Stanford Hospital and Clinics

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 2003

338 N.L.R.B. 1042 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1042
Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Service Employees
International Union, Local 715, AFL–CIO,
CLC. Case 32–CA–20138–1
April 28, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respon-
dent is contesting the Board’s unit determination in the
underlying representation proceeding. The Board in that
proceeding clarified the bargaining unit to include
housekeeping employees at Respondent’s Center for
Clinical Science Research (also called the Cancer Cen-
ter).
Pursuant to a charge and an amended charge filed on
November 4 and 7, 2001, respectively, the General
Counsel issued the complaint in this proceeding on Janu-
ary 17, 2003. The complaint alleges that the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refus-
ing the Union’s request to bargain and to provide infor-
mation following the Board’s September 4, 2002 Order
affirming the Regional Director’s Decision and Order
clarifying the bargaining unit in Case 32–UC–375. (Of-
ficial notice is taken of the “record” in the representation
proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g); Frontier Hotel, 265
NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer
admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in
the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses.
On February 20, 2003, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 24, 2003,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to
the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. The Respondent did not file a
response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The Respondent in its answer admits its refusal to bar-
gain and to furnish information, but asserts that the deci-
sion and order clarifying the bargaining unit in the under-
lying representation proceeding was inappropriate and
contrary to law.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
We also find that, with one exception indicated below,
the Respondent’s answer does not raise any issues war-
ranting a hearing with respect to the Union’s information
request. On about September 11 and 25, 2002, the Union
requested the following information “for the housekeep-
ing employees working in the Cancer Center”:

(1) A list with name, shift, classification, hours status
(i.e. regular full time, part time or relief), pay rate, date
of hire, home address and phone number, and work
status (i.e. active, on leave, on disability etc.).

(2) The number of employees enrolled in each health
insurance plan including how they are enrolled, i.e.
employee only, employee plus child(ren), employee
plus spouse, employee plus family.

(3) The number of temporary employees working in
housekeeping in the Cancer Center, if any. As well as
the name of the agency, the length of time the tempo-
rary employee has been in the assignment and the rea-
son for the assignment (i.e. to cover for an employee on
leave, or to back fill a vacancy).

Although the Respondent’s answer admits that the Re-
spondent refused to provide this information, it denies
that the information is necessary and relevant to the Un-
ion’s performance of its function as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the Cancer Center employees in
the clarified unit. However, it is well established that,
except for the information requested in paragraph 3 con-
cerning nonunit temporary employees,1 the requested

1 The General Counsel’s motion implicitly acknowledges that the
temporary employees referred to in par. 3 of the Union’s information
request may not be bargaining-unit employees, since the motion asserts
that the information about those employees would aid the Union in “its
ability to protect [the Cancer Center housekeeping employees’] bar-
gaining unit work from being eroded.” Accordingly, because the re-
quested information may concern nonunit employees, it may not be
presumptively relevant and the Union may have to demonstrate the
relevance of the information. See generally Excel Rehabilitation &
Health Center, 336 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2001) (not re-
ported in Board volumes). Here, the Union did not specify in its re-
quest why it wanted the information regarding temporary employees
and the pleadings fail to otherwise establish that the Union demon-
strated the relevance of the information or that the relevance of the
information would have been apparent to the Respondent from the
circumstances. Accordingly, we cannot conclude on the pleadings that
the Respondent was obligated to provide this information to the Union.
We therefore deny summary judgment with respect to the Respondent’s
failure to do so, and remand that issue to the Regional Director for
further appropriate action. See id.; see also Cheboygan Health Care
Center, 338 NLRB 815, 816 fn. 2 (2003). However, this does not
excuse the Respondent’s failure to provide the other information re-
338 NLRB No. 158
STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS 1043
employment information is presumptively relevant for
the purposes of collective bargaining and must be fur-
nished on request. See Producer’s Dairy Foods, Inc.,
338 NLRB No. 131 (2003) (not reported in Board vol-
umes); Baker Concrete Construction, Inc., 338 NLRB
No. 48 (2002) (not reported in Board volumes), and
cases cited therein. The Respondent has not asserted any
basis to rebut the relevance of the information, apart
from its contention, rejected above, that the unit clarifica-
tion was invalid.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment and will order the Respondent to bargain and to
furnish the information requested by the Union, except
for the information requested in paragraph 3 regarding
temporary employees.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material, the Respondent, a California
corporation, with an office and place of business in Palo
Alto, California, has been engaged in the operation of an
acute-care hospital and medical clinics providing inpa-
tient and outpatient medical care. During the 12-month
period preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respon-
dent, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and pur-
chased and received goods in excess of $5000 that origi-
nated outside the State of California. We find that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Bargaining Unit
The following employees of Respondent (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:

All full-time, part-time, and relief non-professional
employees performing service and patient care func-

quested by the Union, which pertained to the housekeeping employees
that were accreted to the unit and clearly is presumptively relevant. See
id.
2 Chairman Battista and Member Walsh did not participate in the
Board’s September 4, 2002 Order affirming the Regional Director’s
Decision and Order clarifying the unit. However, they agree that the
Respondent has not raised any new matters or exceptional circum-
stances warranting a hearing in this proceeding or reconsideration of
the decision in the representation proceeding, and that summary judg-
ment is appropriate.
tions employed at Stanford Hospital, Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital, Welch Road and Blake Wilbur
Drive locations in positions or classifications listed as
included in Appendix A of Respondent and the Un-
ion’s December 19, 2002 through November 4, 2005
collective bargaining agreement (herein called the
Agreement); excluding employees employed in those
positions or classifications listed as excluded in Appen-
dix A of the Agreement, employees represented by any
other labor organization, managerial, supervisory or
confidential employees within the meaning of the Act,
and all other employees.

Since early 2000, and at all times material herein, the
Union has been the designated exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the unit,
and since that date the Union has been recognized as
such representative by the Respondent. Such recognition
has been embodied in the agreement. At all times since
early 2000, the Union, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the
Act, has been, and is, the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of the employees in the unit.
On September 4, 2002, the Board affirmed the Re-
gional Director’s Decision and Order clarifying the unit
to specifically include “all full-time, regular part-time,
and relief employees in the classifications of Senior
Housekeeping Assistant, Senior Housekeeping Special-
ist, Housekeeping Aide, Housekeeping Assistant, House-
keeping Specialist and/or Lead Housekeeping Assistant
assigned to the Center for Clinical Science Research”
(the Cancer Center housekeeping employees). Since the
same date, the unit, as clarified to include the Cancer
Center housekeeping employees, has constituted a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
B. The Refusal to Bargain
On about September 11, 2002, the Union requested the
Respondent to recognize and bargain with it as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the Cancer Center
housekeeping employees in the clarified unit. In addi-
tion, on about September 11 and 25, 2002, the Union
requested the Respondent to furnish information neces-
sary and relevant to the Union’s duties as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Cancer Center house-
keeping employees. Since September 11, 2002, the Re-
spondent has refused the Union’s requests to bargain and
to furnish information. We find that the Respondent’s
conduct constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1044
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after September 11, 2002, to rec-
ognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the Cancer Center
housekeeping employees in the clarified unit and to fur-
nish the Union requested information, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, and to bargain on request with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Cancer Center
housekeeping employees in the clarified unit. We also
shall order the Respondent to furnish the Union the in-
formation it requested, except for the requested informa-
tion about temporary employees.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Palo Alto
and Stanford, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Service Employees Inter-
national Union, Local 715, AFL–CIO, CLC, as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the Cancer Center
housekeeping employees who were included in the bar-
gaining unit set forth below pursuant to the decision and
order clarifying the unit in Case 32–UC–375, and refus-
ing to furnish the Union with information that is relevant
and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of those employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Cancer
Center housekeeping employees who were included in
the following appropriate unit pursuant to the decision
and order clarifying the unit in Case 32–UC–375:

All full-time, part-time, and relief non-professional
employees performing service and patient care func-
tions employed at Stanford Hospital, Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital, Welch Road and Blake Wilbur
Drive locations in positions or classifications listed as
included in Appendix A of Respondent and the Un-
ion’s December 19, 2002 through November 4, 2005
collective bargaining agreement (herein called the
Agreement); excluding employees employed in those
positions or classifications listed as excluded in Appen-
dix A of the Agreement, employees represented by any
other labor organization, managerial, supervisory or
confidential employees within the meaning of the Act,
and all other employees.

(b) Furnish the Union the information it requested on
September 11 and 25, 2002, except for the requested
information about temporary employees.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities in Palo Alto and Stanford, California, copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 32 after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facilities involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense,
a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since September 11, 2002.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
STANFORD HOSPITAL & CLINICS 1045
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Service Employ-
ees International Union, Local 715, AFL–CIO, CLC as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the Cancer
Center housekeeping employees who were included in
the bargaining unit set forth below pursuant to the deci-
sion and order clarifying the unit in Case 32–UC–375,
and WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union with infor-
mation that is relevant and necessary to its role as the
exclusive bargaining representative of those employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Cancer Center housekeeping employees who were in-
cluded in the following appropriate unit pursuant to the
decision and order clarifying the unit in Case 32–UC–
375:

All full-time, part-time, and relief non-professional
employees performing service and patient care func-
tions employed at Stanford Hospital, Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital, Welch Road and Blake Wilbur
Drive locations in positions or classifications listed as
included in Appendix A of Stanford Hospital and the
Union’s December 19, 2002 through November 4,
2005 collective bargaining agreement (herein called the
Agreement); excluding employees employed in those
positions or classifications listed as excluded in Appen-
dix A of the Agreement, employees represented by any
other labor organization, managerial, supervisory or
confidential employees within the meaning of the Act,
and all other employees.

WE WILL furnish the Union the information it requested
on September 11 and 25, 2002, except for the requested
information about temporary employees.

STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS