Mason General Hospital, Decision 3319-A (PECB, 1990)
DECISION OF COMMISSION
This matter comes before the Commission on timely objections to prior 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 6, 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 Mason General Hospital, Decision 3319 (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 unions involved here; and
2. The Executive Director's rejection, in a
letter to the parties, of the WSNA's request that the Commission impound the
ballots cast by employees in six different pending cases, so that the election
results in all such cases might be tallied and announced 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 l 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
1 District
1199NW filed written statements of position on similar issues in a number of
other cases where it has intervened in representation proceedings initiated by
Local 141. It consistently opposed the
WSNA's motion in those cases.
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 U8NU 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 Mason General 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).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The above-narned 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 organizations listed
above as intervenor timely moved for intervention in the proceedings, and said
motions for intervention were granted.
3. These representation
proceedings were conducted by the Commission in the bargaining unit described
as:
All registered nurses and resident general duty
nurses employed by the employer, excluding supervisors, confidential employees
and all other employees.
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
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.
NGW, 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