California Nurses Association, National Nurses Organizing Committee (Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hos

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 4, 2019

31-CB-012913 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 4, 2019)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION,
NATIONAL NURSES ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
and Case 31-CB-012913
HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL
ORDER REMANDING1
On November 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Notice to Show
Cause why this case should not be remanded to the judge for further proceedings in light of The
Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017). The Charging Party filed a response supporting remand
to the judge. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed responses opposing remand to the
judge.2
Having duly considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law
Judge for assignment to an administrative law judge for the purpose of reopening the record, if
necessary, and the preparation of a supplemental decision addressing the Section 8(b)(1)(A)

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
2 The General Counsel requests that the Board remand this case to the Regional Director for
Region 31, instead of an administrative law judge, so that she may dismiss the remaining
complaint allegation, which alleges that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by printing
“The Weingarten Rights” statement on the back cover of its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Charging Party. The General Counsel contends that the remedy for that allegation
would be duplicative of the existing remedy for the Board’s finding that the Respondent’s
printing of the statement violated Sec. 8(b)(3). The Respondent requests that the Board not
remand, asserting that the Board should dismiss the allegation because the Respondent believes
that “The Weingarten Rights” statement did not violate Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) “as a matter of law, and
especially in light of” Boeing, supra. We deny these requests and leave it to the judge who is
assigned this case to consider any motion by the General Counsel to modify or withdraw, or by
the Respondent to dismiss, the complaint.
2
complaint allegation, whether and to what extent it is affected by Boeing, and setting forth
credibility resolutions, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended Order. Copies
of the supplemental decision shall be served on all parties, after which the provisions of Section
102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations shall be applicable.
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2019
By direction of the Board:
/s/ Roxanne L. Rothschild
Executive Secretary