UPMC and its Subsidiary, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Single Employer, d/b/a UPMC Presbyterian Hospi

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 2018

06-CA-102465 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 11, 2018)

1
RMcE
Pittsburgh, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UPMC AND ITS SUBSIDIARY, UPMC
PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, SINGLE EMPLOYER,
d/b/a UPMC PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL AND
d/b/a UPMC SHADYSIDE HOSPITAL
Cases 06–CA–102465
06–CA–102494
and 06–CA–102516
06–CA–102518
06–CA–102525
06–CA–102534
SEIU HEALTHCARE PENNSYLVANIA CTW, CLC 06–CA–102540
06–CA–102542
06–CA–102544
06–CA–102555
06–CA–102559
06–CA--104090
06–CA–104104
06–CA–106636
06–CA–107127
06–CA–107431
06–CA–107532
06–CA–107896
06–CA–108547
06–CA–111578
06–CA–115826
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR FULL-BOARD RECONSIDERATION1
The Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order
reported at 366 NLRB No. 185 (2018) is denied. The Respondent has not identified any

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2
material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration
under Section 102.48(c)(1) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.2
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 11, 2018.
___________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
____________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
____________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

2 The Respondent argues that the Board erroneously stated that the Respondent
prepared and posted Environmental Support Services Employee Council meeting
minutes. We agree. The record evidence was accurately stated by the judge: the
Respondent prepared minutes of the monthly Environmental Support Services
departmental meetings and posted those minutes on the departmental bulletin boards.
The departmental meeting minutes included a summary of the ESS Employee Council
reports. We do not find that this minor factual misstatement requires reconsideration of
the entire issue. The judge’s decision correctly recited the facts, and the Board made
clear that it was relying on the judge’s findings in affirming the violation. See slip op. at
5 (adopting the judge’s finding and noting that his decision on the issue “is well
supported by the record”).
Chairman Ring did not participate in the Board’s underlying decision, and he
expresses no view on whether it was correctly decided. He agrees, however, that the
Respondent’s motion for full-Board reconsideration should be denied because it fails to
establish any grounds warranting reconsideration under Sec. 102.48 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
Member Emanuel adheres to his dissents in the underlying decision, but he
agrees that the Respondent has not raised any issue not previously considered or
shown extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.