University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1994

315 N.L.R.B. 1173 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1173
315 NLRB No. 150
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER
1 313 NLRB 1341 (1994).
Presbyterian University Hospital d/b/a University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 95–95A,
AFL–CIO. Case 6–CA–26550
December 28, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
On August 18, 1994, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued a complaint and
notice of hearing alleging that the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act by refusing the Union’s request to bargain
following the Union’s certification in Case 6–RC–
10932. (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 Respond-
ent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in
part the allegations in the complaint.
On September 15, 1994, the General Counsel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 19,
1994, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. On October 11,
1994, the Respondent filed a response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer the Respondent admits its refusal to
bargain, but attacks the validity of the certification on
the basis of the Board’s unit determination in the rep-
resentation proceeding.1
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior represen-
tation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to
adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and pre-
viously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any
special circumstances that would require the Board to
reexamine the decision made in the representation pro-
ceeding. 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).
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a not-for-prof-
it corporation with an office and facilities in Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, has been engaged in the oper-
ation of an acute care hospital providing medical care.
During the 12-month period ending June 30, 1994,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations,
derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and pur-
chased and received at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania fa-
cility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
and is a health care institution within the meaning of
Section 2(14) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
At all material times, the Respondent has recognized
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the following unit which is appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All stationary engineers, refrigeration engineers,
electricians, painters, carpenters, plumbers, gen-
eral maintenance, plasterers, all helpers and ap-
prentices and working foreman employed in the
Employer’s maintenance department located at its
Presbyterian University Hospital and Falk Clinic
facilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; excluding all
office clerical employees and guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
For approximately 22 years, and at all material
times, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the unit and has been recog-
nized as such representative by the Respondent. Such
recognition has been embodied in successive collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is
effective by its terms for the period from April 1,
1992, to March 31, 1997.
Following the election held March 16, 1994, a Cer-
tification of Results of Election issued on June 15,
1994, certifying that the Union may bargain for the
voting group described below as part of the above-de-
scribed unit of employees that it currently represents:
All full-time and regular part-time telecommuni-
cation specialists-I (voice) employed by the Em-
ployer at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, facilities;
excluding office clerical employees and guards,
1174 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 The General Counsel has not specifically requested a remedy
under Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962), and we find that
such a remedy would be inappropriate in this case. See Edward J.
DeBartolo Corp., 315 NLRB 1170, 1171 fn. 3 (1994).
3 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
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
professional employees and supervisors as defined
in the Act, and all other employees.
At all times since June 15, 1994, the Union has been
and continues to be the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit, including the employees en-
compassed in the voting group, under Section 9(a) of
the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
About July 1, 1994, the Union requested the Re-
spondent to bargain with respect to the employees in
the voting group who are now included in the unit.
Since about July 12, 1994, the Respondent has failed
and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the voting group as part of the unit. We
find that this refusal constitutes an unlawful refusal to
bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By refusing on and after July 12, 1994, to bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the voting group as
part of the appropriate unit, the Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 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 understanding is reached, to embody the un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Presbyterian University Hospital d/b/a
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 95–95A, AFL–CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the bargaining unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, 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
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the telecommunication special-
ists-I (voice) as part of the following appropriate unit
on terms and conditions of employment, and if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement:
All stationary engineers, refrigeration engineers,
electricians, painters, carpenters, plumbers, gen-
eral maintenance, plasterers, all helpers and ap-
prentices and working foreman employed in the
Employer’s maintenance department located at its
Presbyterian University Hospital and Falk Clinic
facilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; excluding all
office clerical employees and guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Post at its facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 6, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
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 the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 95–95A, AFL–
CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the bargaining unit.
1175UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER
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 conditions of employment for our tele-
communication specialists-I (voice) employees as part
of the following bargaining unit:
All stationary engineers, refrigeration engineers,
electricians, painters, carpenters, plumbers, gen-
eral maintenance, plasterers, all helpers and ap-
prentices and working foreman employed in the
maintenance department located at our Pres-
byterian University Hospital and Falk Clinic fa-
cilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; excluding all
office clerical employees and guards, professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
PRESBYTERIAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
D/B/A UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
MEDICAL CENTER