Roseland Community Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

May 26, 2020

13-RC-256995 (N.L.R.B. May. 26, 2020)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ROSELAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
Employer
and Case 13-RC-256995
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION (SEIU) HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS &
INDIANA
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1 The Employer’s request
for extraordinary relief is denied as moot.
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
1 In denying review, we note that the Board’s decision in San Diego Gas & Electric, 325 NLRB 1143, 1145
(1998), recognizes that Board elections should, as a general rule, be conducted manually and specifies well-settled
guidelines for determining whether a mail-ballot election would normally be appropriate. Under normal
circumstances, this would almost certainly not be an election where a mail ballot would be considered. But in San
Diego Gas & Electric, the Board also recognized that “there may be other relevant factors that the Regional Director
may consider in making this decision” and that “extraordinary circumstances” could permit a Regional Director to
exercise his or her discretion outside of the guidelines set forth in that decision. Id.
In finding that a mail-ballot election is warranted in this case, we rely on the extraordinary federal, state,
and local government directives that have limited nonessential travel, required the closure of nonessential
businesses, and resulted in a determination that the regional office charged with conducting this election should
remain on mandatory telework. Mandatory telework in the regional office is based on the Agency’s assessment of
current Covid-19 pandemic conditions in the local area. Under all of the foregoing circumstances, we are satisfied
that the Regional Director did not abuse his discretion in ordering a mail-ballot election here.
Pursuant to Sec. 102.66(g)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, a hearing officer is required to solicit
the parties’ positions regarding the type of election “but shall not permit litigation of those issues.” This provision is
consistent with longstanding Board precedent holding that election details — including the type of election to be
held — are nonlitigable matters left to the discretion of the Regional Director. See Representation-Case
Procedures, 84 Fed. Reg. 69524, 69544 fn. 82 (Dec. 18, 2019) (citing Manchester Knitted Fashions, Inc., 108
NLRB 1366, 1367 (1954)). As such, there is no merit to the Employer’s contention that the Regional Director
improperly denied the parties the opportunity to present evidence on the propriety of a manual election.
The Board is open to addressing the normal criteria for mail balloting in a future appropriate proceeding.
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., May 26, 2020.