Community Hospital of Sacramento

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Community Medical Properties Ltd., d/b/a Commu-
nity Hospital of Sacramento and California Nurses
Association, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-12399
June 16, 1975
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election executed by the parties and
approved by the Regional Director for Region 20 of
the National Labor Relations Board on November 8,
1974, an election by secret ballot was conducted in
the above-entitled proceeding on December 27, 1974,
under the direction and supervision of said Regional
Director.' Thereafter, a runoff election was conduct-
ed on January 23,,1975. Upon the conclusion of the
runoff election, a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties in accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations.
The tally of ballots for the runoff election shows
that there were approximately 25 eligible voters and
that 22 ballots were cast, of which 12 were for, and 10
were against, the Petitioner.
On January 30, 1975, the Employer filed objections
to the election.2 Thereafter, on March 13, 1975, the
Acting Regional Director issued and served on the
parties her Report on Objections. In her report, the
Acting Regional Director recommended to the
Board that Objection 1 be overruled and that an
appropriate certification be issued.
On April 2, 1975, the Board, having received no
exceptions to the, Acting Regional Director's Report
on Objections, issued a Decision and Certification of
Representative in the above-entitled proceeding
adopting the Acting Regional Director's recommen-
dations. Thereafter, on April 14, 1975, the Board
received a letter from counsel for the Employer
advising that the exceptions and brief in support
were mailed to the Board in a timely fashion but
apparently were lost in the mails, and that it was
submitting additional copies. The Regional Office
had advised that the exceptions were timely received
in that office. Therefore, on April 16, 1975, by
direction of the Board, the Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representative was rescinded to afford the
Board an opportunity to consider the Employer's
1 The tally, of ballots for the first election shows that there were
approximately 26 eligible voters and 20 ballots were cast , of which 10 were
for the Petitioner and 10 were against the participating labor organizations.
No ballots were cast for the Intervenor, Hospital & Institutional Workers
Local 250, SEIU, AFL-CIO.
timely filed 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 basis of the entire record in the case, the
Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. As stipulated by the parties, the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All Registered Nurses employed by the Employer
at its Sacramento, California hospital; excluding
Head Nurses, Relief Supervisors, Director of
Nursing Services, Assistant Director of Nursi g
Services, In-Service Education Instructor, Surgery
Supervisor, Emergency Room Supervisor, Day
Supervisor, Evening Supervisor, Night Supervisor,
Director of Admissions-Admitting Nurse-Uti-
lization Review Nurse, Discharge Coordinator-
Infection Control Nurse, Community Health
Coordinator, and all other employees, managerial
employees, office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations.
We find no merit in the Employer's contention that
a runoff election is inappropriate under Section
9(c)(3) of the Act where no votes were cast for a
union which was one of three choices. No basis
appears for the construction which the Employer
places on Section 9(c)(3) of the Act. That section
provides:
In any election where none of the choices on the
ballot receives a majority, a run-off shall be
conducted, the ballot providing for a selection
between the two choices receiving the largest and
second largest number of valid votes cast in the
election.
2 By letter dated February 11 , 1975, the Employer withdrewobjection 2.
It appears to us that the Employer 's Objection I is untimely as it should
have been raised prior to the runoff election . However, as this was not
raised by the parties or considered by the Acting Regional Director, we base
our decision herein on the merits.
218 NLRB No. 98
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF SACRAMENTO
Section 102.70(d) of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides:
In the event two or more choices receive the same
number of ballots and another choice receives no
ballots and there are no challenged ballots that
would affect the results of the election, and if all
eligible voters have cast valid ballots, there shall be
no runoff election and a certification of results of
election shall be issued. [Emphasis supplied.]
As none of the choices on the ballot received a
majority here, a runoff election was required under
Section 9(c)(3) of the Act. Section 102.70(d) of the
Rules and Regulations precludes a runoff election
upon a tally of ballots similar to that present here
only if "all eligible voters have cast valid ballots."
Such was not the case here as six eligible voters had
not cast ballots in the initial election. Under these
circumstances, a runoff election is not precluded.3
3 See W. Shanhouse Sons, Inc., 100 NLRB 604 (1952), involving an
identical situation , in which the Board held that it was appropriate to
conduct a runoff election pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations
where the ballots cast for one union equaled those cast against the
517
Accordingly, Objection 1 is hereby overruled.
As the Petitioner received a majority of the valid
ballots cast, we shall certify the said labor organiza-
tion as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit hereinabove found appropri-
ate.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for California Nurses Associa-
tion and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the said
labor organization is the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the unit found appropriate
herein for the purposes of collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment.
participating labor organizations and no ballots were cast for the second
union on the ballot. As in the instant proceeding , not all eligible voters had
cast ballots in the initial election.