Sodexo America LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Sep 27, 2012

21-CA-039086 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

NOT INCLUDED IN PHG
BOUND VOLUMES Los Angeles, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SODEXO AMERICA LLC
and Case 21-CA-039086
PATRICIA ORTEGA
SODEXO AMERICA LLC; AND
USC UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
and Case 21-CA-039109
SERVICE WORKERS UNITED
USC UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
and Cases 21-CA-039328
21-CA-039403
NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE
WORKERS
ORDER
On July 3, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and
Order1 in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by maintaining an overly broad off-duty employee no-access policy. Respondents
Sodexo America LLC and USC University Hospital jointly and separately filed motions
for reconsideration on July 27. The Acting General Counsel, joined by Charging Party

1 358 NLRB No. 79.
National Union of Healthcare Workers, filed an opposition to these motions, and both
Respondents filed reply briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding
to a three-member panel.
In their motions, the Respondents contend that the Board misread their no-
access policy in several ways, challenge the Board’s recess appointments, 2 and object
to the language in the Board’s cease-and-desist order and in the accompanying notice
to employees.
Having duly considered the matter, we find that the Respondents’ motions are
lacking in merit and fail to present “extraordinary circumstances” warranting
reconsideration under Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.3
IT IS ORDERED, therefore, that the Respondents’ motions for reconsideration
are denied.
Dated, Washington D.C., September 27, 2012.
_____________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
____________________________
Brian E. Hayes, Member
____________________________

2 The Respondents seek to disqualify Members Griffin and Block from ruling in this
proceeding, arguing that their recess appointments to the Board by the President were
not properly constituted. For the reasons set forth in Center for Social Change, 358
NLRB No. 24 (2012), we reject this argument.
3 Member Hayes adheres to his dissent in the underlying case, He continues to be of
the view that the Hospital’s off-duty no-access rule is valid. Nonetheless, he agrees that
the Respondents have not presented “extraordinary circumstances” warranting Board
reconsideration of its decision.
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD