Riverside Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 907 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL 907
Valley Doctors Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospi-
tal and Thomas J. Morrison , Petitioner and Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers , Local No.
501, AFL-CIO. Case 31-RD-316
February 13, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW
On August 14, 1975, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 31 issued his Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding, in which he dismissed the peti-
tion filed herein, finding that a contract bar exists. In
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National La-
bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's decision on the
ground that substantial issues are raised as to his
finding that a contract bar exists.
By telegraphic order dated September 19, 1975, the
Board granted the request for review. Thereafter the
Employer and the Union-filed briefs on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as- amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding, including the briefs on review with re-
spect to the issues under review, and makes the fol-
lowing findings:
The Employer and Local No. 501, the Union here-
in, were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
for the term December 1, 1972, to March 31, 1975.
By letter dated December 5, 1974, the Union request-
ed the Employer to enter into negotiations for a new
agreement stating that if the Employer and the
Union failed to reach agreement by March 31, 1975,
the existing agreement was to be considered termi-
nated. Although no agreement was reached by
March 31, 1975, the parties continued negotiations,
and, on May 1, 1975, the Employer mailed its con-
tract proposal to the Union accompanied by a cover-
ing letter signed by the Employer's counsel, which
stated, in part, as follows:
I enclose two copies of the contract proposal
which you requested at the last negotiating ses-
sion. . . .
The employer is prepared to meet with you
for the purpose of answering any questions
which you may have about its proposal, or for
the purpose of receiving any counter-proposals
which the union may wish to make. If it is your
intention to submit this proposal to the members
of the bargaining unit without making any
counter-proposal, we would appreciate your so
advising us. If the proposal is rejected as a result
of being submitted to the members of the bar-
gaining unit without a counter-proposal being
made by the union to the employer the proposal
should be deemed withdrawn as of the time of
such rejection.
If the proposal is accepted in its entirety,
please contact me for the purpose of arranging
to have the new agreement executed.
On May 7, 1975, the employees in the bargaining
unit voted to ratify acceptance of the Employer's
proposed contract, and, thereafter, on the same day
the Union advised the Employer by telephone of its
action. On May 8, 1975, the Petitioner filed his peti-
tion in the instant matter. On May 14, 1975, the
Union mailed to the Employer a copy of the newly
agreed-upon contract, which shows that it was signed
by the Union's representatives on May 7, 1975.
Upon consideration of the record herein, we con-
clude, in accord with the Regional Director, that the
submission of the Employer's contract proposals
with the covering letter bearing the Employer's signa-
ture, and the subsequent ratification and signing of
those proposals by the Union prior to the filing of the
petition is sufficient to satisfy the Board's` contract-
bar rules under Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121
NLRB 1160 (1958). As stated by the Regional Direc-
tor, in order to constitute a bar a contract need not
be encompassed within a single formal document but
may consist of an exchange of a written proposal and
a written acceptance. Here, we find that the
Employer's signed cover letter accompanying its pro-
posal, coupled with the Union's execution of the pro-
posal prior to the filing of the petition, satisfies the
signing requirements in order to provide bar quality
to the contract.
Accordingly, we find that the recent contract be-
tween the Union and the Employer is a bar to these
proceedings and we affirm the Regional Director's
dismissal of the petition.
222 NLRB No. 149