Bristol Hospital EMS

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 601 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

BRISTOL HOSPITAL EMS, LLC
355 NLRB No. 120
601
Bristol Hospital EMS, LLC and International Asso-
ciation of EMTS and Paramedics SEIU/NAGE.
Cases 34–CA–12481 and 34–RC–2313
August 24, 2010
DECISION, CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE, AND
NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND HAYES
On December 24, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 354 NLRB No. 116.1 Thereafter, the
Respondent filed a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit, and the Acting General Counsel filed a cross-
application for enforcement. On June 17, 2010, the
United States Supreme Court issued its decision in New
Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635, holding
that under Section 3(b) of the Act, in order to exercise
the delegated authority of the Board, a delegee group of
at least three members must be maintained. Thereafter,
the Board issued an order setting aside the decision and
order, and retained this case on its docket for further ac-
tion as appropriate.
The National Labor Relations Board has consolidated
these proceedings and delegated its authority in both pro-
ceedings to a three-member panel.2
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respon-
dent is contesting the Union’s certification as bargaining
representative in the underlying representation proceed-
ing. The Board’s December 24, 2009 decision states that
the Respondent is precluded from litigating any represen-
tation issues because, in relevant part, they were or could
have been litigated in the prior representation proceed-
ing. The prior proceeding, however, was also a two-
member decision and we do not give it preclusive effect.

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers
of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration
of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007.
Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
2 Consistent with the Board's general practice in cases remanded
from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy,
the panel includes the members who participated in the original deci-
sion. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures applicable to
all cases assigned to a panel, the Board Members not assigned to the
panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudication of this case
prior to the issuance of this decision.

We have considered the postelection representation is-
sues raised by the Respondent. The Board has reviewed
the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, and has
adopted the Regional Director’s findings and recommen-
dations to the extent and for the reasons stated in the July
23, 2009 Decision and Certification of Representative,
which is incorporated herein by reference.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have
been cast for International Association of EMTs and
Paramedics, NAGE/SEIU Local 5000, and that it is the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:

All full-time and regular part-time EMT-P’s, EMT-I’s,
EMT-Basics, Secretary III, and Wheel Chair Van At-
tendants, employed by the Employer at its 371 Terry-
ville Avenue, Bristol, Connecticut facility; but exclud-
ing other office clerical employees, the EMS Education
Coordinator, EMS Supervisors, the BLS instructor, all
other employees, and all guards, professional employ-
ees and supervisors as defined in the Act.

Notice to Show Cause
As noted above, the Respondent has refused to bargain
for the purpose of testing the validity of the certification
of representative in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Al-
though Respondent’s legal position may remain un-
changed, it is possible that the Respondent has or intends
to commence bargaining at this time. It is also possible
that other events may have occurred during the pendency
of this litigation that the parties may wish to bring to our
attention.
Having duly considered the matter,
1. The Acting General Counsel is granted leave to
amend the complaint on or before September 3, 2010, to
conform with the current state of the evidence;
2. The Respondent’s answer to the amended com-
plaint is due on or before September 17, 2010; and
3. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that cause be shown, in
writing, on or before October 8, 2010 (with affidavit of
service on the parties to this proceeding), as to why the
Board should not grant the Acting General Counsel’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. Any briefs or state-
ments in support of the motion shall be filed by the same
date.