Valley Medical Center, Decision 3312-A (PECB, 1990)
United Staff Nurses Union, Local 141
v. Valley Medical Center
CERTIFICATION
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). District 1199NW and the WSNA received the
greatest numbers of votes in an inconclusive election conducted on November 3,
1989. The Executive Director properly
disregarded certain "conduct" objections filed by the WSNA under WAC
391-25590(l) as premature, and proceeded with the conduct of the runoff
election. District 1199NW prevailed in
the runoff election. No additional
objections were filed by any party, but certification was withheld pending a
ruling on these objections by the Commission.
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 Valley
Medical Center, Decision 3312 (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 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 smaller hospitals while elections were being
conducted in larger units, such as at Valley Medical Center; (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). We note that a certification has already issued in another of the larger hospitals, Stevens Memorial Hospital, in the absence of similar objections.
FINDINGS OF FACT
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 full-time, regular part-time and per-diem
registered nurses employed by Valley Medical Center, excluding nurse educators,
employee health nurses, supervisors, administrative personnel, 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:
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