PARKVIEW COMMUNITY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 30, 2015

21-RC-121299 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 30, 2015)

NOT TO BE INCLUDED PJMcF
IN BOUND VOLUMES Riverside, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PARKVIEW COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
Employer
and Case 21-RC-121299
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS-WEST (SEIU-UHW)
Petitioner
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, has considered
objections to an election held March 13, 2014, and the hearing officer’s report
recommending disposition of them.1 The election was conducted pursuant to a
Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 251 for and 190 against the
Petitioner, with 7 void ballots and 19 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect
the results.

1 Although entitled “Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendations on Determinative
Challenged Ballots and Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election,” the
hearing officer considered only Employer objections. We correct this inadvertent error.
2
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, has
adopted the hearing officer’s findings2 and recommendations,3 and finds that a
certification of representative should be issued.

2 The Employer 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 (1957). We have carefully examined
the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
3 The Employer filed 19 objections, but withdrew Objections 3, 5, 6, 9, 14, and 19 in its
post-hearing brief. The hearing officer renumbered the remaining objections and
thereafter recommended that all of them be overruled. The Employer has excepted to
the hearing officer’s recommendations to overrule Objections 1, 2, 4, 11-13, 15-18
(renumbered by the hearing officer as Objections 1-3, 7-13). In the absence of
exceptions, we adopt pro forma the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule
Objections 7, 8, and 10 (renumbered by the hearing officer as Objections 4-6).
With respect to the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule Objection 2,
which alleges that Union agents surveilled or intimidated employees on their way to the
polls, the Employer excepts to the hearing officer’s finding that Union representative
Daniel Lopez was stationed “several hundred feet away” from the polling area during
the election. Even assuming, as the Employer submits, that the distance between
Lopez and the polls was significantly less than the hearing officer’s finding, his presence
outside of the building where the polling occurred, absent evidence of coercion or other
objectionable conduct, is insufficient to warrant setting aside the election. See e.g., C &
G Heating and Air Conditioning, 356 NLRB No. 133, slip op. at 2 (2011) (union
representative’s presence 77 feet from entrance to polling site not objectionable);
Boston Insulated Wire & Cable Co., 259 NLRB 1118, 1119 (1982) (electioneering by
union agents 10 feet from polling place not objectionable), enfd. 703 F.2d 876 (5th Cir.
1983).
With respect to the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule renumbered
Objection 3, which alleges that the Union misrepresented employees’ union support by
distributing flyers containing employees’ pictures without their consent, Member
Johnson notes that although he has concerns about the potential of such conduct to
interfere with the electoral process, he agrees that the Union’s conduct was not
objectionable under the circumstances of this case. Regarding the use of employee
Megan Mirabel’s picture without her consent, Member Johnson notes that there is no
evidence as to how many flyers were distributed, and the Union, after learning of
Mirabel’s objection to using her photo, covered her image with tape before distributing
flyers in the break room. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Mirabel, a single
employee in a unit of approximately 500, held such a position of influence that public
misrepresentation of her voting preference would broadly impact other employees’
votes.
3
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for Service
Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers-West (SEIU-UHW), and that

With respect to the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule Objection 15
(renumbered by the hearing officer as Objection 6), which alleges that the Board agents
failed to properly supervise and control the voting list, thereby permitting an employee to
cast a ballot under another employee’s name and creating the appearance of voter
fraud, Member Johnson notes that although voter fraud is a significant issue, here the
Employer failed to meet its burden of proof. See Farrell-Cheek Steel Co., 115 NLRB
926, 928 (1956)(absent specific evidence of actual fraud, the opportunity for fraud is not
a basis for overturning an election).
Regarding Objection 17 (renumbered by the hearing officer as Objection 12),
which alleges the Board agent failed to control the groups of Union supporters outside
the polling area, we agree with the hearing officer that the individuals congregated in
this area did not engage in any campaign activity or improper conduct, and therefore the
Board agents’ “failure” to control these people does not warrant setting aside the
election. Moreover, we note that the individuals congregated in this area were not
Union agents and, accordingly, any question of whether they engaged in objectionable
conduct is considered by applying the standard for third-party conduct under Westwood
Horizons Hotel, 270 NLRB 802, 803 (1984) (Board will not set aside an election based
on third-party threats unless the objecting party proves that the conduct was “so
aggravated as to create a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free
election impossible.”) Applying that standard, we agree with the hearing officer that the
conduct of the Union supporters outside the building where the polling occurred does
not warrant setting aside the election.
In adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation to overrule Objection 18
(renumbered by the hearing officer as Objection 13), we find no merit in the Employer’s
contention that the Board agents’ conduct destroyed the laboratory conditions
necessary for a free and fair election. In cases involving allegations of Board agent
misconduct, the question is whether the conduct at issue tends to destroy confidence in
the Board’s election process or which could reasonably be interpreted as impugning the
Board’s neutrality in the election. Athbro Precision Engineering Corp., 166 NLRB 966
(1967). In other types of cases challenging the actions of a Board agent, the Board
asks whether the conduct is sufficient to “raise a reasonable doubt as to the fairness
and validity of the election.” Patient Care of Pennsylvania, 360 NLRB No. 76, slip op. at
1 (2014) (citing Polymers, Inc., 174 NLRB 282, 282 (1969), enfd. 414 F.2d 999 (2d Cir.
1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 1010 (1970)). Having carefully considered the evidence
concerning the Board agents’ conduct, we agree with the hearing officer that, even
cumulatively, it does not warrant setting aside the election under either potentially
applicable standard.
4
it is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All bio medical engineering techs II, bio medical engineers, C.T.
techs, C.T. techs per diem, dexa scan techs, ER techs, ER techs per
diem, GI lab techs, mammography techs, monitor techs, nuclear
med techs, neurology techs, O/P radiology clinic CT/MRI techs, O/P
radiology clinic radiology techs I, O/P radiology clinic radiology techs
II, O/P radiology clinic sonographers, OB techs, pharmacy techs,
phlebotomy I, phlebotomy II, cardio pulmonary (EKG
techs/assistants), radiology techs, respiratory care practitioners I,
respiratory care practitioners II, respiratory care practitioners III per
diem, respiratory coordinators, sonographers, sonographers per
diem, surgery techs, ultrasound techs, administrative secretaries,
ASC unit secretaries, birth certificate specialists, buyers, CNAs, CNA
per diems, cafeteria staff, catering staff, catering/med staff dining
supervisors, clerical coordinators, dietary supervisors, cooks, cooks
assistants (cold production), diet office staff, dietary secretaries, food
service workers, gift shop cashiers, guest services, joint care
coordinators, kitchen porters, lab assistants, lead baristas, lead
pathology, lead respiratory practitioners, LVNs, LVNs newborn, LVN
per diem leads I, nuclear med assistants, O/P radiology clinic X-ray
clerks, OR assistants, OR schedule secretaries, OR
supply/anesthesiologists LVNs, patient care attendants,
perinatal/lactation educators, pharmacy clerks, rehabilitation aides,
room service attendants, senior dietary clerks, social
service/discharge planners, transporter/clerks, unit secretaries,
coders I, coders II, coding supervisors, archivist/print shop techs
H.I.M., discharge analysts, H.I.M. clerks, H.I.M. correspondents,
H.I.M. techs, H.I.M. operation, pathologist transcriptionists,
pathology assistants, physician representatives, receivers, stock
expeditors, transcriptionists, transcription clerks, transcription
supervisors, staffing coordinators, SPD techs, SPD techs per diem,
SPD coordinators, and x-ray attendants employed by the Employer
at its facility located at 3865 Jackson Street, Riverside, California;
but excluding all other employees, information services employees,
admitting personnel, clinical lab scientists, nutritionists, marketing
5
employees, medical staff employees, chaplains, human resource
employees, insurance verifiers, Pyxis coordinators, master social
workers, occupational therapists, accounting department employees,
utilization review employees, physical therapists, PBX operators,
speech therapists, business office clerical employees, skilled
maintenance employees, professional employees, registered nurses,
physicians, confidential employees, managers, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 30, 2015.

___________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
___________________________________
Harry I. Johnson, III, Member
___________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD