Olympic Memorial Hospital, Decision 3317-B (PECB, 1990)
United Staff Nurses Union, Local 141
v. Olympia Memorial Hospital
DECISION
OF COMMISSION
This matter comes before the
Commission on timely objections to rulings, filed by the Washington State
Nurses Association (WSNA) under WAC 391-25-590(2) . The petitioner and District
1199NW received the greatest numbers of votes in an inconclusive election
conducted on November 3, 1989. The
Commission ordered that the runoff election be conducted immediately and that
certification be withheld pending a ruling on these objections.1 District
1199NW prevailed in the runoff election, and no additional objections have been
filed by any party.
1 Olympic
Memorial Hospital, Decision 3317-A (PECB, 1989).
WAC 391-25-650(l) (c) establishes the
time for filing of briefs or written arguments on objections filed pursuant to
WAC 391-25-590(2). No briefs or written
arguments have been received from any party.
The rulings at issue are:
1. The Executive Director's rejection, in Olympic
Memorial Hospital, Decision 3317 (PECB, 1989) of the WSNA's request for an
indefinite delay of these proceedings pending the outcome of federal court
litigation on the WSNA's claim that a "no raid" agreement exists
between the parties; and
2. The Executive Director's rejection, in a
letter to the parties, of the WSNA's request that the agency impound the
ballots cast by employees in six different cases now pending before the agency,
so that the election results in all such cases might be tallied simultaneously.
DISCUSSION
The Request for Indefinite Delay
The Commission has reviewed the
motions and arguments advanced by the WSNA on the claimed "no raid
agreement" prior to the election, the written statements filed by Local
141 and District 1199NW on that issue, and the objections themselves. We find no error.
The Direction of Election issued by
the Executive Director reviews the language of the document at issue, the
arguments advanced by the parties, the procedures followed by the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) where it is asked to delay representation
proceedings due to a "no raid" agreement, and the procedures followed
by this Commission up to this time in such cases.
The "no raid" agreement was,
at most, a contractual arrangement between its parties. The prevailing federal precedent in the 9th
Circuit holds that "treaties between two unions cannot override the Section
7 rights of workmen to select their own bargaining representative@. Local
1547, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Local 959,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, 507 F.2d 872 (9th Circuit, 1974).
Like Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, RCW 41.56.040
assures public employees the right to select representatives of their own
choosing. Thus, labor organizations
cannot contract among themselves to deprive this Commission of its statutory
authority to conduct representation proceedings.
The 9th Circuit precedent, supra,
also leaves the decision on whether to conduct representation proceedings in
such situations to the discretion of the agency administering the collective
bargaining statute. The document relied
upon by the WSNA does not contain any expeditious procedure for resolving the
WSNA's claims. The Executive Director
properly exercised discretion to go forward with the processing of this
representation case.
In claiming
that "predatory conduct" by the USNU (and/or by certain former WSNA
officials) destroyed the "laboratory conditions" for the conduct of a
fair election, the WSNA relies upon events that occurred prior to the filing of
the petition in this case. The scope of
"objections" under WAC 391-25-590 is limited to the period that the
representation petition is pending before the agency. During the election campaign period that is
subject to scrutiny here, the WSNA had an opportunity to fully apprise
bargaining unit employees of its claims of misconduct by the USNU or former
WSNA officials. Given these facts, we do
not find that grounds existed for the requested indefinite delay of the
election. Indeed, as the 9th Circuit has
suggested, the right of bargaining unit members to select a representative of
their own choosing is appropriately protected by allowing the election to
proceed while any issue of the WSNA's contractual rights vis-a-vis the USNU
and/or District 1199NW is resolved in federal court. (Id, 87 LRRM 3065).
The "Simultaneous Tally" Issue
With respect to the
"simultaneous tally" issue, the Commission has reviewed the WSNA's
motion, the Executive Director's letter ruling and the post-election
objections. Again, we find no error.
The Executive Director
detailed resource limitations which preclude conducting elections in six
hospitals at the same time. He went on
to state multiple reasons for rejecting an impound and simul-
taneous tally: 1) Provisions of WAC 391-25-550 calling for the issuance of a tally "upon the closing of the polls"; 2) the refusal of the NLRB to order a simultaneous tally on similar cases then pending before it, so that the influence of one election result upon others could not be avoided; (3) the delay necessary to bring a recently filed seventh case and any additional cases that might be filed up to the same point in the procedure; (4) the delay which would occur at Olympic Memorial Hospital while elections in larger units were being conducted; (5) the likelihood of a need for runoff elections; and (6) the absence of direct effect of one election result on the result in another case.
The delay inherent in the procedure suggested by the WSNA would have contravened our long-standing and recently re-affirmed policy favoring prompt conduct of representation elections. See: City of Redmond, Decision 1367-A (PECB, 1982) and Olympic Memorial Hospital, Decision 3317-A (PECB, 1989).
Finally, there could
have been no prejudice of the type feared by the WSNA in this case. The initial election was conducted and
tallied on the first day that the Commission held elections among the six cases
involved here. One other election was
held on that day. All of the other
elections came later.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The above-named petitioner
timely filed a petition for investigation of a question concerning
representation with the Public Employment Relations Commission, seeking
certification as exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of
the above-named employer. Said petition
was accompanied by a showing of interest which was administratively determined
by the Commission to be sufficient.
2. The organization listed above
as intervenor timely moved for intervention in the proceedings, and said notion
for intervention was granted.
3. These representation proceedings were
conducted by the Commission in the bargaining unit described as:
All registered nurses employed by Olympic Memorial Hospital as
registered nurses at its hospital
in Port Angeles,
Washington, excluding nurses employed as supervisors or in management, or as a CRNA, and all other employees.
All
proceedings were conducted under the supervision of the Commission in a manner
designed to afford the affected employees a free choice in the selection of an
exclusive bargaining representative. A
tally of the results was previously furnished to the parties and is attached
hereto.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. The Public Employment Relations
Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW.
The authority to conduct representation proceedings that is conferred upon the Commission by RCW 41.56.050 through .080 is not subject to limitation by contractual arrangements among labor organizations, so that the objection filed by the Washington State Nurses Association concerning its request for a delay of the proceedings is without merit.
The authority to conduct representation
proceedings that is conferred upon the Commission by RCW 41.56.050 through .080
is to be implemented by the expeditious conduct of elections under commission
policy and precedent, so that the objection filed by the Washington State
Nurses Association concerning its request for impounding and simultaneous tally
of ballots is without merit.
4. The unit
described in paragraph 3 of the foregoing findings of fact is an appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of RCW
41.56.060, and all conditions precedent to a certification have been met.
NOW,
THEREFORE, it is
CERTIFIED
The employees of the above-named employer in the appropriate bargaining unit described in paragraph 3 of the foregoing findings of fact have chosen:
District 1199NW, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO as their exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with their employer with respect to wages, hours and conditions of employment.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 29th day of January, 1990.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
JANET L. GAUNT, Chairperson
MARK C. ENDRESEN, Commissioner
JOSEPH F. QUINN, Commissioner