Passavant Health Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 483 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

PASSAVANT HEALTH CENTER 483
Passavant Health Center and Elizabeth Major and
Donna Jean Weiss, Petitioners and Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Local Union
No. 538. Cases 6-RD-881 and 6-RD-882
10 February 1986
RULING ON ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS, JOHANSEN, AND BABSON
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Local Union No. 538 (the Union) is the certi-
fied collective-bargaining representative of two
separate units of employees employed at the, Em-
ployer's Zelienople, Pennsylvania health care facili-
ty. The first of these units consists, inter alia, of li-
censed practical nurses and ' nurses aides, and the
second of service and maintenance employees.
In late 1983 the Union and the Employer began
negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering both units to replace their existing
contract .which was due to expire on 31 October of
that year. Failing to reach agreement, approximate-
ly 2 weeks after the existing contract expired, the
employees went on ,strike. The Employer hired re-
placements.
Subsequently, pursuant to charges filed • by the
Union in Case 6-CA-16988, the Regional Director
issued a complaint on 3 February 1984 which al-
leged that the Employer had engaged in several
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that since No-
vember ' 1983 the Employer had violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to provide the Union
with certain necessary and relevant information it
requested during the negotiations and the subse-
quent strike; and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by tell-
ing employees that they could not return to work
following a strike unless they resigned from the
Union, that unless they resigned from the Union
and returned to work by a date certain they would
have no jobs, and that if they went on strike its
contract proposal to the Union "would go into the
garbage."
Approximately 4 months later, on 1 June 1984,
the petitions in Cases 6-RD-881 and 6-RD-882
were filed seeking to decertify the Union as collec-
tive-bargaining representative of both units. Be-
cause of the outstanding complaint in Case 6-CA-
16988, on 21 June 1984 the Acting Regional Direc-
tor dismissed the petitions subject to reinstatement
upon final disposition of the complaint allegations.
A three-member panel of the Board denied the Pe-
278 NLRB No. 77
titioners' requests for review of the Acting Region-
al Director's dismissal on 15 August 1984.1
Thereafter, on 15 March 1985, the Union and the
Employer entered into a non-Board strike settle-
ment.agreement. Under the terms of the agreement
the Employer agreed to execute a new collective-
bargaining agreement covering both units effective
the same day, and the Union in turn agreed to
withdraw all of its unfair labor practice charges
against the Employer.2 The Regional Director sub-
sequently approved withdrawal of the charges sub-
ject to the execution of,a separate, informal Board
settlement agreement providing that the Employer
would post a 60-day notice to employees stating
that it would not refuse to supply the Union with
necessary and relevant information, that it would
bargain with the Union, and that it had executed a
collective bargaining agreement with the Union.
This settlement agreement, which also contained a
nonadmission clause, was executed by the parties
on 1 April 1985 and approved by the Regional Di-
rector 2 days later.
Thereafter, on 5 April 1985, the Regional Direc-
tor issued orders denying the Petitioners' pending
motions to reinstate the decertification petitions.
The Regional Director denied the motions on the
ground that "inasmuch as the parties have now ne-
gotiated and,executed a new collective-bargaining
agreement effective 15 March 1985, the general
contract bar rules apply and the petitions [are]
barred."
The Petitioners subsequently filed timely requests
for review of the Regional Director's orders,
which the Board granted on 8 August 1985.
Having fully considered the Regional Director's
orders, the Petitioners' briefs in support of their re-
quests for review, and the Union's brief in opposi-
tion, we reverse the Regional Director. The Board
held in City Markets, 273 NLRB 469 (1984), that
the original filing date of a petition, rather than the
date -of the request for its reinstatement, will con-
1 Chairman Dotson , dissenting, would have granted review and rein-
stated the petitions and held them in abeyance pending final disposition of
the unfair labor practice allegations.
2 Pursuant to charges filed by the Union in Cases 6-CA-17480 and 6-
CA-17590, by the date of the settlement the original complaint in Case
6-CA-16988 had been amended to allege various additional violations by
the Employer of Sec 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The amendments alleged
that the Employer had violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act since mid-June
1985 by refusing to provide the Union with certain additional necessary
and relevant information during the strike; and Sec. 8 (aXl) of the Act by
telling employees in November 1983 that it did not need a union and
would not have the Union return, by telling employees in April 1984 that
it decided not to recall union stewards and officers, and by telling em-
ployees in late May 1984 that It had instructed its supervisors to prepare
false documents to support its position in connection with the investiga-
tion of an unfair labor practice charge. Under the terms of the settlement,
the Union agreed to withdraw all of these charges as well as its charges
in Case 6-CA-16988.
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
trol for purposes of applying the Board's contract-
bar rules where the petition was dismissed subject
to reinstatement after blocking charges have been
resolved. Here, the petitions were originally filed
on 1 June 1984, after the parties' existing contract
had expired on 31 October 1983, and well before
the new contract was executed on 15 March 1985.
Thus, contrary to the Regional Director's finding,
there is clearly no contract bar to reinstating the
petitions. Accordingly, insofar as all complaint alle-
gations have been withdrawn, and the terms of the
settlement agreement satisfied, 3 we find that the
petitions should be reinstated.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the petitions in Cases 6-RD-881 and 6-RD-882 be
reinstated and directs the Regional Director to
resume processing them in accordance with Sec-
tion 11730 . 8 of the Board 's Casehandling Manual,
and to notify the parties that such action has been
taken.
MEMBER JOHANSEN, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would not order
the decertification petitions reinstated. Although
the Union requested withdrawal of all unfair labor
practice charges, which the Board approved as
part of an informal Board settlement, it is clear that
the Union did so only on the assumption that the
Employer would be required to recognize and bar-
gain with it. Thus, both the non-Board strike settle-
ment the parties executed and the subsequent infor-
mal Board settlement provided that the Employer
would bargain and execute a new collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Union. To now rein-
state the decertification petitions would for all
practical purposes deprive the Union of what it set-
tled for.' Further, it would clearly discourage
unions from agreeing to any such settlements in the
future.
Accordingly, I dissent.
' Cf City Markets, supra. Although the instant case, unlike City Mar-
kets, involves a settlement agreement , we find that fact does not require a
different result here because the settlement agreement does not constitute
an admission by the Employer that it committed any unfair labor prac-
tices. See, e.g ., Carisen Porsche Audi, 266 NLRB 141, 151 fn 19 (1983).
' At the very least, therefore, the Union should have the option of
having the informal Board settlement set aside in which case the unfair
labor practice complaint would be reinstated and the petitions would be
"blocked" for that reason.