Hanford House Health Care

188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD First Health Care Corporation d/b/a Hanford House Health Care and Hospital & Institutional Workers Local 250, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-11503 April 25, 1974 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, executed by the parties and approved by the Acting Regional Director on August 3, 1973, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 5, 1973, under the direction and supervision of the Acting Regional Director for Region 20, among the employees in the unit described below. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 54 eligible voters, 47 cast ballots, of which 35 were for, and 1\1 against, the Petitioner. There were no challenged ba lots and one void ballot. On September 12, 1973, the Employer iled timely objections to the election. The Acting Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and thereafter, on November 8, 1973, issued and served on the parties her Report on Objections. In her report, the Acting Regional Director recom- mended that the Employer's objections be overruled in their entirety, and that the Petitioner be certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described below. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's Report on Objections. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I E.g, Hobart Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 203; International Shoe Company, 123 NLRB 682, Northlake Convalescent Hospital, 173 NLRB 992, Sprague Ponce Company, 181 NLRB 281; National Electric Cori Div. McGraw Edison, 184 NLRB 691 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer at its Hanford, California, operations, excluding registered nurs- es, office clericals, guards, watchmen and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the objections, the Acting Regional Director's report, and the Employ- er's exceptions, and hereby adopts the Acting Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and rec- ommendations. In our opinion, the exceptions raise no material and substantial issues of fact or law which warrant reversal of the findings and recommendations of the Acting Regional Director. In the course of the Acting Regional Director's investigation, it appears that the Employer submitted a letter distributed by the Petitioner as additional grounds for objections not raised in its objections. The Board has repeatedly set aside elections based on conduct uncovered during the course of its investigation, but not specifically raised in timely filed objections.' However, we find that the Employ- er's exceptions raise no material issue that warrants reversal of the Acting Regional Director. The evidence offered to the Acting Regional Director in support of the supplemental objections did not constitute prima facie evidence which would justify setting aside the election.2 In its exceptions, the Employer asserts that a letter contained two statements which support its supple- mental objections. One was a statement in the letter that "many of the workers at Hacienda earn $43.00 more per month than workers at Hanford House." The Employer contends that this statement "consti- tutes improper puffing." The letter was issued on August 13, 1973. The election was held on September 5, 1973. There is no contention that the Employer was precluded from making an effective reply for the employees' evaluation of the alleged "puffing." The other point urged by the Employer is a statement in the letter that the "initial fee of $25.00 will be waived for anyone working at Hanford House on the effective date of any contract we negotiate." We do not regard this announcement as a basis for setting aside the election.3 Accordingly, we concluded that the Acting Regional Director was not required to 2 Orleans Manufacturing Company, 120 NLRB 630; N L.R.B. v O K. Van Storage, Inc, 297 F.2d 74 (C A 5, 1961). 3 Irwindale Division, Lau Industries, A Division of Phillips Industries, Inc., 210 NLRB No 42. 210 NLRB No. 44 HANFORD HOUSE HEALTH CARE further investigate the supplemental objections or consider them in her report.4 CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE It is hereby certified that Hospital & Institutional Workers Local 250, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, has been delegated and selected by a majority of the employees of First Health Care Corporation d/b/a Hanford House Health Care in 189 the unit found above appropriate as their representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organiza- tion is the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. 4 Lazzara Products, Inc, 178 NLRB 204.