MultiCare Health System d/b/a Indigo Urgent Care

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Jan 18, 2019

19-RC-221006 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 18, 2019)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A INDIGO
URGENT CARE
Employer
and Case 19-RC-221006
UNION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND
DENTISTS AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND
MUNICIPALS EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 206 AFL-CIO
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction
of Election and his Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative are denied, as
they raise no substantial issues warranting review.1
JOHN F. RING, CHAIRMAN
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 18, 2019

1 In denying review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election, we emphasize
the fact, relied on by the Regional Director, that the Indigo unit tracks the Employer’s
administrative grouping of clinics, an element that the Employer does not contest. Compare
Exemplar, 363 NLRB No. 157, slip op at 4 (2016) (citing cases involving units that track the
Employer’s departmental or administrative lines) with Alamo Rent-A-Car, 330 NLRB 897, 898
(2000) (proposed unit was inappropriate when, among other factors, it did not conform to any
administrative function or grouping of the Employer’s operations).
We do not, however, rely on the Regional Director’s discussion of PCC Structurals, Inc.,
365 NLRB No. 160 (2017), as he correctly determined that the unit was appropriate under the
Board’s traditional multi-facility community of interest analysis. See Laboratory Corp. of
America Holdings, 341 NLRB 1079, 1082 (2004). In addition, we do not rely on his statement
that the Board considers functional integration and interchange to be “more important” factors in
assessing the propriety of a petitioned-for unit.