Sea Bay Manor Home For Adults, 739 (1980)

National Labor Relations Board

Docket Number: 29-CA-06572

Linked as:

Extract

Sea Bay Manor Home For Adults, 739 (1980)

SEA BAY MANOR HOME FOR ADULTS

Sea Bay Manor Home for Adults and Local 144,

Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home & Allied Health Services Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO. Case 29-CA-6572

December 15, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS

JENKINS AND PENELLO

On April 10, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the atached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs.

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.

The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.

The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to abide by its signed written agreement with the Union to submit all issues regarding wages, hours, and conditions of employment of its employees to binding arbitration, and by unilaterally changing the wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment of its employees without prior notice to the Union and without affording it an opportunity to bargain concerning such changes. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent did not violate the Act as alleged; therefore, he dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

The relevant facts are undisputed. After the Union was certified on June 24, 1977,1 Respondent and the Union engaged in six collective-bargaining sessions. At the first and second bargaining sessions, held in August and September 1977, respectively, the Union submitted written contract proposals to Respondent. Respondent rejected these proposals, contending that it could not afford the provisions regarding wage increases or contribution rates to certain benefit funds. Respondent's contract proposal was rejected by the Union at the third bargaining session in October. At the fourth bargaining session on December 7, Respondent reject...

See the full content of this document