Extract
Virginia Mason Medical Center, 923 (2007)
Virginia Mason Medical Center and United Staff Nurses Union Local 141 a/w United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, CLC.1 Case 19CA29046
August 21, 2007DECISION AND ORDERBy Chairman Battista and Members Schaumber and KirsanowOn June 14, 2004, Administrative Law Judge Clifford H. Anderson issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel each filed exceptions, a supporting brief, an answering brief, and a reply brief.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judges rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.3In adopting the judges conclusion that the Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Union during the certification year, we agree with the judges finding that the Respondent failed to show that the Union engaged in inexcusable procrastination or otherwise manifested bad faith in delaying bargaining.The Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees on December 6, 2000. The Respondent tested the certification, which the District of Columbia Circuit ultimately upheld on May 28, 2002,4 enforcing the Boards bargaining order. To prepare for bargaining, the Union requested information on June 25; the Respondent supplied the information on June 27. On August 28, the Union requested that the Respondent meet to negotiate on October 1, 2, or 3. The Respondent accepted the first of these dates, and the parties began negotiations on October 1.Less than a year later, on September 24, 2003, the Respondent received a document titled Petition to Decertify the Union dated September 23, 2003, containing the signatures of 9 of the 18 unit employees. Based on this petition, the Respondent withdrew recognition from the Union on September 26, 2003.The judge found that the withdrawal of recognition violated Section 8(a)(5) on two separate grounds. First, rejecting the Respondents contention that the Union engaged in inexcusable procrastination or otherwise manifested bad faith in delaying bargaining, the judge found that the certification year began to run on October 1, 2002, and therefore that the Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition during the certification year. Second, citing Chelsea Industries, 331 NLRB 1648 (2000), enfd. 285 F.3d 1073 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the judge found that the Respondent was precluded from relying on the September 23 petition as a basis for withdrawing recognition because the petition predated the expiration of the certification year. We affirm the judges 8(a)(5) finding based on the first of these grounds.5Where an employer has refused to bargain with a certified union while pursuing its right to judicial review, the certification year begins on the date of the parties first bargaining session following final affirmance of the Boards Order, Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Co., 300 NLRB 278 (1990), enfd. 939 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1991), unless there is a significant delay in the start of bargaining attributable to inexcusable procrastination or other manifestation of bad faith on the part of the union, id. at 278 fn. 4. When the start of the certification year has been delayed because of litigation, some time can reasonably be allowed before the certification year begins for the union to reestablish contacts with unit employees to facilitate bargaining on their behalf. Id. at 278279 (quoting Dominguez Valley Hospital, 287 NLRB 149, 150 (1987), enfd. 907 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1990)).Here, there was nearly a year-and-a-half delay from certification until the court of appeals enforced the Boards bargaining order. Less than a month later, the Union requested information it needed for bargaining; and it sought bargaining within 2 months of receiving the requested information. The Respondent accepted the first bargaining date that the Union suggested. There is no evidence of bad faith on the Unions part. Nor is there evidence that the Respondent complained about delay or requested an earlier bargaining date. Four months passed from the courts enforcement of the bargaining order to the start of bargaining; but that delay does not strike us as inexcusably long to formulate information requests, to assimilate the information received, to reestablish contacts with unit employees, and to otherwise prepare for bargaining an initial contract. On this record, the Respondent has not shown that the de...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
