Our Lady of the Resurrection Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 2012

13-RC-022035 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 19, 2012)

NOT INCLUDED
IN BOUND VOLUMES
PHG
Chicago, IL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OUR LADY OF THE RESURRECTION
MEDICAL CENTER
Employer
and CASE 13-RC-22035
AFSCME COUNCIL 31, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY,
AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Petitioner
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, has
considered objections to an election held on June 29 and 30, 2011, and the
hearing officer’s report recommending disposition of them. The election was
conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots
shows 98 for and 159 against the Petitioner, with 16 challenged ballots, an
insufficient number to affect the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions1 and briefs,
has adopted the hearing officer’s findings2 and recommendations3, and finds that
a certification of results of election should be issued.

1 The Union has excepted to some of the hearing officer’s credibility findings.
The Board’s established policy is not to overrule a hearing officer’s credibility
resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence
convinces us that they are incorrect. Stretch-Tex Co., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361
2
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have not been cast for
AFSCME Council 31, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal

(1957). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
There are no exceptions to the hearing officer’s recommendations to
overrule Objections 9 and 12-15.
2 In adopting the hearing officer’s findings, we do not rely on his findings
regarding employees’ subjective reactions to the alleged objectionable conduct.
Lake Mary Health and Rehabilitation, 345 NLRB 544, 545 (2005) (“The Board
has long held that the subjective reactions of employees are irrelevant to the
question of whether there was in fact objectionable conduct.”).
3 In overruling the objections, we note that certain conduct alleged in Objections
6, 7, and 10 was objectionable. Specifically, we find objectionable the
Employer’s removal of union literature from the break room, the interrogations by
Drs. Vishnu Chundi and Fadi Habib, and the comment by Director of Surgical
Services Sherry Chillis that employee Laura Buenrostro should keep her opinions
about the Union to herself. Nevertheless, we overrule these objections because
there is insufficient evidence that this conduct, considered individually or
cumulatively, could have affected the election. Similarly, with respect to Chief
Executive Officer Martin Judd’s statements about vacation scheduling (Objection
3), we agree with the hearing officer’s finding that, even if Judd’s statements
exceeded the permissible bounds of Sec. 8(c), the statements, even considered
together with the Employer’s other conduct, could not have affected the election.
Member Hayes finds it unnecessary to decide whether the conduct
alleged in Objections 3, 6, 7 and 10 was objectionable. He agrees with his
colleagues that the conduct alleged there, even if objectionable, could not have
affected the outcome of the election.
Finally, with respect to Objection 11, we note that the hearing officer did
not credit the testimony that Dr. Shirish Shah threatened that the hospital would
close if the Union won the election. We further note that the Employer posted a
letter acknowledging that it was aware of the rumors regarding hospital closure
and reassured the employees that it would not close. In light of the credibility
findings and the letter, we find insufficient evidence to set aside the election
based on the alleged threats of closure.
Chairman Pearce would find that Judd’s statements about vacation
scheduling (Objection 3) constituted objectionable conduct. He similarly would
find that the Employer engaged in objectionable conduct when supervisor Betsy
Pankau questioned employee Kathleen Haff about an upcoming Union meeting
(Objection 2), and when Dr. David Bordo asked employee Joanna
Wegryzynowicz how she would have voted in the election (Objection 10). Even
considering these additional objections, however, Chairman Pearce concludes
that the Employer’s objectionable conduct reached too few employees to have
affected the outcome of the election.
3
Employees, and that it is not the exclusive representative of these bargaining-unit
employees.
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 19, 2012.
________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
________________________________
Brian E. Hayes, Member
________________________________
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD