Prime Healthcare Services - Encino, LLC dba Encino Hospital Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Feb 25, 2014

31-CA-066061 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 25, 2014)

1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-ENCINO, LLC
D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
and Cases 31-CA-066061
31-CA-070323
SEIU LOCAL 121RN
and Case 31-CA-080554
SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS-WEST
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES-GARDEN GROVE, LLC
D/B/A GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER
and Case 21-CA-080722
SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS-WEST
ORDER1
The Unions’ request for special permission to appeal the October 29 and
December 4, 2013 Orders of Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind, denying
their motions for reconsideration and motion to strike, respectively, are denied. The
Unions have failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion.2

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 Chairman Pearce and Member Schiffer note that the Respondent’s burden of
establishing a conflict of interest as an affirmative defense is a heavy one requiring,
inter alia, a showing of a clear and present danger of interfering with the collective
bargaining process. Beverly Enterprises North Dakota, Inc. d/b/a Garrison Nursing
Home, 293 NLRB 122 (1989); Western Great Lakes Pilots Association, 341 NLRB 272
(2004). They further note that the Board has not recognized, as a defense to such a
refusal to bargain allegation, the type of claims asserted by the Respondent in this case.
Indeed, the Respondent’s claims center on union and other protected activities that the
2
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 25, 2014.
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER

Board has long recognized serve unions’ legitimate interests. See, e.g., Montauk Bus
Co., 324 NLRB 1128, 1136-1137 (1997) (union’s solicitation of school district to cancel
nonunion employer’s contract and reassign work to union contractor was protected and
did not create a disabling conflict of interest); see generally Aztech Electric Co., 335
NLRB 260, 270 (2001) (Members Liebman and Walsh, concurring) (discussing the wide
scope of protected activity in relation to the narrow scope of the “disabling conflict”
defense). However, under the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, the
Unions failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion by failing to grant their
motion to strike the affirmative defense or by denying their motions for reconsideration,
which require a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Sec. 102.48(d)(1) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations.