Hamilton Park Health Care Center, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 608 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

608 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hamilton Park Health Care Center, Inc. and Na-
tional Union of Hospital and Health Care Em-
ployees, AFSME, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
22-RC-10300
May 21, 1990
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
The Board has delegated its authority in this pro-
ceeding to a three-member panel. The requests for
review of the Regional Director's Decision and Di-
rection of Election filed by the Employer and In-
tervenor, 1115 Nursing Home and Hospital Em-
ployees Union, a Division of 1115 Joint Board, are
granted as they raise substantial issues warranting
review.
After careful consideration, we find, contrary to
the Regional Director, that the Board's recent deci-
sion in Rollins Transportation System, 296 NLRB
793 (1989), applies only to recognition bar cases. It
is well established that a valid contract executed
prior to the filing of an election petition will bar
the petition. Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121
NLRB 1160 (1958). Rollins, in which a Board ma-
jority held that recognition would not serve as a
bar to an election if it was entered into at a time
when there was another union actively organizing
the employees in question, by its very language is
limited to and was intended to apply only to recog-
nition bar situations, not to contract bar. Conse-
quently, since in the instant case it is undisputed
that the Employer and the Intervenor executed a
valid collective-bargaining agreement covering the
petitioned-for employees before the instant petition
was filed, Rollins is not applicable.'
Accordingly, the Regional Director's Decision
and Direction of Election is reversed and, as the
existing collective-bargaining agreement bars an
election, the petition is dismissed.
i Member Devaney, who did not participate in Rollins, agrees that this
case involves contract bar and not recognition bar. He thus finds it un-
necessary to pass on the validity of the Rollins rule in this case.
298 NLRB No. 84