American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Apr 19, 2012

28-RC-074676 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE
AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.
Employer
and Case 28-RC-74676
NATIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ASSOCIATION
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and
Direction of Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
SHARON BLOCK, MEMBER
Member Flynn, dissenting:
I would grant review. Procedurally, I disagree with my colleagues that the
Employer failed to object to the hearing officer’s exclusion of the Employer’s evidence
showing the extent to which its relief supervisors exercise Section 2(11) authority. The
Employer drew the Regional Director’s attention to the relevant procedural facts, which
speak for themselves. But even assuming otherwise, the Employer certainly raises the
procedural issue to us, and I would treat that aspect of its request for review as,
effectively, a motion to reopen the record, which I would grant. Substantively, the
Employer contends, based on the evidence the hearing officer improperly rejected, that its
relief supervisors are part-time supervisors under the Board’s "regular and substantial"

1
We find that the issue of whether the hearing officer erred in not receiving the Employer’s proffered
evidence into the record is not properly before us because the Employer did not assert, in its post-hearing
brief to the Regional Director, that the hearing officer erred by refusing to accept the evidence.
Nonetheless, even assuming that the hearing officer erred in closing the record without receiving the
Employer’s evidence, we have reviewed the record, including the documents appended to the Employer’s
brief, and find that this evidence would not warrant a result different than that reached by the Regional
Director.
test. I agree that the relief supervisors exercise Section 2(11) authority a substantial
amount of the time. Whether they also do so on a sufficiently regular basis under
applicable Board precedent presents a more difficult factual and legal issue. I would
grant review to take a closer look.
TERENCE F. FLYNN, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 19, 2012.