London House Convalescent Hospital

LONDON HOUSE CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL 503 Hy-Lond Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a London House Con- valescent Hospital and Hospital and Institutional Workers, Local 250, Service Employees Internation- al Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-1 1228 July 22, 1974 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND- JENKINS Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Regional Director for Region 20 on April 18, 1973, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on May 18, 1973, under his direction and su- pervision, among employees in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that there were approximately 66 eligible voters and 50 cast ballots, of which 17 were for and 27 against the Petitioner. There were six challenges which were not sufficient to affect the results of the election. Thereaf- ter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Acting Regional Direcor caused an investigation of the issues raised by the Petitioner's seven objec- tions. On August 3, 1973, the Acting Regional Direc- tor issued a Supplemental Decision, Order and Notice of Hearing in which he overruled three of the seven objections and ordered a hearing with respect to the remaining four which he concluded raised material issues of fact. The hearing was held on September 25 and November 1, 13, and 20, 1973. In his report issued January 24, 1974, the Hearing Officer recommended that Petitioner's Objection 3 be overruled, that Objections 2, 6, and 7 be sustained, and that the election be set aside and a second elec- tion directed. No exceptions were filed with respect to Objection 3. However, the Employer filed timely ex- ceptions to the Hearing Officer's report as it con- cerned Objections 2, 6, and 7, and on April 17, 1973, the Regional Director issued a Second Supplemental Decision and Order Directing Second Election in which he adopted the findings, conclusions, and rec- ommendations of the Hearing Officer. Thereafter, the Employer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Second Supple- mental Decision asserting that the Regional Director erred in sustaining Petitioner's Objections 2, 6, and 7. By telegraphic order dated May 9, 1974, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board granted the Employer's request for review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief. 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 case with respect to the issues under review, together with the brief, and hereby makes the following find- ings: . In'its Objection 2, Petitioner contends that "[tjhe Employer, by its agents, intimidated eligible voters with loss of employment opportunities if they sup- ported the Union." The'Hearing Officer sustained this objection on the basis of the testimony and affidavit of Petitioner's witness, Jack Watkins, who had worked as a janitor for the Employer from about June 1971 until his discharge on July 1, 1973. According to Watkins, on or about March 23, 1973, he and approxi- mately seven other employees were in the coffeeroom when Helen Price, the Employer's administrator of the Hospital, entered the room. Price posted on the bulletin board a letter which stated that she would no longer be working there, that she was going to be forced to resign, and that the employees would have another administrator. Watkins testified that Price was "all mad" and "quite flustered," and wanted to know which employee had written and posted an ear- lier letter which discussed the Union and referred to Price by name. Watkins further testified that Price then told those present that she was being forced to resign or quit, that she would no longer be working there, that they would have a new administrator, and that the employees who had joined or signed up with the Union would be fired by the new administrator, and she would sit back and laugh about it. Watkins also testified that 2 or 3 weeks after the March 23 conversation,' Price told him in the coffeeroom and later in the kitchen, in the presence of other employ- ees, that she had been fired and that she was sure the Union was not the answer. It was in the kitchen, ac- cording to Watkins, that Price said that she was held responsible for the Union coming in. The Hearing Officer credited Watkins' testimony and noted that neither Price, who had since left her employment, nor any other employee testified regarding the alleged in- cidents. The Hearing Officer concluded that Price's statement, that those employees who had joined or signed up with the Union would be fired by the new administrator, constituted objectionable conduct and recommended that Objections 2, 6, and 7 be sus- 1 In his report, the Hearing Officer inadvertently referred to this conversa- tion as having occurred on May 23 212 NLRB No. 77 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tained.2 We disagree. Contrary to the Hearing Officer and the Regional Director, we do not believe that the statements attri- buted to former Administrator Price, under the cir- cumstances in which they were made, were likely to interfere with the employees' selection of a bargaining representative. Although Watkins' testimony on the Price incidents was undenied, it is often confused and at times contradictory, particularly with respect to the dates on which Price uttered the alleged objectionable remarks and the place at which she made them. The only clear detail about Price's statements which emerges from Watkins' testimony is that, at the time the statements were made, Price was very emotional, spoke in a loud voice, and was almost in tears For these reasons, the employees, who were aware that Price's employment was about to be or had just been terminated, could reasonably interpret Price' s state- ments, whenever or wherever they were made, as an emotional reaction to her learning of her impending termination. In these circumstances, the employees could not reasonably feel threatened by either of Price's statements because she had informed them 2 Petitioner's Objection 6 alleges that the Employer, by its agents t hreat- ened to close the facility if the Union won the election Since Watkins' testimony does not support this allegation and the Hearing Officer cited no other credible testimony or evidence to support such a finding, we find that no such threat was made and shall overrule Objection 6 Petitioner's Objec- tion 7 is a general allegation that the Employer interfered with the employees' rights as guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act that she would no longer be in a position of authority. Furthermore, in view of the precipitate nature of Price's statements, the employees could reasonably interpret them as an expression of her personal opin- ion rather than a prediction of what would happen after her replacement was hired Therefore, for the above reasons and in light of the circumstances here- in, we find that neither the March 23 remarks attribut- ed to Price nor the statements assertly made by Price 2 or 3 weeks later to employees in the coffeeroom and/or the kitchen constitute objectionable conduct which would warrant setting aside the election. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the Decision of the Regional Director with respect to Petitioner's Objections 2, 6, and 7. As all Petitioner's objections have been overruled, and as the tally of ballots shows that Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid votes case, we shall-certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of valid votes have not been cast for Hospital and Institutional Workers, Local 250, Service Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend- ed.