Veritas Health Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
399 U.S. App. D.C. 434
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- By early 2010, UNCA/Union sought to represent nurses at Veritas-Chino Valley Medical Center and needed authorization cards from at least 30% of employees.
- The Union recruited both registered nurses and charge nurses, with some charge nurses signing cards and expressing pro-Union views.
- Charge nurses, who supervise RNs, actively encouraged others to support the Union.
- On March 5, 2010, the parties stipulated that the charge nurses were statutory supervisors and could not vote; Veritas subsequently promoted Gilliatt and Silva.
- Gilliatt and Silva campaigned against the Union during election week, including personalized letters urging a “no” vote.
- The Union won the election (72 in favor, 39 against, plus four contested ballots) and Veritas refused to bargain; the Board certified the Union and later held Veritas had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did charge nurses' pro-union conduct taint the election? | Veritas argues conduct coerced employees and invalidated the election. | NLRB contends conduct did not materially interfere with free choice. | No reversible interference; Harborside framework upheld Board's finding. |
| Did mitigating actions by Gilliatt/Silva negate initial coercion? | Veritas argues initial conduct was coercive. | Board considered subsequent anti-union campaigning mitigating. | Mitigated conduct did not warrant overturning the election; Board's decision stands. |
| Were the ALJ's evidentiary rulings proper? | Veritas challenges redactions and exclusion of certain testimony. | Board found no abuse of discretion protecting confidentiality and excluding irrelevant testimony. | No abuse of discretion; rulings affirmed. |
| Is the unfair labor practice charge timely? | Veritas argues untimeliness based on April 2010 incident. | New refusal to bargain constitutes a new violation; timely filing in 2011. | Timely; charge filed within six months of new refusal to bargain. |
Key Cases Cited
- U-Haul Co. of Nevada v. NLRB, 490 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (standard for interference with free choice in representation elections)
- Northeast Iowa Telephone Co., 346 N.L.R.B. 465 (N.L.R.B. 2006) (supervisor conduct may be non-coercive; Harborside framework applied)
- Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 N.L.R.B. 906 (N.L.R.B. 2004) (two-prong Harborside test for supervisor conduct)
- SNE Enterprises, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. 1041 (N.L.R.B. 2006) (mitigating effect of later conduct on coercion)
- Madison Square Garden CT, LLC, 350 N.L.R.B. 117 (N.L.R.B. 2007) (communication context affects coercion assessment)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 641, 417 U.S. 790 (U.S. 1974) (supervisors may be discharged for union activity)