Clare Community Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 31, 1985

273 N.L.R.B. 1755 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

CLARE HOSPITAL 1755 Clare Community Hospital and Michigan Nurses Association, Petitioner. Case 7-RC-16921 31 January 1985 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS The National Labor Relations Board has consid- ered objections to an election 1 held 27 May 1983 and the hearing officer's report recommending dis- position of them. The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and brief, and adopts the hearing officer's findings and recom- mendations, 2 as modified herein. By letter on 4 May 1983 the nursing staff of Clare Community Hospital was notified of the cre- ation of a Communications Task Force comprised of two supervisory RNs, the purpose of which was "to improve communication between Nursing and Administration and your supervisory staff" and "to assist your supervisors in assuring that you have access to the facts regarding the Michigan Nurses Association union and have answers to your ques- tions." Shortly thereafter, prior to the election, the Task Force sent a letter to the staff listing eight questions which had been asked by the nurses, and the respective answers. The subjects treated in this undated letter covered (1) the completion date for the nursing policies and procedures manual; (2) the procedure for seeing one's personnel file; (3) whether the Task Force would continue after the election; (4) a description of the existing procedure for filing a grievance; (5) an update on an ongoing study of ways to improve the pension plan; (6) a description of the existing policy on vacation re- 'The election was held 27 May 1983 pursuant to a Stipulation for Cer- tification Upon Consent Election. The tally was 12 votes for, and 22 votes against, the Petitioner; there were 4 challenged ballots, a number insufficient to affect the results. '-The Chairman and Member Hunter honor the parties' stipulation as to the appropriateness of the unit in this health care facility and note that they generally will accept unit stipulations in the health care field. In so doing, they recognize that acceptance of parties' unit stipulations fosters the statutory policy of encouraging the practice and procedure of collec- tive bargaining, permits the expeditious resolution of questions concern- ing representation, and is consistent with Congress' concern that disrup- tions in health care institutions caused by initial organization activities be minimized. They also recognize, however, that a stipulated unit may so substantially contravene the congressional admonition to avoid undue proliferation of units as to Increase significantly the likelihood of disrup- tion of health care. Furthermore, there may be situations when the stipu- lation is derived' from the mere convenience of the parties to the detn- ment of important rights and interests of the employees, or situations where the stipulation is otherwise contrary to the policies of the Act. In all such circumstances, the Chairman and Member Hunter will decline to honor the parties' stipulation since the public interest must outweigh the convenience of the private parties involved. 2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the hearing officer's recommendations to overrule Objections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, and to approve withdrawal of Objection 8. quests; (7) backup support for the intensive care and obstetrics units; and (8) Code Team assign- ments. The letter concluded with some general in- formation on past improvements at the hospital, and a statement that there will always be problems, but that they can be solved by "working together as a team" and "without third party intervention." After the election the Union filed objections, and a hearing was subsequently held thereon. Objection 4 alleges that the undated letter sent by the Task Force "contained the promise of benefit and refer- ence to the union election." The hearing officer de- termined that the Task Force was set up in direct response to the employees' efforts to organize and to improve communication with the employees. Without stating his specific reasons, the hearing of- ficer further found that, in sending the letters to the staff, the Employer solicited grievances and im- pliedly promised to remedy them, thereby engag- ing in objectionable conduct. The hearing officer added, however, that even if the employer was simply answering employee questions and had a procedure for filing grievances prior to the orga- nizing drive, that the formation of the Task Force itself represented a "radical alteration" of its method of communication; this alteration constitut- ed a grant of a new benefit, and therefore provided an alternative basis for setting aside the election. The Employer excepts to this finding, and we find merit in its exceptions. The Board has long held that the solicitation of employee grievances during an organizational cam- paign interferes with an election, as suCh conduct carries with it an inference that the employer is im- plicitly promising to remedy the grievances, there- by mitigating the employees perceived need for union representation. Reliance Electric Co., 191 NLRB 44 (1971). It is not the solicitation of griev- ances itself, however, that is objectionable, but the implied promise to correct them. Uarco Inc., 216 NLRB 1 (1974). An exception to this rule is recog- nized where the employer has had a past policy and practice of soliciting employee grievances. In such circumstances, the employer may continue the practice during the organizing drive, but may not significantly alter its past manner and method of solicitation. Carbonneau Industries, 228 NLRB 597 (1977). In the case before us, we find no solicitation of grievances, no promise of benefits, and no signifi- cant alteration in a past method of communication. Of the eight questions answered in the undated letter to the staff from the Task Force, the hearing officer found only one to be objectionable, and that dealt with the completion date for the nursing poli- cies and procedures manual. The hearing officer 273 NLRB No. 218 1756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD apparently viewed the inclusion of a target date for completion of the manual as the promise of a bene- fit. The testimony and the record evidence, howev- er, indicate that this project had been in the works for some time, well before the filing of the petition. The mere inclusion of a completion date (which the hearing officer erroneously noted as being before the election) does not constitute a "benefit" sufficient to interfere with the employees' free choice. Second, the evidence indicates that the Employ- er is a small hospital where people regularly change roles. The two supervisory RNs on the Task Force and others had participated in discus- sions of staff concerns in the past. Thus the "offi- cial" creation of the Task Force is not such a sig- nificant alteration in the method of communication so as to be perceived as a new "benefit" by the staff. Consequently, given the hearing officer's rec- ommendation to overrule the Petitioner's other ob- jections, the fact that he found the rest of the un- dated letter unobjectionable, and the absence of any other objectionable conduct on the part of the Employer, we will overrule Objection 4 and certi- fy the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal- lots have not been cast for the Michigan Nurses Association and that it is not the exclusive repre- sentative of these bargaining unit employees. MEMBER DENNIS, dissenting. I would overturn the election. During the criti- cal period, and in direct response to the Union's campaign, the Employer created a new, permanent, structured organization designed to improve com- munication between management and employees. I agree with the hearing officer that "the Employer radically altered and attempted to improve its method of communication with employees, thereby conferring a benefit upon them not previously en- joyed." The Employer's president John MacLeod told employees in his 4 May 1983 letter that lais a result of the union interest" among nurses "it has become apparent that there is a breakdown in com- munication." He announced that the board of di- rectors had therefore formed "a special, high-level 'Communications Task Force" to correct the prob- lem. MacLeod stated that the supervisory Task Force members Crafard and Vieau were available to provide immediate assistance, and invited em- ployees to telephone or page them. Later, in an un- dated letter issued before the election, Crafard and Vieau identified "questions and concerns" the em- ployees had raised. Their letter promised the Task Force would continue after the election "on a per- manent basis" and would include nonsupervisory personnel. My colleagues conclude that, because Crafard and Vieau had informally discussed employee con- cerns in the past, the Task Force would not be per- ceived as a benefit. I disagree. The Employer for the first time established a permanent committee to air and adjust grievances through formalized coop- eration between management and employees. The Employer emphasized its significant departure from past practice in letters to employees describing the Task Force, and the evidence confirms the Em- ployer's representations. Because the Task Force was a significant new benefit, which the Employer admittedly instituted lais a result of the union in- terest," I would order a new election.' ' In reaching this conclusion, I stress the structured, formal, and per- manent nature of the Task Force I would not ordinarily find an employ- er's generalized expressions of a desire for "better communications" to be a promise or grant of benefit