Extract
National Medical Enterprises, Inc., 950 (1970)
Doctors' Hospital of Modesto, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises, Inc.' and California Nurses' Association, affiliated with American Nurses' Association, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-8148
June 23, 1970 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTIONBY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Regional Director for Region 20, as modified by a Decision on Review issued by the Board on April 14, 1969 (175 NLRB 354), an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 12, 1969, under the Regional Director's direction and supervision, among the employees in the unit found appropriate. Of approximately 64 eligible voters, 60 cast ballots, of which 13 were for, and 18 against, the Petitioner, and 29 ballots were challenged.' The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election.In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on June 9, 1969, issued and duly served on the parties an order and notice of hearing, in which he ordered a hearing to resolve the issues raised by the challenges. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held on June 17 and 18, 1969, before Hearing Officer David F. Sargent. All parties participated and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.On August 22, 1969, the Hearing Officer issued and duly served on the parties his Report and Recommendation on Challenged Ballots, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he recommended that the challenges to the ballots of employees Mildrum and Brohm be sustained and that the remaining 27 challenges be overruled.' The name of the Employer appears as amended by the parties' stipulationofJuly 17, 1969 ' At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which accurately reflected the votes cast for and against the Petttioner, but incorrectly showed the number of ballots cast and challenged as being 59 and 28, respectively See also fn 4, infra ' A discussion of our reasons for affirming the Hearing Officer's overruling of the Employer's objections to the admission of evidence pertaining to the duties and responsibilities of the charge nurses on the hospital's A, B.C, and D wings appears, infra, in our separate determination of the status of these charge nurses a In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the ballot of Eudora Kruppa be included in the count of ballots cast and considered on its merits as a challenged ballot, and his further recommendation that the challenges to the ballots of Mary Bdltngton, Virginia Josselyn, Jean Sorensen, and Edna Van Laar be overThereafter, both parties filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report, together wi...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
