RadNet Management, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 2019

368 NLRB No. 89 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 89
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. d/b/a La Mirada Imaging
and National Union of Healthcare Workers. Case
21–CA–242664
October 2, 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 certi-
fication as bargaining representative in the underlying rep-
resentation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed on June
3, 2019, by the National Union of Healthcare Workers (the
Union), the General Counsel issued the complaint on June
17, 2019, amended on June 28, 2019, alleging that the Re-
spondent 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 rep-
resentation 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, admit-
ting in part and denying in part the allegations in the com-
plaint, as amended.1
On July 15, 2019, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. On July 24, 2019, the Board is-
sued 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 Notice to

1 In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent states that La Mi-
randa Imaging is now closed and no longer employs any employees. It
offers no additional information.
2 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 Re-
spondent, the Union requested that it recognize and bargain with the Un-
ion as the exclusive bargaining representative of Unit C. It further admits
that since that date, it has not responded to the Union’s request. Accord-
ingly, 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.
3 In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent argues
that the Board should deny the General Counsel’s Motion, citing, among
other cases, St. Francis Hospital, 271 NLRB 948, 949 (1984) (Board
Show Cause and opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, and a first amended answer to the complaint, as
amended, newly asserting affirmative defenses. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed a reply to the Respondent’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 representa-
tive based on its objections to the election in the underly-
ing representation proceeding.2
All representation issues raised by the Respondent were
or could have been litigated in the prior representation pro-
ceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce 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 unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313
U.S. 146, 162 (1941).3 Accordingly, we grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment.4
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent RadNet Management,
Inc. has been a California corporation with facilities lo-
cated throughout southern California, where it has been
engaged in the operation of administering diagnostic im-
aging services, including an operation in La Mirada, Cali-
fornia.
reconsidered and vacated its earlier decision in the underlying represen-
tation proceeding and formulated a revised approach to health care em-
ployee units) and Sub-Zero Freezer Co., 271 NLRB 47, 47 (1984) (Board
reconsidered and reversed its earlier decision in the underlying represen-
tation 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 repre-
sentation case cannot be relitigated and will not be reconsidered. Having
reviewed the facts and arguments presented by the Respondent in its re-
sponse to the Notice to Show Cause, we find no basis for departing from
our longstanding rule or disturbing our order denying review of the Re-
gional Director’s decision in the underlying representation case. See Me-
morial 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 Hospital
Corp. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2015); see also Local 340, New
York New Jersey Regional Joint Board, 365 NLRB No. 61, slip op. at 3
fn. 6 (2017).
4 The Respondent’s request that the complaint, as amended, be dis-
missed is therefore denied.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the 12-month period ending on August 31, 2018,
the Respondent, in conducting its operations described
above, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and
purchased and received at its southern California facilities
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points lo-
cated outside the State of California.
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.5
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 B: La Mirada Imaging
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per-diem
Technological employees employed by the Employer at
La Mirada Imaging, currently located at 15651 Imperial
Highway, Suite 103, La Mirada, CA 90638.
Excluded: All other employees, service employees, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, profes-
sional employees, physicians, already represented em-
ployees, managerial employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
On June 12, 2019, the Board denied the Respondent’s
request for review of the Union’s certification. The Union
continues to be the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employees under Section 9(a) of the
Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
By a 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 collective-
bargaining representative of the unit. The Respondent did
not respond to the Union’s request and since that date has
failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Un-
ion.
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.

5 In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent states that it lacks
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 underly-
ing representation proceeding, however, the Respondent stipulated that
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since April 8, 2019, to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 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 un-
derstanding 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 the date the Respondent begins to bar-
gain 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 Re-
spondent, RadNet Management Inc. d/b/a La Mirada Im-
aging, La Mirada, California, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, 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 exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit on terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement:
Unit B: La Mirada Imaging
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5). There-
fore, we find that the Respondent’s denial does not raise an issue war-
ranting a hearing. American Service & Supplies, 340 NLRB 239, 239 fn.
2 (2003).
RADNET MANAGEMENT INC. D/B/A LA MIRADA IMAGING 3
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per-diem
Technological employees employed by the Employer at
La Mirada Imaging, currently located at 15651 Imperial
Highway, Suite 103, La Mirada, CA 90638.
Excluded: All other employees, service employees, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, profes-
sional employees, physicians, already represented em-
ployees, managerial employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in La Mirada, California, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”6 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, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, 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 customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered 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 employees and former em-
ployees jointly employed by the Respondent 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 certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 2, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman

6 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 National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
_____________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
_____________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) 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 vi-
olated 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 ac-
tivities.
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 con-
ditions of employment for our employees in the following
appropriate bargaining unit:
Unit B: La Mirada Imaging
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per-diem
Technological employees employed by the Employer at
La Mirada Imaging, currently located at 15651 Imperial
Highway, Suite 103, La Mirada, CA 90638.
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Excluded: All other employees, service employees, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, profes-
sional employees, physicians, already represented em-
ployees, managerial employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
RADNET MANAGEMENT, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-242664 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.