporting the Union because contract nego- tiations could go on a very long time. CPL (Linwood) LLC d/b/a Linwood Care Center and its successor 201 New Road Operations, LLC d/b/a Linwood Care Center, 364 NLRB No. 154, slip op. at 1, fn. 1 (2016).2 The unfair labor practices, as stated above, involved the circumstances surrounding the petition and directly affected the petition, and thus, the Employer cannot es- tablish a good-faith reasonable uncertainty regarding the Union’s majority status, the objective considerations needed to support a RM petition. See CHM Section 11042. Accordingly we find that dismissal of the peti- tion is warranted. Id.3 We find it unnecessary to address the allegations of the Regional Director’s bias raised in the Employer’s sup- plement because a hearing has been held on the unfair labor practice allegations set forth above and an adminis- trative law judge has found merit to those allegations. Further, as stated above, the Board has adopted the judge’s findings in the absence of exceptions, and we have found that those unfair labor practices warrant dis- missal of the petition. ORDER The petition is dismissed. Dated, Washington, D.C. January 23, 2017 ______________________________________ Philip A. Miscimarra, Acting Chairman ______________________________________ Mark Gaston Pearce, Member 2 The Board severed and retained for further consideration the re- maining allegations which have been excepted either by the General Counsel or the Respondent. Id. 3 Therefore, we also find that the Employer’s request for a ruling on whether the petition is subject to reinstatement, if appropriate, after final disposition of the unfair labor practice proceedings is now moot. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD