Mid-Valley Hospital, Decision 3320-A (PECB, 1990)
United Staff Nurses Union, Local 141
v. Mid-Valley 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 received a conclusive majority
of the ballots cast in a representation election conducted on November 3,
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 Mid
Valley Hospital, Decision 3320 (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 statement filed by
Local 141 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 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 postelection 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 simultaneous 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 Mid-Valley 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 election was conducted and tallied in this case 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.
The organization listed above as intervenor timely moved for intervention in the proceedings, and said motion for intervention was granted.
3. These representation proceedings were conducted by the Commission in the bargaining unit described as:
All registered nurses employed by Mid-Valley Hospital, excluding supervisors, nurse practitioners and all other employees of the employer.
4. 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.
2. 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:
UNITED STAFF NURSES UNION, LOCAL 141
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