Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Southern California Permanente Med

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 2011

32-RC-005775 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC;
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS;
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP; THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP, INC.
Employers
and Case 32-RC-5775
NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS
Petitioner
and
SEIU-UHW (SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
HEALTHCARE WORKERS—WEST)
Intervenor
ORDER
The Petitioner filed exceptions to the Acting Regional
Director’s Report and Recommendations on Objections and
Notice of Hearing, involving objections to a mail ballot
election held between September 13 and October 4, 2010.1 In
his Report, the Acting Regional Director ordered that
certain objections warranted a hearing and recommended that
others be overruled without a hearing. In its exceptions,
the Petitioner contends that the Acting Regional Director
erred by recommending overruling certain of its objections
without a hearing.2

On July 14, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Lana Parke
issued a report and recommendations on the objections that
were set for hearing, recommending that the election in

1 The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 11,
364 for the Petitioner, 18, 290 for the Intervenor, 365 for neither, 1, 222 void ballots, and 276 challenged
ballots, a number insufficient to affect the results of the election.
2 The Petitioner excepted to the Acting Regional Director’s recommendation to overrule Objections 1 (part
two), 4, 10, 13, 15, 18, 32, 39 (in part), 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 62, 68, 88, and 92.
2
this case be set aside and a new election held. On July
27, 2011, the Employers and Intervenor filed motions to
remand this case to the Regional Director for the
scheduling of a new election. On August 10, 2011, the
Board3 granted the Employers’ and the Intevenor’s Motions to
Remand this case to the Regional Director for further
appropriate action, including the scheduling of a new
election.4
In view of this remand, the exceptions filed by the
Petitioner to the Acting Regional Director’s Report and
Recommendations on Objections and Notice of Hearing are
moot.5
WILMA B. LIEBMAN, CHAIRMAN
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
BRIAN E. HAYES, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 16, 2011.

3 Member Becker was recused and did not participate in the consideration of the Motions to Remand.
4 The Motions stated that the Employers and the Intervenor will not file exceptions to Administrative Law
Judge Lana Parke’s Report and Recommendations on Objections; they waive their rights to a decision by
the Board on the objections filed by the Petitioner; and they agree to the setting aside of the election held in
this case and proceeding to a second election.
5 Member Becker is recused and did not participate in the consideration of this case.