735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC d/b/a Greenville Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 2011

356 N.L.R.B. 1058 (N.L.R.B. 2011)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
356 NLRB No. 138
1058
735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC d/b/a Greenville
Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and
New England Health Care Employees Union,
District 1199, a/w Service Employees Interna-
tional Union (SEIU). Case 1–CA–46619
April 13, 2011
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Re-
spondent is contesting the Union’s certification as bar-
gaining representative in the underlying representation
proceeding. Pursuant to a charge filed on January 11,
2011, and an amended charge on January 20, 2011, the
Acting General Counsel issued the complaint and notice
of hearing and an amendment to complaint on January 24
and 31, 2011, respectively, alleging that the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refus-
ing the Union’s request to bargain following the Union’s
certification in Case 1–RC–22474. (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(g); Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343
(1982).) The Respondent filed a consolidated answer to
complaint and amendment to complaint admitting in part
and denying in part the allegations in the complaint.
On February 8, 2011, the Acting General Counsel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 10, 2011,
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.
The Acting General Counsel filed a reply to the Respond-
ent’s response.
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 on the basis
that the unit is inappropriate.
All representation issues raised by the Respondent were
or could have been litigated in the prior representation
proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a
hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable
evidence. The Respondent asserts for the first time in its
response to the Notice to Show Cause that the premature
issuance of the certification of representative, which the
Region issued 1 day before the Respondent’s time to file
objections to the election had lapsed, constitutes a special
circumstance that requires the Board to reexamine the
decision made in the representation proceeding. We find
no merit in this contention.
The undisputed facts show that the election was held on
October 15, 2010, and the Regional Director issued a tally
of ballots on November 23. Under the Board’s Rules, any
objections to the election were to be filed within 7 days,
i.e., by November 30. However, the Regional Director
prematurely issued a certification of representative on No-
vember 29, stating that no timely objections had been
filed.1 Thereafter, on December 2, the Acting Regional
Director issued a corrected certification of representative,
again indicating no timely objections had been filed.
On these facts, we cannot conclude that the Respondent
was denied a reasonable opportunity to exercise its right to
challenge the election due to the premature issuance of the
certification. First, there is no evidence that the Respond-
ent raised the premature issuance of the certification to the
Region in the representation proceeding, asserted to the
Region that it had a basis on which to file objections, or
proffered any objections to the Region. In addition, the
Respondent did not refer to the premature issuance of the
certification in its response to the Union’s request to bar-
gain, or in its communications with the Region regarding
the unfair labor practice charges. The Respondent merely
indicated that it was refusing to bargain because it intend-
ed to challenge the Board’s unit determination in the un-
derlying representation proceeding.
Second, even assuming that the Respondent believed it
was precluded from addressing this issue in the underlying
representation proceeding, it had the opportunity to raise
this asserted preclusion in its answer to the complaint.
However, it failed to do so. Further, despite its protesta-
tions that the corrected certification did not cure the Re-
gion’s error of issuing the original certification before the
Respondent had an opportunity to file objections, the Re-
spondent has never submitted any election objections for
the Board’s consideration or indicated what actual preju-
dice it suffered from the premature issuance of the certifi-
cation.
We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised
any representation issue that is properly litigable in this
unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941). According-
ly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.2

1 The Respondent does not refute the Acting General Counsel’s
statement that this certification was mailed to the parties. Thus, it is
apparent that the earliest date on which the Respondent could have
received the certification was on the day its objections were due.
2 Member Hayes would have granted review in the underlying repre-
sentation proceeding. He agrees, however, that the Respondent has not
raised any new matters or special circumstances warranting a hearing in
this proceeding or reconsideration of the decision in the representation
proceeding, and that summary judgment is appropriate.
GREENVILLE SKILLED NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER 1059
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation
with an office and place of business in Greenville, Rhode
Island (the Greenville facility), has been engaged in the
operation of a skilled nursing and rehabilitation center.
Annually, the Respondent, in conducting its business
operations described above, derived gross revenues in
excess of $100,000, and purchased and received at its
Greenville facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside the State of Rhode Island.
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, New England Health Care
Employees Union, District 1199, a/w Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following a representation election conducted on Octo-
ber 15, 2010, the Union was certified on December 2,
2010,3 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the following appropriate unit:

All full-time and regular part-time registered nurses,
including per diem registered nurses but excluding the
director of nursing, day supervisor/unit manager,
nurse practice educator, floating shift supervisor,
MDS coordinator, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.

The Union continues to be the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees under Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
On about November 30, 2010, the Union, by letter, de-
manded that the Respondent meet and bargain with it over
the terms and conditions of employment of the newly cer-
tified unit. By facsimile dated January 6, 2011, the Re-
spondent refused to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
unit. We find that this failure and refusal 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.

3 As noted above, the Acting Regional Director issued a corrected
certification on December 2, 2010.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since January 6, 2011, to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate 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.4
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 certifica-
tion as beginning the date the Respondent begins to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry Co.,
136 NLRB 785 (1962); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied
379 U.S. 817 (1964); and Burnett Construction Co., 149
NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir.
1965).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re-
spondent, 735 Putnam Pike Operations, LLC d/b/a Green-
ville Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Green-
ville, Rhode Island, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
New England Health Care Employees Union, District
1199, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
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 ef-
fectuate 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:

4 Although the Union’s request to bargain predates the corrected cer-
tification, it is undisputed that the Respondent’s refusal to bargain
postdated that certification, and that it continues to refuse to bargain.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1060
All full-time and regular part-time registered nurses,
including per diem registered nurses but excluding the
director of nursing, day supervisor/unit manager,
nurse practice educator, floating shift supervisor,
MDS coordinator, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.

(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Greenville, Rhode Island, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1,
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.6 Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of busi-
ness or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own ex-
pense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any
time since January 6, 2011.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsi-
ble official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

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.”
6 For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Floor-
ing, 356 NLRB 11 (2010), Member Hayes would not require electronic
distribution of the notice.
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 benefit
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with New England Health Care Employees Union, District
1199, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU),
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
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
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
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
bargaining unit:

All full-time and regular part-time registered nurses,
including per diem registered nurses but excluding the
director of nursing, day supervisor/unit manager,
nurse practice educator, floating shift supervisor,
MDS coordinator, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.

735 PUTNAM PIKE OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A
GREENVILLE SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION
CENTER

Filename: 356138.doc
Directory: H:\VOLUMES\356\UNBIND\Unbind bat3
Template: C:\Documents and Settings\plogan\Application
Data\Microsoft\Templates\Editorial Templates\NewD&O.dot
Title: BARBARA COPE, A SOLE PROPRIETOR,
Subject:
Author: plogan
Keywords:
Comments:
Creation Date: 4/13/2011 2:38:00 PM
Change Number: 11
Last Saved On: 12/3/2012 11:00:00 AM
Last Saved By: philliar
Total Editing Time: 20 Minutes
Last Printed On: 7/10/2014 7:35:00 AM
As of Last Complete Printing
Number of Pages: 3
Number of Words: 1,844 (approx.)
Number of Characters: 10,513 (approx.)