McLaren Medical Management

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 2000

332 N.L.R.B. 1297 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

MCLAREN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT 1297
McLaren Medical Management, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of McLaren Health Care Corp. and
Local 459, Office and Professional Employees’
International Union, AFL–CIO. Case 7–CA–
43291
November 20, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND HURTGEN
Pursuant to a charge filed on August 15, 2000, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint on August 24, 2000, alleging that the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act by refusing the Union’s
request to bargain and to furnish information following
the Union’s certifications in Cases 7–RC–21705, 7–RC–
21706, and 7–RC–21707. (Official notice is taken of the
“record” in the representation proceeding as defined in
the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and
102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The
Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and deny-
ing in part the allegations in the complaint.
On September 27, 2000, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. On September 29, 2000, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should
not be granted. The Respondent filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer, the Respondent attacks the validity of
the certifications on the basis of the Board’s unit deter-
minations in the representation proceeding.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding.1 The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding.2 See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).

1 Member Hurtgen did not participate in the Board’s denial of the
Employer’s request for review of the Acting Regional Director’s Deci-
sion and Direction of Elections. He finds, however, that the Respon-
dent has not raised any new matters that are properly litigable in this
unfair labor practice proceeding.
2 Although the Respondent in its answer denies that it has refused to
bargain with the Union (and that it has refused to provide requested
information), the denials are based on the Respondent’s position that
the certified units are not appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing. Further, the General Counsel attached to the complaint a copy of
an August 10, 2000 letter, sent by the Respondent to the Union, in
which the Respondent stated that it “decline[d] to participate in negotia-
tions” and “decline[d] to provide any information requested.” The
Respondent does not dispute the validity of the letter. In addition, it is
clear from the Respondent’s response to the Notice to Show Cause that
the Respondent contends that it is under no legal obligations to bargain
with, and provide information to, the Union solely on the ground that
the certifications are invalid. Accordingly, we find that the Respon-
dent’s denials raise no material issue of fact warranting a hearing.
We also find that there are no issues warranting a hear-
ing with respect to the Union’s request for information.
The Respondent admits that by letters dated July 25 and
26, 2000, the Union requested that the Respondent fur-
nish it with the following information:
1. A list of current MMMI bargaining unit employ-
ees with home addresses.
2. The current employee Policies and Procedures
Manual.
3. A list of team leaders employed by MMMI in
classifications covered by the bargaining unit and their
rate of pay.
4. A list of casual employees employed by MMMI
in classifications covered by the bargaining unit and
their rate of pay.
5. A list of Occupational Health Sales Consultants
and Occupational Health Account Reps employed by
the Employer and their rate of pay.
Although the Respondent denies that this information is
necessary for, and relevant to, the union’s performance of its
duties as collective-bargaining representative, it does so
because it argues that the certified units are not appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. We reject this
contention and find that the information as listed under
items 1–4 relates to unit employees and is presumptively
relevant. Trustees of Masonic Hall, 261 NLRB 436 (1982);
and Mobay Chemical Corp., 233 NLRB 109 (1977). The
Respondent has not attempted to rebut the relevance of the
information requested in items 1–4, and we therefore find
that no material issues of fact exist with respect to the Re-
spondent’s refusal to furnish this information.
Relevance cannot be presumed, however, with respect
to item 5 because it appears to pertain to employees out-
side the bargaining unit. In these circumstances, the Un-
ion has the “initial burden to show relevancy.” NLRB v.
Associated General Contractors, 633 F.2d 766, 770 (9th
Cir. 1980), cert. denied 452 U.S. 915 (1981). Here, the
Union did not specify in its request why it wanted a list
of occupational health sales consultants and occupational
health account reps employed by the Respondent and
their rate of pay. Furthermore, neither the complaint nor

332 NLRB No. 126
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1298
the motion for summary judgment explain why the Re-
spondent had an obligation to provide this information.
Accordingly, we deny the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment with respect to the information requested in item 5
and remand this issue to the Regional Director for further
appropriate action. In all other respects, we grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment, and we will order the
Respondent to bargain and to furnish the requested in-
formation, with the exception of a list of occupational
health sales consultants and occupational health account
reps employed by the Respondent and their rate of pay.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation,
with offices and facilities located throughout the State of
Michigan, has been engaged in the operation of provid-
ing health care services. During the year ending Decem-
ber 31, 1999, the Respondent, in conducting its opera-
tions described above, received gross revenues in excess
of $250,000 and purchased goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from points located outside the State of Michi-
gan and caused those goods to be shipped directly to its
State of Michigan facilities.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the elections held April 27, 2000, the Union
was certified on May 5, 2000, in Cases 7–RC–21706 and
7–RC–21707, and on May 17, 2000, in Case 7–RC–
21705, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the following appropriate units
(individually called the paraprofessional, technical and
RN units and collectively called the units):
PARAPROFESSIONAL UNIT (Case 7–RC–21705):
All full-time and regular part-time paraprofessional
employees of the Respondent at its facilities, excluding
teaching practices, in the counties of Ingham, Eaton,
Ionia, and Clinton, including all receptionists, medical
assistants, medical records clerks, and physician billing
clerks; but excluding professional employees, technical
employees, confidential employees, managerial em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
TECHNICAL UNIT (Case 7–RC–21706):
All full-time and regular part-time technical employees
employed by the Respondent at its facilities, excluding
teaching practices, located in the counties of Ingham,
Eaton, Ionia, and Clinton, including licensed practical
nurses and radiologic technologists; but excluding pro-
fessional employees, confidential employees, manage-
rial employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
RN UNIT (Case 7–RC–21707):
All full-time and regular part-time registered nurses em-
ployed by the Respondent at its facilities, excluding
teaching practices, located in the counties of Ingham,
Eaton, Ionia, and Clinton; but excluding physician assis-
tants, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, all other pro-
fessional employees, technical employees, confidential
employees, managerial employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive representative un-
der Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
Since July 25 and 26, 2000, the Union, by letters, has
requested the Respondent to bargain in each of the units
and to furnish information, and, since August 10, 2000,
the Respondent, by letter, has refused. We find that
these refusals constitute unlawful refusals to bargain in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after August 10, 2000, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the appropriate units and
to furnish the Union items 1–4 of the requested informa-
tion, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to bargain on request with the Union, and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, to embody the understanding in a
signed agreement. We also shall order the Respondent to
furnish the Union items 1–4 of the requested information.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services of
their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by
the law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifica-
tion as beginning the date the Respondent begins to bargain
in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136
NLRB 785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379
U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB
1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
MCLAREN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT 1299
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, McLaren Medical Management, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of McLaren Health Care Cor-
poration, Flint and Lansing, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Local 459, Office and
Professional Employees’ International Union, AFL–CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the individually named bargaining units, and refus-
ing to furnish the Union information that is relevant and
necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the employees in the units.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appro-
priate units, individually named the paraprofessional,
technical, and RN units, on terms and conditions of em-
ployment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement:
PARAPROFESSIONAL UNIT (Case 7–RC–21705):
All full-time and regular part-time paraprofessional
employees of the Respondent at its facilities, excluding
teaching practices, in the counties of Ingham, Eaton,
Ionia, and Clinton, including all receptionists, medical
assistants, medical records clerks, and physician billing
clerks; but excluding professional employees, technical
employees, confidential employees, managerial em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
TECHNICAL UNIT (Case 7–RC–21706):
All full-time and regular part-time technical employees
employed by the Respondent at its facilities, excluding
teaching practices, located in the counties of Ingham,
Eaton, Ionia, and Clinton, including licensed practical
nurses and radiologic technologists; but excluding pro-
fessional employees, confidential employees, manage-
rial employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
RN UNIT (Case 7–RC–21707):
All full-time and regular part-time registered nurses em-
ployed by the Respondent at its facilities, excluding
teaching practices, located in the counties of Ingham,
Eaton, Ionia, and Clinton; but excluding physician assis-
tants, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, all other pro-
fessional employees, technical employees, confidential
employees, managerial employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(b) Furnish the Union the information it requested on
July 25 and 26, 2000, with the exception of a list of oc-
cupational health sales consultants and occupational
health account reps employed by the Respondent and
their rate of pay.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities located in the counties of Ingham, Eaton,
Ionia, and Clinton in the State of Michigan, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 7 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that,
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail,
at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since August 10, 2000.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible
official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in
the complaint regarding the Respondent’s refusal to pro-
vide information to the Union in item 5 is remanded to
the Regional Director for further appropriate action.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Local 459, Of-
fice and Professional Employees International Union,
AFL–CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the individually named bargaining

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1300
units, and WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union
information that is relevant and necessary to its role as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the indi-
vidually named bargaining units:
PARAPROFESSIONAL UNIT:
All of our full-time and regular part-time paraprofes-
sional employees at our facilities, excluding teaching
practices, in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Ionia, and
Clinton, including all receptionists, medical assistants,
medical records clerks, and physician billing clerks; but
excluding professional employees, technical employ-
ees, confidential employees, managerial employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
TECHNICAL UNIT:
All full-time and regular part-time technical employees
employed by us at our facilities, excluding teaching
practices, located in the counties of Ingham, Eaton,
Ionia, and Clinton, including licensed practical nurses
and radiologic technologists; but excluding professional
employees, confidential employees, managerial em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
RN UNIT:
All full-time and regular part-time registered nurses
employed by us at our facilities, excluding teaching
practices, located in the counties of Ingham, Eaton,
Ionia, and Clinton; but excluding physician assistants,
nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, all other profes-
sional employees, technical employees, confidential
employees, managerial employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL furnish the Union the information it re-
quested on July 25 and 26, 2000, with the exception of a
list of occupational health sales consultants and occupa-
tional health account reps employed by us and their rate
of pay.
MCLAREN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., A
WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF MCLAREN
HEALTH CARE CORPORATION