RadNet Management, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 2019

368 NLRB No. 56 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 56
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
RadNet Management Inc. and National Union of
Healthcare Workers. Case 21–CA–242668
August 28, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which Respondent
RadNet Management, Inc. is contesting the Union’s cer-
tification as bargaining representative in the underlying
representation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed on
June 3, 2019, by the National Union of Healthcare
Workers (the Union), the General Counsel issued a com-
plaint on June 14, 2019, amended on June 28, 2019, al-
leging that RadNet Management, Inc. (the Respondent)
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing
and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
following the Union’s certification in Case 21–RC–
226166. (Official notice is taken of the record in the
representation proceeding as defined in the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(d).
Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent
filed an answer and an answer to the amendment to the
complaint, admitting in part and denying in part the alle-
gations in the complaint, as amended.
On July 15, 2019, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On July 24, 2019, 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 filed a response to the No-
tice to Show Cause and opposition to the Motion for
Summary Judgment, and a first amended answer to the
complaint, as amended, newly asserting affirmative de-
fenses. The General Counsel filed a reply to the Re-
spondent’s opposition.
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 admits its refusal to bargain, but con-
tests the validity of the Union’s certification of repre-
sentative based on its objections to the election in the
underlying representation proceeding.1

1 In its answer, the Respondent denies the allegations in complaint
par. 9 that since April 8, 2019, the Respondent has failed and refused to
recognize and bargain with the Union. However, in its answer to the
amendment to the complaint, the Respondent admits the allegations in
pars. 8(a) and (b) that by letter dated April 8, 2019, emailed to the
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 has it established any special
circumstances 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).2 Accord-
ingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.3
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent RadNet Manage-
ment, Inc. has been a corporation with facilities located
throughout southern California, where it has been en-
gaged in the operation of administering diagnostic imag-
ing services, including an operation in Anaheim, Califor-
nia.
During the 12-month period ending on August 31,
2018, the Respondent, in conducting its operations de-
scribed above, derived gross revenues in excess of

Respondent, the Union requested that it recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of unit G. It further
admits that since that date, it has not responded to the Union’s request.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Respondent’s denial of complaint
par. 9 does not raise any issue warranting a hearing.
The Respondent also denies par. 6 of the complaint, which sets forth
the appropriate unit. The unit issue, however, was fully litigated and
resolved in the underlying representation proceeding. Accordingly, the
Respondent’s denial of the appropriateness of the unit does not raise
any litigable issue in this proceeding.
2 In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent ar-
gues that the Board should deny the General Counsel’s Motion, citing,
among other cases, St. Francis Hospital, 271 NLRB 948, 949 (1984)
(Board reconsidered and vacated its earlier decision in the underlying
representation proceeding and formulated a revised approach to health
care employee units), and Sub-Zero Freezer Co., 271 NLRB 47, 47
(1984) (Board reconsidered and reversed its earlier decision in the
underlying representation proceeding). St. Francis Hospital and Sub-
Zero Freezer are two of a limited number of cases in which the Board
has departed from the rule that, in a certification-testing unfair labor
practice case, issues that had been presented to and decided by the
Board in a prior, related representation case cannot be relitigated and
will not be reconsidered. Having reviewed the facts and arguments
presented by the Respondent in its response to the Notice to Show
Cause, we find no basis for departing from our longstanding rule or
disturbing our order denying review of the Regional Director’s decision
in the underlying representation case. See Memorial Hospital of Salem
County, 357 NLRB No. 119, slip op. at 1-2 fn. 5 (2011) (not reported in
Board volume), enfd. sub nom. Salem Hosp. Corp. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d
59 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see also Local 340, New York New Jersey Region-
al Joint Board, 365 NLRB No. 61, slip op. at 3 fn. 6 (2017).
3 The Respondent’s request that the complaint, as amended, be dis-
missed is therefore denied.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
$500,000, and purchased and received at its Southern
California facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of Califor-
nia.
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.4
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following the representation election held on October
24, 2018, the Union was certified on February 19, 2019,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the following appropriate unit:
Unit G: Anaheim Advanced Imaging
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per-diem
Technological employees employed by the Employer
at Anaheim Advanced Imaging, currently located at
947 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 130, Anaheim, CA
92805.
Excluded: All other employees, service employees, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, pro-
fessional employees, physicians, already represented
employees, managerial employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
On June 12, 2019, the Board denied the Respondent’s
request for review of the Union’s certification. The Un-
ion continues to be the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees under Section 9(a)
of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
By letter dated April 8, 2019, emailed to the Respond-
ent, the Union requested that the Respondent recognize
and bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit. The Respond-
ent did not respond to the Union’s request, and since that
date has failed and refused to recognize and bargain with
the Union.
We find that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes an
unlawful failure and refusal to recognize and bargain
with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.

4 In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent states that it lacks
sufficient knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
whether the Union is a labor organization under Sec. 2(5) of the Act. In
the underlying representation proceeding, however, the Respondent
stipulated that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Sec. 2(5). Therefore, we find that the Respondent’s denial does not
raise an issue warranting a hearing. American Service & Supplies, 340
NLRB 239, 239 fn. 2 (2003).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since April 8, 2019, to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 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, to bargain on request with the Union and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifi-
cation as beginning on the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord Burnett Construction
Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57
(10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied
379 U.S. 817 (1964).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, RadNet Management, Inc., Anaheim, Cali-
fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
the National Union of Healthcare Workers (the Union) as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit.
(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, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit on terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
Unit G: Anaheim Advanced Imaging
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per-diem
Technological employees employed by the Employer
at Anaheim Advanced Imaging, currently located at
947 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 130, Anaheim, CA
92805.
3
Excluded: All other employees, service employees, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, pro-
fessional employees, physicians, already represented
employees, managerial employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Anaheim, California, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since April 8, 2019.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 21 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 28, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
________________________________________
William J. Emanuel Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

5 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.”
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
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with National Union of Healthcare Workers (the Union)
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate bargaining unit:
Unit G: Anaheim Advanced Imaging
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per-diem
Technological employees employed by the Employer
at Anaheim Advanced Imaging, currently located at
947 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 130, Anaheim, CA
92805.
Excluded: All other employees, service employees, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, pro-
fessional employees, physicians, already represented
employees, managerial employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
RADNET MANAGEMENT, INC.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-242668 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.