Shasta Regional Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 2009

354 NLRB No. 65 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 65
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.
Shasta Regional Medical Center, LLC and SEIU,
United Healthcare Workers–West and United
Public Employees Union, Local 792, Laborers
International Union of North America. Cases
20–CA–34236 and 20–CA–34237
August 24, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
an answer to the consolidated complaint. Upon a charge
filed by SEIU, United Healthcare Workers–West (SEIU)
in Case 20–CA–34236 on January 2, 2009, and a charge
filed by United Public Employees Union, Local 792,
Laborers International Union of North America (Local
792), in Case 20–CA–34237 on January 2, 2009, the
General Counsel issued the order consolidating cases,
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on Febru-
ary 26, 2009, against Shasta Regional Medical Center,
LLC (the Respondent), alleging that it has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent failed to
file an answer.
On June 9, 2009, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Default Judgment with the Board. Thereafter, on
June 10, 2009, 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 no response. The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment1
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F.3d
410 (2d Cir. 2009); New Process Steel v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir.
2009), petition for cert. filed 77 U.S.L.W. 3670 (U.S. May 22, 2009)
(No. 08-1457); Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st
Cir. 2009), rehearing denied No. 08-1878 (May 20, 2009). But see
Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469
(D.C. Cir. 2009), petitions for rehearing denied Nos. 08-1162, 08-1214
(July 1, 2009).
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the consolidated complaint affirma-
tively stated that unless an answer was received by
March 12, 2009, the Board may find, pursuant to a mo-
tion for default judgment, that the allegations in the con-
solidated complaint are true. Further, the undisputed
allegations in the motion disclose that the Region, by
letter dated May 20, 2009, notified the Respondent that
unless an answer was received by May 27, 2009, a mo-
tion for default judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Coun-
sel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a California
corporation with an acute care hospital facility located at
1100 Butte Street, Redding, California (the facility), has
been engaged in the business of providing medical care
and hospital services to patients.
During the 12-month period ending October 31, 2008,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations
described above, derived gross revenues in excess of
$250,000 and purchased and received at its Redding,
California hospital goods and materials valued in excess
of $5000, which originated from points located outside
the State of California.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and a health care institu-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. Fur-
ther, we find that United Public Employees Union, Local
792, Laborers International Union of North America and
SEIU, United Healthcare Workers–West are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals have
held the positions set forth opposite their respective
names and have been supervisors of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and
agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act:
Sandra Speer Director, Human Resources
Philip Dionne Chief Executive Officer
The following employees of the Respondent (the RN
unit) constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
All regular full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
registered nurses employed by Shasta Regional Medi-
cal Center.
From at least 2000 until October 31, 2008, Local 792
was the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the RN unit employed by the Respondent, and during
that period of time was recognized as such by the Re-
spondent. This recognition was embodied in successive
collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of
which was effective by its terms from June 1, 2006,
through May 31, 2008.
From at least 2000 until about October 31, 2008, based
on Section 9(a) of the Act, Local 792 was the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the RN unit em-
ployed by the Respondent.
The following employees of the Respondent (the
LVN/Technical unit) constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All regular full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
LVN and technical employees employed by Shasta
Regional Medical Center in the classifications of LVN,
Vascular techs, Echocardiology techs, Radiologic techs
(X-ray techs, Special-Procedure techs, Surgery techs
(OR techs, Scrub techs) Ultrasound techs, Nuclear Med
techs, Paramedics, Respiratory Therapy techs, Ortho
techs, Laboratory techs, E.E.G. techs, Physical Therapy
assistants, and Pharmacy techs.
From at least 2000 until October 31, 2008, Local 792
was the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the LVN/Technical unit employed by the Respondent,
and during that period of time was recognized as such by
the Respondent. This recognition was embodied in suc-
cessive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent
of which was effective by its terms from December 1,
2006, to November 30, 2008.
From at least 2000 until about October 31, 2008, based
on Section 9(a) of the Act, Local 792 was the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the LVN/Techni-
cal unit employed by the Respondent.
The following employees of the Respondent (the
Maintenance/Clerical Unit) constitute a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All full-time, part-time and per diem service and main-
tenance, skilled maintenance and business office cleri-
cal employees employed by Shasta Regional Medical
Center at its hospital facility located at 1100 Butte
Street, Redding, California, including those classifica-
tions set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement
between SEIU and Shasta Regional Medical Center ef-
fective from January 1, 2007, through December 31,
2010.
From at least 2000 until October 31, 2008, SEIU was
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
Maintenance/Clerical unit employed by the Respondent,
and during that period of time was recognized as such by
the Respondent. This recognition was embodied in suc-
cessive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent
of which was effective by its terms from January 1, 2007,
through December 31, 2010.
From at least 2000 until about October 31, 2008, based
on Section 9(a) of the Act, SEIU was the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Maintenance/Clerical
unit employed by the Respondent.
1.(a) About October 31, 2008, the Respondent ceased
doing business and terminated all employees employed
in the RN Unit.
(b) The Respondent engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 1(a) without paying employees in
the RN Unit their contractually-required severance pay-
ments.
(c) The subject set forth in paragraph 1(b) relates to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the employees in the RN unit, and is a man-
datory subject for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(d) The Respondent engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 1(a) without prior notice to Local
792 and without affording Local 792 an opportunity to
bargain with the Respondent with respect to the effects
of this conduct.2
(e) The Respondent engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 1(b) without prior notice to Local
792 and without affording Local 792 an opportunity to
bargain with the Respondent with respect to this conduct
and/or the effects of this conduct.
2.(a) About October 31, 2008, the Respondent ceased
doing business and terminated all employees employed
in the LVN/Technical Unit.

2 Although the complaint alleges that the conduct described in
par.1(a) is a mandatory subject of bargaining, we need not address
that allegation because there is no allegation that the failure to bar-
gain about the decision to close violates the Act. The complaint
specifically alleges that the conduct in paragraph 1(d)—the failure to
give notice of or bargain about the effects of the closing—violates
the Act. The Board has repeatedly found that the effect of such deci-
sions on unit employees is a mandatory bargaining subject. See,
e.g., Nick and Bob Partners, 340 NLRB 1196, 1198 (2003). Ac-
cordingly, we find that the complaint supports a cause of action as to
the failure to bargain over the effects of the Respondent’s decision to
cease its operations and terminate its unit employees.
SHASTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 3
(b) The Respondent engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 2(a) without paying employees in
the LVN/Technical unit their contractually-required sev-
erance payments.
(c) The subject set forth in paragraph 2(b) relates to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the employees in the LVN/Technical unit,
and is a mandatory subject for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
(d) The Respondent engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 2(a) without prior notice to Local
792 and without affording Local 792 an opportunity to
bargain with the Respondent with respect to the effects
of this conduct. 3
(e) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
in paragraph 2(b) without the consent of Local 792.
3.(a) About October 31, 2008, the Respondent ceased
doing business and terminated all employees employed
in the Maintenance/Clerical unit.
(b) The Respondent engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 3(a) without paying employees in
the Maintenance/Clerical unit their contractually required
severance payments.
(c) The subject set forth in paragraph 3(b) relates to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the employees in the Maintenance/Clerical
unit, and is a mandatory subject for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
(d) The Respondent engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 3(a) without prior notice to SEIU
and without affording SEIU an opportunity to bargain
with the Respondent with respect to the effects of this
conduct. 4
(e) The Respondent engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 3(b) without the consent of SEIU.

3 Although the complaint alleges that the conduct described in par.
2(a) is a mandatory subject of bargaining, we need not address that
allegation because there is no allegation that the failure to bargain about
the decision to close was unlawful. The complaint specifically alleges
that the conduct in par. 2(d)—the failure to give notice of or bargain
about the effects of the closing—violates the Act. Accordingly, we find
that the complaint supports a cause of action as to the failure to bargain
over the effects of the Respondent’s decision to cease its operations and
terminate its unit employees. See fn. 2, supra.
4 Although the complaint alleges that the conduct described in par.
3(a) is a mandatory subject of bargaining, we need not address that
allegation because there is no allegation that the failure to bargain about
the decision to close was unlawful. The complaint specifically alleges
that the conduct in par. 3(d)—the failure to give notice of or bargain
about the effects of the closing—violates the Act. Accordingly, we find
that the complaint supports a cause of action as to the failure to bargain
over the effects of the Respondent’s decision to cease its operations and
terminate its unit employees. See fn. 2, supra.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the conduct described above, the Respondent has
failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good
faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit employees within the meaning of Section
8(d) of the Act, and has thereby 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 engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, having found that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing, since October 31,
2008, to make severance payments to the employees of
the RN unit, the LVN/Technical unit, and the Mainte-
nance/Clerical unit who were terminated when the Re-
spondent ceased its operations at its Redding, California
facility on October 31, 2008, we shall order the Respon-
dent to make the unit employees whole by paying them
their contractually-required severance payments. All
payments to unit employees shall be computed in the
manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB
682, 683 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with
interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987).5
To remedy the Respondent’s unlawful failure to pro-
vide the Unions prior notice and a meaningful opportu-
nity to bargain regarding the effects on unit employees of
its decision to cease operations at its Redding, California
facility, we shall order the Respondent to bargain with
the Unions, on request, about the effects of that decision.
As a result of the Respondent’s unlawful conduct, how-
ever, the unit employees have been denied an opportu-
nity to bargain through their collective-bargaining repre-
sentatives at a time when the Respondent might still have
been in need of their services and a measure of balanced
bargaining power existed. Meaningful bargaining cannot
be assured until some measure of economic strength is
restored to the Unions. A bargaining order alone, there-
fore, cannot serve as an adequate remedy for the unfair
labor practices committed.
Accordingly, we deem it necessary, in order to ensure
that meaningful bargaining occurs and to effectuate the
policies of the Act, to accompany our bargaining order

5 In the consolidated complaint, the General Counsel seeks com-
pound interest computed on a quarterly basis for any monetary awards.
Having duly considered the matter, we are not prepared at this time to
deviate from our current practice of assessing simple interest. See, e.g.,
Glen Rock Ham, 352 NLRB 516, 516 fn. 1 (2008), citing Rogers Corp.,
344 NLRB 504 (2005).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
with a limited backpay requirement designed both to
make whole the employees for losses suffered as a result
of the violation and to recreate in some practicable man-
ner a situation in which the parties’ bargaining position is
not entirely devoid of economic consequences for the
Respondent. We shall do so by ordering the Respondent
to pay backpay to the unit employees in a manner similar
to that required in Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170
NLRB 389 (1968), as clarified by Melody Toyota, 325
NLRB 846 (1998).6
Thus, the Respondent shall pay its unit employees
backpay at the rate of their normal wages when last in the
Respondent’s employ from 5 days after the date of this
Decision and Order until the occurrence of the earliest of
the following conditions: (1) the date the Respondent
bargains to agreement with the Union on those subjects
pertaining to the effects of its decision to cease opera-
tions on the unit employees; (2) a bona fide impasse in
bargaining; (3) the Union’s failure to request bargaining
within 5 business days after receipt of this Decision and
Order, or to commence negotiations within 5 business
days after receipt of the Respondent’s notice of its desire
to bargain with the Union; or (4) the Union’s subsequent
failure to bargain in good faith.
In no event shall the sum paid to these employees ex-
ceed the amount they would have earned as wages from
the date on which the Respondent ceased operations to
the time they secured equivalent employment elsewhere,
or the date on which the Respondent shall have offered to
bargain in good faith, whichever occurs sooner. How-
ever, in no event shall this sum be less than the employ-
ees would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of
their normal wages when last in the Respondent’s em-
ploy. Backpay shall be based on earnings which the unit
employees would normally have received during the ap-
plicable period, less any net interim earnings, and shall
be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, supra.
Finally, in view of the fact that the Respondent has
ceased doing business at its Redding, California facility,
we shall order the Respondent to mail copies of the at-
tached notice to the Unions and to the last known ad-
dresses of its former unit employees, in order to inform
them of the outcome of this proceeding.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Shasta Regional Medical Center, LLC,
Redding, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall

6 See also Live Oak Skilled Care & Manor, 300 NLRB 1040 (1990).
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with United Public Employees Union, Local
792, Laborers International Union of North America
(Local 792), as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the units set forth below,
with respect to the effects of its decision to cease doing
business at its Redding, California facility and terminate
the unit employees:
The RN Unit:
All regular full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
registered nurses employed by Shasta Regional Medi-
cal Center.
The LVN/Technical Unit:
All regular full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
LVN and technical employees employed by Shasta
Regional Medical Center in the classifications of LVN,
Vascular techs, Echocardiology techs, Radiologic techs
(X-ray techs, Special-Procedure techs, Surgery techs
(OR techs, Scrub techs) Ultrasound techs, Nuclear Med
techs, Paramedics, Respiratory Therapy techs, Ortho
techs, Laboratory techs, E.E.G. techs, Physical Therapy
assistants, and Pharmacy techs.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with SEIU, United Healthcare Workers–West
(SEIU), as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen-
tative of the employees in the unit set forth below, with
respect to the effects of its decision to cease doing busi-
ness at its Redding, California facility and terminate the
unit employees:
The Maintenance/Clerical Unit
All full-time, part-time and per diem service and main-
tenance, skilled maintenance and business office cleri-
cal employees employed by Shasta Regional Medical
Center at its hospital facility located at 1100 Butte
Street, Redding, California, including those classifica-
tions set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement
between SEIU and Shasta Regional Medical Center ef-
fective from January 1, 2007, through December 31,
2010.
(c) Failing to pay its unit employees their contractu-
ally-required severance payments.
(d) 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.
SHASTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 5
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain collectively and in good faith
with Local 792 and SEIU concerning the effects on unit
employees of the Respondent’s decision to cease doing
business at its Redding, California facility as of October
31, 2008, and reduce to writing and sign any agreement
reached as a result of such bargaining.
(b) Pay to the terminated unit employees their normal
wages for the period set forth in the remedy section of
this decision, with interest.
(c) Make the unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
Respondent’s failure to make contractually-required sev-
erance payments, with interest, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense and after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, signed
and dated copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix”7 to the Unions and to all unit employees employed
at the Redding, California facility as of October 31,
2008.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 24, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman,, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the ]words in the notice reading “Mailed by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Mailed Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
MAILED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to mail 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 bargain collectively
and in good faith with United Public Employees Union,
Local 792, Laborers International Union of North Amer-
ica (Local 792), as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the units set forth be-
low, with respect to the effects of our decision to cease
doing business at our Redding, California facility and to
terminate the unit employees:
The RN Unit:
All regular full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
registered nurses employed by Shasta Regional Medi-
cal Center.
The LVN/Technical Unit:
All regular full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
LVN and technical employees employed by Shasta
Regional Medical Center in the classifications of LVN,
Vascular techs, Echocardiology techs, Radiologic techs
(X-ray techs, Special-Procedure techs, Surgery techs
(OR techs, Scrub techs) Ultrasound techs, Nuclear Med
techs, Paramedics, Respiratory Therapy techs, Ortho
techs, Laboratory techs, E.E.G. techs, Physical Therapy
assistants, and Pharmacy techs.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with SEIU, United Healthcare Work-
ers–West (SEIU), as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the unit set forth be-
low, with respect to the effects of our decision to cease
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
doing business at our Redding, California facility and to
terminate the unit employees:
The Maintenance/Clerical Unit
All full-time, part-time and per diem service and main-
tenance, skilled maintenance and business office cleri-
cal employees employed by Shasta Regional Medical
Center at its hospital facility located at 1100 Butte
Street, Redding, California, including those classifica-
tions set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement
between SEIU and us effective from January 1, 2007,
through December 31, 2010.
WE WILL NOT fail to pay our terminated unit employ-
ees their contractually-required severance payments.
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 collectively and in good
faith with Local 792 and SEIU concerning the effects on
our unit employees of our decision to cease doing busi-
ness at our Redding, California facility on October 31,
2008, and reduce to writing and sign any agreement
reached as a result of such bargaining.
WE WILL make our terminated unit employees whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of our failure to make contractually-required sev-
erance payments, with interest.
WE WILL pay to our terminated unit employees their
normal wages for the period set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the Board’s decision, with interest.
SHASTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC