Hanford House Health Care

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 188 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
First Health Care Corporation d/b/a Hanford House
Health Care and Hospital & Institutional Workers
Local 250, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-11503
April 25, 1974
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, executed by the parties and
approved by the Acting Regional Director on August
3, 1973, an election by secret ballot was conducted
on September 5, 1973, under the direction and
supervision of the Acting Regional Director for
Region 20, among the employees in the unit
described below. At the conclusion of the election,
the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which
showed that, of approximately 54 eligible voters, 47
cast ballots , of which 35 were for, and 1\1 against, the
Petitioner . There were no challenged ba lots and one
void ballot.
On September 12, 1973, the Employer iled timely
objections to the election. The Acting Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the objections
and thereafter, on November 8, 1973, issued and
served on the parties her Report on Objections. In
her report, the Acting Regional Director recom-
mended that the Employer's objections be overruled
in their entirety, and that the Petitioner be certified
as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit described below. Thereafter,
the Employer filed timely 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 entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of the employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I E.g, Hobart Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 203; International Shoe
Company, 123 NLRB 682, Northlake Convalescent Hospital, 173 NLRB 992,
Sprague Ponce Company, 181 NLRB 281; National Electric Cori Div.
McGraw Edison, 184 NLRB 691
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer at its Hanford,
California, operations, excluding registered nurs-
es, office clericals, guards, watchmen and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the objections, the
Acting Regional Director's report, and the Employ-
er's exceptions, and hereby adopts the Acting
Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations.
In our opinion, the exceptions raise no material
and substantial issues of fact or law which warrant
reversal of the findings and recommendations of the
Acting Regional Director.
In the course of the Acting Regional Director's
investigation, it appears that the Employer submitted
a letter distributed by the Petitioner as additional
grounds for objections not raised in its objections.
The Board has repeatedly set aside elections based
on conduct uncovered during the course of its
investigation, but not specifically raised in timely
filed objections.' However, we find that the Employ-
er's exceptions raise no material issue that warrants
reversal of the Acting Regional Director. The
evidence offered to the Acting Regional Director in
support of the supplemental objections did not
constitute prima facie evidence which would justify
setting aside the election.2
In its exceptions, the Employer asserts that a letter
contained two statements which support its supple-
mental objections. One was a statement in the letter
that "many of the workers at Hacienda earn $43.00
more per month than workers at Hanford House."
The Employer contends that this statement "consti-
tutes improper puffing." The letter was issued on
August 13, 1973. The election was held on September
5, 1973. There is no contention that the Employer
was precluded from making an effective reply for the
employees' evaluation of the alleged "puffing." The
other point urged by the Employer is a statement in
the letter that the "initial fee of $25.00 will be waived
for anyone working at Hanford House on the
effective date of any contract we negotiate." We do
not regard this announcement as a basis for setting
aside the election.3 Accordingly, we concluded that
the Acting Regional Director was not required to
2 Orleans Manufacturing Company, 120 NLRB 630; N L.R.B. v O K. Van
Storage, Inc, 297 F.2d 74 (C A 5, 1961).
3 Irwindale Division, Lau Industries, A Division of Phillips Industries, Inc.,
210 NLRB No 42.
210 NLRB No. 44
HANFORD HOUSE HEALTH CARE
further investigate the supplemental objections or
consider them in her report.4
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that Hospital & Institutional
Workers Local 250, Service Employees International
Union , AFL-CIO, has been delegated and selected
by a majority of the employees of First Health Care
Corporation d/b/a Hanford House Health Care in
189
the unit found above appropriate as their representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining and
that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organiza-
tion is the exclusive representative of all employees in
such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
4 Lazzara Products, Inc, 178 NLRB 204.