Crestline Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 7, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 1439 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

CRESTL INE MEMORIAL. HOSPITAI. ASSOCIATION
Crestline Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. and
Ohio Nurses Association. Case 8-CA- 10750
August 7, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MIEMBE RS
JENKINS AND TRUESI)AI E
On May 26, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Russell M. King, Jr., issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in sup-
port thereof, and the Charging Party, herein also
called the Union, filed an answering brief. Thereaf-
ter, on May 18, 1979, in light of its decision in
Sierra Vista Hospital, Inc., 241 NLRB 631 (1979),
the Board issued an Order Remanding Proceeding
for Further Hearing,' for the sole purpose of re-
ceiving evidence as to whether or not the presence
of supervisors of the Respondent or of third parties
as officers in, on the board of directors of, or in
other positions of authority to speak for or bargain
on behalf of, the Charging Party, disqualifies that
association as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the Respondent's nonsupervisory nurses.
The hearing was scheduled for August 8, 1979, but
before that date the Respondent filed a motion to
cancel the hearing and to close the record on the
grounds that the parties did not desire to submit
further evidence on the issue or subject of the
remand. The Administrative Law Judge, on
August 10, 1979, issued the attached Supplemental
Decision.
On September 25, 1979, a Supplemental Order
issued which, in stating that no exceptions had
been filed, affirmed and adopted the findings of the
Administrative Law Judge as contained in the May
26, 1978, Decision, and accordingly ordered the
Respondent to take the action set forth In the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's recommended Order. As
noted above, exceptions had indeed been filed to
the May 26, 1978, Decision and the inadvertent
Supplemental Order was rescinded October 17,
1979.2
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.
i Member Truesdale would not have remanded this case for further
hearing in view of his dissenting opinion in Sierru Voiwr Itti pittal. Irnc
rup .
2 The Respoindent filed a motion for reconideratoni i of Board', Sup-
plemental Order on October IS. 19?9. to which the Chatrging P'art) filed
a memorandum in opposim ln In view of the rescimslo, l if that oirder. the
Respondent's mrotion is moot. antl we therefore dol not piss tn it
250 NLRB No. 28
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision and Supplemental Decision in
light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided
to affirm the rulings, findings. 3 and conclusions 4 of
the Administrative Law Judge, as modified herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by its insistence in December 1976
that the collective-bargaining agreement being ne-
gotiated expire with the certification year and by
its refusal to ratify and sign the agreement., In
making this finding, however, we rely upon Grace
and Hornbrook Manufacturing Company. et al., 225
NLRB 15, 17 (1976), in which the Board ruled that
an employer may lawfully insist on a contract ter-
minating with the certification year only when it
has a reasonable belief based on objective consider-
: I[he Repondent has excepted It certainl r edlihilt fiilingl mradll I hy
Ihe Adminlistralle I.av. Judge II is th IBoa,;rd's talhll ,hed po hic nol 1i.
ox errule an admilnistriaire liw ludge', resoluntilr , .rlthl lspect to credi
hlily unle',s the clear prep