UHS-CORONA, INC. D/B/A CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 2014

21-RC-094258 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 17, 2014)

1
NOT INCLUDED MJS
IN BOUND VOLUMES Corona, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UHS-CORONA, INC. d/b/a CORONA
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
Employer
and Case 21-RC-094258
UNITED NURSES ASSOCIATIONS OF
CALIFORNIA/UNION OF HEALTHCARE
PROFESSIONALS
Petitioner
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, has considered
objections to an election held January 3 and 4, 2013, and the administrative law judge’s
decision recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a
Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 155 for and 116 against the
Petitioner, with 5 void ballots and 3 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect
the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, has
adopted the hearing officer’s findings1 and recommendations2 as modified below, and
finds that a certification of representative should be issued.

1 The judge was sitting as a hearing officer in this representation proceeding. The
Employer has excepted to some of the hearing officer’s credibility findings. The Board’s
established policy is not to overrule a hearing officer’s credibility resolutions unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
2
Most of the Employer’s objections involve alleged conduct by physicians who
practice at the Corona Regional Medical Center but are not employees of the Employer.
Notwithstanding the physicians’ nonemployee status, the Employer contends that the
physicians are managers, statutory supervisors, and/or agents of the Employer and
engaged in objectionable prounion conduct.
For the reasons set forth in the hearing officer’s decision, we adopt her finding
that physicians are not the Employer’s managers. We also adopt her finding that they
are not statutory supervisors, with the following modification. Although the hearing
officer correctly rejected the Employer’s argument in this regard on the basis that the
physicians are not employees of the Employer, she found that the physicians
responsibly direct unit nurses in providing medical care. We find that, even if the
physicians were the Employer’s employees, the Employer did not meet its burden of
showing that they have the authority to responsibly direct nurses. Direction of
employees is responsible when “the person directing and performing the oversight of
the employee [is] accountable for the performance of the task by the other, such that
some adverse consequence may befall the one providing the oversight if the tasks
performed by the employee are not performed properly.” Oakwood Healthcare, Inc.,
348 NLRB 686, 692 (2006). There is no evidence in the record that doctors are

Stretch-Tex Co., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We have carefully examined the record
and find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the hearing officer’s recommendations to
overrule Objections 11, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 22. Although the Employer excepted to her
recommendation to overrule Objection 7 and to her finding that the physicians’ conduct
was not objectionable under the third-party standard, these exceptions are bare and
unsupported by argument. Accordingly, we find, pursuant to Sec. 102.46(b)(2) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, that these exceptions should be disregarded. See,
e.g., New Concept Solutions, LLC, 349 NLRB 1136, 1136 fn. 2 (2007).
3
considered “accountable” for the performance of nurses for purposes of Section 2(11) of
the Act. We adopt the hearing officer’s finding that the physicians possess no other
indicia of supervisory authority, and we find that they would not be supervisors under
Section 2(11) even if they were employed by the Employer.
Contrary to the Employer, we also find that the physicians are not the Employer’s
agents because the record does not establish that they were acting with apparent
authority on behalf of the Employer when they engaged in prounion activity. Apparent
authority arises from a manifestation by the principal to a third party that creates a
reasonable belief that the principal has authorized the alleged agent to perform the acts
in question. See, e.g., Pan-Oston Co., 336 NLRB 305, 305-306 (2001). The test is
whether, under all of the circumstances, employees would reasonably believe that the
physicians were speaking and acting for management when they engaged in the
conduct the Employer alleged as objectionable, such as advocating for the Union or
expressing prounion views. Id. at 306. The Employer introduced no evidence that might
possibly support such a belief, especially given the Employer’s open and public
antiunion campaign.3 The evidence it does cite – e.g., Dr. Koning’s appearance at an
awards reception honoring the Employer, his posing for a picture of the award alongside
some of the Employer’s managers, and his appearing on a Corona newsletter cover
story – has nothing to do with labor relations issues, even assuming that unit employees
knew about those events. The Employer does not cite, and we have not found,
precedent supporting the proposition that attending an awards reception or appearing in

3 The Employer does not contend that it actually authorized any physician to act on its
behalf within the general area of labor relations matters, or that it has held out any
physician to its employees as authorized to represent it within that sphere.
4
a newsletter article in the above-mentioned context would cause employees to
reasonably believe that Dr. Koning—who, again, was not even employed by the
Employer—spoke or acted for the Employer regarding labor relations matters.
Having found that the Employer has not established that its physicians are its
agents, supervisors, or managers, we find it unnecessary to reach whether their
conduct would be objectionable under Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 NLRB 906
(2004). For the reasons stated by the judge, we reject the Employer’s remaining
objections in their entirety.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for United
Nurses Associations of California/Union of Healthcare Professionals, and that it is the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time and per diem Registered Nurse-ICU;
Registered Nurse-PCU; Registered Nurse-ER; Registered Nurse-OP/SS Surgery;
Registered Nurse-Recovery; Registered Nurse-Surgery/OR; Registered Nurse-Surgical;
Registered Nurse-Special/Specialty Nurse; Registered Nurse-L&D; Registered Nurse-
Nursery; Registered Nurse-OB/GYN Nursing; Registered Nurse-PEDS; Registered
Nurse-Lactation Consultant; Registered Nurse-Infusion Therapy; Registered Nurse-
Medical; Registered Nurse-PHP; Registered Nurse-Psych; Registered Nurse-Home
Health; Registered Nurse-Skilled Nursing Unit; Registered Nurse-cardiac Cath Lab;
Registered Nurse-Hospice; and Registered Nurse-Special Procedure employed by the
Employer at its 800 South Main Street, 730 Magnolia Avenue, and 760 Washburn
Avenue, Corona, California facilities. Excluded: All other employees, agency
employees; Registered Nurse Home Health Coordinator; Registered Nurse Case
Manager; Performance Improvement Coordinator/Core Measure; Quality Assurance
Coordinator; Quality Coordinator; Wound Care Coordinator/RN Wound Care
Enterostomal; Quality Improvement Nurse/UR Coordinator; MCS Coordinator/RN;
Operating Room Clinical Educator/Nurse Educator; Care Partner; Community Liaison;
Infection Control Nurse; Risk Analyst/Risk Management Analyst; Clinical Systems
Analyst; RN Clinical Specialist; Assistant Director-Surgical Services; Director-Infection
5
Prevention; Director-Education; Interim Director – ICU; Director – ICU; Manager –
Nursing; Director – Emergency Room; Interim Director OR/Recovery/OPS; Director –
Quality Management; Director Women’s Health Center/Services; Director –
Med/Surg/Telemetry/PCU; Director – Risk Management; Director – Nursing; Rehab
Hospital Administrator; Director – Psych Services; Director-Home Health; Director-
Rehab/Therapy Services; Director-Case Management; Director-Diagnostic Imaging;
Director-Information Systems; Charge Nurses; Lead House Supervisors; House
Supervisors; office clerical and administrative employees; confidential employees; other
professional employees; guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 17, 2014
___________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
___________________________________
Harry I. Johnson, III, Member
___________________________________
Nancy Schiffer, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD