Memorial Hospital of Salem County

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Feb 22, 2011

04-RC-021697 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 22, 2011)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SALEM HOSPITAL CORPORATION a/k/a THE
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF SALEM COUNTY
Employer
and Case 4-RC-21697
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND ALLIED
EMPLOYEES (HPAE)
Petitioner
ORDER
The Petitioner’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal is granted. Having
carefully considered the Special Appeal, we find merit in the Petitioner’s contention. We
therefore reverse the Regional Director’s determination to set the Employer’s Objections
1-16 for hearing and remand the proceeding for further consideration.
In her initial Decision and Direction of Election, the Regional Director
determined, among other things, that the Employer’s RNs who served as charge nurses
were not statutory supervisors.1 On December 9, 2010, the Board denied the Employer’s
Request for Review on this and other issues.2
The Petitioner won the election, 73-48, with 21 nondeterminative challenges. The
Employer filed 20 objections. After a preliminary investigation, the Regional Director
issued a Notice of Hearing on Objections to Election, and set 19 objections for hearing.3
Subsequently, the Regional Director issued an Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated
Complaint and Notice of Hearing, in which the objections case was consolidated with an
unfair labor practice case. That case is set for hearing on February 22, 2011.4
The Petitioner now seeks special permission to appeal the Regional Director’s
decision to send to hearing 16 of the objections. The Petitioner asserts that all of those

1 The Regional Director found that two charge nurses in the Surgical Services Unit -- Strang and
Nardelli -- were statutory supervisors because they used independent judgment in assigning
patients to nurses. There was no request for review of this finding.
2 In addition to the supervisory issue, the Board also denied review on the following broad issues:
whether the Regional Director erred in refusing to treat the Employer’s unfair labor practice
charge as a blocking charge and in refusing to transfer this case to another region; whether the
Hearing Officer closed the hearing prematurely and was biased/prejudiced against the Employer;
and whether the Board’s Healthcare Rule is inconsistent with Section 9(c) (5) of the Act.
3 The Employer withdrew Objection 17.
4 The Petitioner states that it is withdrawing the unfair labor practice charges that form the basis
for the complaint. We have been administratively advised that the charges have been withdrawn.
2
objections are based on matters previously raised and decided when the Board denied the
Employer’s Request for Review. We find merit in the Petitioner’s contention.
A hearing on objections is required with respect to objections that raise substantial
and material factual issues. Rules and Regulations, Sec. 102.69(d). However, where
there are no such issues, a hearing is not warranted. American Medical Response, 356
NLRB No. 42, slip op. at 1 n. 2 (2010). This is especially so where the objections are
based on matters on which the Board has already ruled. To allow relitigation of such
issues without new or previously unavailable evidence wastes scarce resources on issues
that have been settled.
Here, the Employer’s Objections 1-16 are based on contentions on which the
Board denied review. Objections 3-16 specifically state that the Board erred in denying
review on the issue. The Regional Director stated that the Employer was relying on the
record in the pre-election proceeding to support these objections. Objections 1 and 2 are
based on contentions of supervisory status, on which the Board has already ruled. In
these circumstances, we find that there are no substantial and material factual issues that
would warrant a hearing. Accordingly, we remand this proceeding to the Regional
Director for further consideration consistent with this Order.5
WILMA B. LIEBMAN, CHAIRMAN
CRAIG BECKER, MEMBER
BRIAN E. HAYES, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 22, 2011

5 Member Hayes concurs in granting the special appeal to the extent that it seeks to preclude re-litigation
of matters previously decided by the Board’s denial of the Employer’s request for review.