University of Southern California, (2017)

Docket Number:31-CA-178831
 
FREE EXCERPT

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.

University of Southern California and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 721. Cases 31–CA–178831 and 31–CA–192125

June 7, 2017

DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND MCFERRAN

This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respondent is contesting the Union's certification as bargaining representative in the underlying representation proceeding. Pursuant to a charge and amended charges filed on June 20, July 14, and August 4, 2016, respectively, and a charge filed on January 26, 2017, by Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 721 (the Union), the General Counsel issued the consolidated complaint on February 9, 2017, alleging that University of Southern California (the Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing the Union's request to recognize and bargain with it following the Union's certification in Case 31–RC–164868. (Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(d). Frontier Hotel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the allegations in the complaint, and asserting affirmative defenses.

On March 17, 2017, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 20, 2017, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed a response and opposition to the motion for summary judgment, and the General Counsel filed a reply.

Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment

The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but contests the validity of the Union’s certification of representative on the basis of its contentions, raised and rejected in the underlying representation proceeding, that the certified unit is comprised of faculty who are managerial employees outside the coverage of the Act, and that the Board’s Final Rule regarding the Board’s election processes is invalid.

All representation issues raised by the Respondent were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence, nor has it shown any special cir-

cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding.1 We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any representation issue that is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).

Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.2

On the entire record, the Board makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. JURISDICTION

    At all material times, the Respondent has been a California corporation with an office and place of business in Los Angeles, California, and has been engaged in the business of providing higher education.

    In conducting its operations during the 12-month period ending December 24, 2015, the Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $1 million and purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $5000 directly from points located outside the State of California.

    We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and

    (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

  2. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

    1. The Certification

      Following the representation election held by mail ballot from January 13 through January 29, 2016, the Union

      1 In its response to the Notice to Show Cause and opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent argues that special...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP