Mercy Health Partners

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Feb 21, 2020

07-RC-232247 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 21, 2020)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MERCY HEALTH PARTNERS
Employer
and

MICHIGAN NURSES ASSOCIATION Case 07-RC-232247
Petitioner
and
SEIU HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN
Intervenor
ORDER
The Employer’s and the Petitioner’s Requests for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s
determination to hold the petition in abeyance are denied as they raise no substantial issues
warranting review.1

1 The petition in this case was filed on December 7, 2018 seeking an election in a combined unit
of nurses that had historically been represented by the Petitioner and the Intervenor in separate
units. On February 5, 2019, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election
that, inter alia, rejected the Intervenor’s contention that the petition should be dismissed. Three
days later, the Intervenor filed an unfair labor practice charge in Case 07-CA-233599 and, on
February 12, 2019, the Regional Director summarily granted the Intervenor’s request to block
the petition on the basis of that charge. The petition has remained blocked since that date, first
by a settlement agreement resolving the allegations in Case 07-CA-233599, without a finding or
admission that the Employer had violated the Act, which was closed on compliance in August
2019, and thereafter by the unfair labor practice charge in Case 07-CA-244083, alleging that the
Employer has violated the Act by maintaining overly broad policies and by making unilateral
changes in terms and conditions of employment. That charge was filed on June 26, 2019, the
Intervenor submitted a request to block the petition on the basis of that charge on July 17, 2019,
and the Acting Regional Director informed the parties that the petition would be held in
abeyance pending investigation of that charge nearly four months later, on November 15, 2019.
On January 28, 2020, the Regional Director dismissed the charge allegation that the Employer
violated the Act by making unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment. Although
we are troubled by the extreme delay in processing the petition, the circumstances currently
before us fall short of establishing that the Acting Regional Director abused her discretion under
current law. We stress, however, that the election has already been delayed for 14 months, and
2
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
MARVIN E. KAPLAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 21, 2020.

that we expect the Regional Director to expeditiously address the remaining blocking charges
and ensure that the election is not unnecessarily delayed.
We observe that the Board recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
addresses, among other things, possible changes to the Board’s blocking charge policy. See
Representation-Case Procedures: Elections Bars; Proof of Majority Support in Construction
Industry Collective-Bargaining Relationships, 84 Fed. Reg. 39930-01 (proposed Aug. 12,
2019). For institutional reasons, we nevertheless apply extant law here in denying the
Employer’s and the Petitioner’s Requests for Review.