Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01107/USCOURTS-caDC-11-01107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals, NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Intervenor for Respondent
Veritas Health Services, Inc.
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 1, 2011 Decided March 13, 2012

No. 11-1107

VERITAS HEALTH SERVICES, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS CHINO 

VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

PETITIONER

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

RESPONDENT

UNITED NURSES ASSOCIATIONS OF CALIFORNIA/UNION OF 

HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS, NUHHCE, AFSCME,

AFL-CIO,

INTERVENOR

Consolidated with 11-1127

On Petition for Review

and Cross-Application for Enforcement 

of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board

Theodore R. Scott argued the cause for petitioner. With 

him on the briefs was Edward F. Berbarie. Steven L. Rahhal

entered an appearance.

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 1 of 13
2

Barbara A. Sheehy, Attorney, National Labor Relations 

Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief 

were John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Linda 

Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Jill A. 

Griffin, Supervisory Attorney. Ruth E. Burdick, Attorney, 

entered an appearance.

Lisa C. Demidovich argued the cause for intervenor 

United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health 

Care Professionals, NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, in 

support of respondent.

Before: GARLAND and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges, and 

RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

KAVANAUGH.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: In an April 2010 union 

election, registered nurses working for Veritas Health 

Services voted to make the United Nurses Associations of 

California/Union of Health Care Professionals their

bargaining representative. But Veritas would not bargain 

with the Union because Veritas claimed that pro-Union 

conduct by supervising charge nurses had coerced the 

registered nurses’ votes and tainted the election. Rejecting 

Veritas’s claims, the National Labor Relations Board certified 

the Union and found that Veritas had committed an unfair 

labor practice by refusing to bargain. Veritas has petitioned

for review in this Court. We conclude that precedent and 

substantial evidence support the Board’s conclusions. We 

therefore deny Veritas’s petition and grant the Board’s crossapplication for enforcement of its order.

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 2 of 13
3

I

By early 2010, the United Nurses Associations of 

California/Union of Health Care Professionals organized a 

campaign to represent the nurses at the Chino Valley Medical 

Center, a community hospital operated by Veritas Health 

Services. In order for the Union to successfully petition the 

National Labor Relations Board to hold an election, the Union

needed cards authorizing representation from 30% of 

employees. See 29 C.F.R. § 101.18(a).

In seeking the necessary authorization cards, the Union 

reached out to registered nurses. It also contacted charge 

nurses. Charge nurses supervise registered nurses by, among 

other things, directing and assigning work to registered 

nurses.

The Union’s efforts to recruit charge nurses succeeded. 

Several charge nurses signed authorization cards, met with 

Union representatives, and attended Union meetings. Some 

also expressed pro-Union sympathies.

Some of the charge nurses actively encouraged 

subordinate registered nurses to support the Union. The two 

charge nurses who most actively promoted the Union were 

Angelica Silva and Cheryl Gilliatt. Silva talked to six

registered nurses about future Union meetings, forwarding 

text-message reminders to some and approaching others in 

person to ask if they planned to attend. Gilliatt did even 

more. She told about 10 registered nurses to attend the 

Union’s meetings, saying, for example, “You need to attend 

after work today.” Hr’g Tr. 310, May 26, 2010. And she 

encouraged them to sign authorization cards, asking, for 

example, “Have you signed a card? When are you planning 

on going? You only have until Sunday, and you need to go 

and sign the card.” Id. at 328.

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 3 of 13
4

On February 22, 2010, after collecting the necessary 

authorization cards, the Union petitioned the National Labor 

Relations Board to hold an election. The election was 

scheduled for April 1 and 2, 2010.

On March 5, the parties stipulated that these charge 

nurses were supervisors under the National Labor Relations 

Act. As a result, the charge nurses could not vote in the 

election. After the stipulation, charge nurses apparently 

stopped most of their pro-Union conduct. Soon thereafter,

moreover, Veritas promoted Gilliatt and Silva to managerial 

positions. Perhaps not coincidently, both Gilliatt and Silva 

then actively opposed the Union. Gilliatt told 20 to 30 

registered nurses that she no longer supported the Union. 

Silva told four registered nurses the same thing. And during 

election week, both signed letters – personalized for every 

registered nurse and printed on company letterhead – that

urged the registered nurses to vote against the Union:

Thursday, April 1 and Friday, April 2, 2010 are very 

important dates for you, your family and the hospital. 

It’s very important that you vote and please remember 

your vote is secret.

We’ve already seen the union’s misrepresentation, 

bullying tactics and the divisiveness that has resulted. In 

contrast, we have been open and honest with you and 

provided only factual information to help you make an 

informed decision.

We the Chino Family enjoy our relationship and hope to 

maintain a union free environment. Please vote no on 

Thursday, April 1 and Friday, April 2, 2010.

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 4 of 13
5

Letter from Chino Valley Medical Center, Joint Appendix 

653. The letters were distributed to most of the registered 

nurses.

The Union won the election, with 72 votes in favor of the 

Union and 39 votes against (plus four contested ballots).

Veritas filed objections with the Board, claiming that the 

charge nurses’ pro-Union conduct had tainted the election by 

coercing and interfering with the free choice of the registered 

nurses they supervised. After a multi-day hearing, the 

Administrative Law Judge ruled against Veritas. The Board 

adopted the ALJ’s opinion and certified the Union. The next 

day, the Union sent Veritas a letter asking Veritas to bargain 

collectively. Veritas refused, saying the certification was 

illegitimate because the election was invalid. The day after 

that, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge for 

refusing to bargain. Because the Board had already upheld

the election, it rejected Veritas’s claims and found that Veritas 

committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain with 

the Union. Veritas has petitioned this Court for review, and 

the Board has cross-applied for enforcement of its order.

II

An employer must bargain collectively with a union that 

is duly certified as the employees’ bargaining representative. 

If the employer refuses to do so, it commits an unfair labor 

practice under Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations 

Act. 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5). “An employer who violates 

section 8(a)(5) also derivatively violates section 8(a)(1), 

which makes it unlawful for an employer ‘to interfere with, 

restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of’ their statutory 

labor rights.” Regal Cinemas, Inc. v. NLRB, 317 F.3d 300, 

309 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)).

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 5 of 13
6

Here, Veritas admits that it refused to bargain collectively 

with the Union. But it defends its refusal to bargain on the 

ground that the Union should not have been certified. 

Specifically, Veritas argues that the charge nurses’ pro-Union 

conduct made the union election invalid.

A

Our review of this kind of NLRB decision is narrow. 

“We must uphold the judgment of the Board unless, upon 

reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the Board’s 

findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or that the 

Board acted arbitrarily or otherwise erred in applying 

established law to the facts of the case.” Wayneview Care 

Center v. NLRB, 664 F.3d 341, 348 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citation 

omitted). In the specific context of a representation election, 

we “will set aside a representation election only if the 

petitioning party demonstrates that the conduct complained of 

interfered with the employees’ exercise of free choice to such 

an extent that it materially affected the election.” U-Haul Co. 

of Nevada v. NLRB, 490 F.3d 957, 961 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

(citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

Under that standard, the question here is whether the proUnion conduct of the charge nurses rose to the level of 

interference with the registered nurses’ exercise of free 

choice.

In analyzing that question, we begin by noting that this 

case presents the unusual situation of a supervisor alleged to 

have engaged in improper interference in support of a union. 

The National Labor Relations Act excludes supervisors from 

its definition of “employee.” See 29 U.S.C. § 152(3). An 

employer thus has “the right to discharge such supervisors 

because of their involvement in union activities or union 

membership.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Int’l 

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 6 of 13
7

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 641, 417 U.S. 790, 

808 (1974). Given that reality, supervisors do not usually 

engage in pro-union activities against the wishes of 

management. But the issue of pro-union conduct by a 

supervisor sometimes arises when it was unclear or disputed 

at the time of the pro-union activity whether the employee 

was a statutory supervisor. See, e.g., Northeast Iowa 

Telephone Co., 346 N.L.R.B. 465, 466 (2006); Terry Machine 

Co., 332 N.L.R.B. 855, 855-56 (2000).

When faced with pro-union conduct by supervisors, the 

Board uses a two-pronged test – known as the Harborside test

– to decide whether the conduct requires setting aside the 

election:

(1) Whether the supervisor’s prounion conduct 

reasonably tended to coerce or interfere with the 

employees’ exercise of free choice in the election.

This inquiry includes: (a) consideration of the nature and 

degree of supervisory authority possessed by those who 

engage in the prounion conduct; and (b) an examination 

of the nature, extent, and context of the conduct in 

question.

(2) Whether the conduct interfered with freedom of 

choice to the extent that it materially affected the 

outcome of the election, based on factors such as (a) the 

margin of victory in the election; (b) whether the conduct 

at issue was widespread or isolated; (c) the timing of the 

conduct; (d) the extent to which the conduct became 

known; and (e) the lingering effect of the conduct.

Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 N.L.R.B. 906, 909 (2004).

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 7 of 13
8

Pro-union speech by a supervisor, standing alone, falls

short of coercion or interference under Harborside’s first 

prong. In Northeast Iowa Telephone Company, for example, 

the Board found no coercion or interference even though

managers attended union meetings, participated in those 

meetings, told employees that the union could help prevent 

layoffs, and signed authorization cards in front of employees. 

See 346 N.L.R.B. at 466-67.

On the other side of the line, supervisory solicitation of 

authorization cards is considered coercive. See Chinese Daily 

News, 344 N.L.R.B. 1071, 1072 (2005). The solicitation of 

an authorization card by a supervisor “has an inherent 

tendency to interfere with the employee’s freedom to choose 

to sign a card or not.” Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 

N.L.R.B. at 911. The employee “will reasonably be 

concerned that the ‘right’ response will be viewed with favor, 

and a ‘wrong’ response with disfavor.” Id. The Board has 

found solicitation not only in cases of direct solicitation but 

also in cases where “employees had reason to believe that 

whether they signed a card would become known” to their 

pro-union supervisor. Madison Square Garden CT, LLC, 350 

N.L.R.B. 117, 122 (2007).

Importantly, even if a supervisor’s initial pro-union

conduct would be considered coercion or interference, the 

Board will uphold the election if “mitigating circumstances 

sufficiently negated the inherently coercive effect” of the 

conduct – or, put another way, if in light of the mitigating 

circumstances, the conduct did not materially affect the 

outcome of the election. SNE Enterprises, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. 

1041, 1042 (2006); see also Madison Square Garden CT, 

LLC, 350 N.L.R.B. at 122; Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 

N.L.R.B. at 910 n.12, 914.

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 8 of 13
9

B

Veritas complains here that several charge nurses spoke 

in favor of the Union, attended Union meetings, and signed 

authorization cards in front of registered nurses. According to 

Veritas, those activities amount to supervisory solicitation of 

authorization cards – conduct constituting impermissible 

coercion. But in Northeast Iowa Telephone Company, the 

Board found almost identical conduct not coercive. See 346 

N.L.R.B. at 466-67. Veritas also complains that the charge 

nurses were in close contact with the Union, regularly 

meeting with Union officials and referring questions about 

unionization to the Union’s organizing director. Those facts, 

however, do not defeat the Board’s finding that the charge 

nurses’ conduct fell short of coercion under the Harborside

test. Harborside permits a supervisor to support a union. A 

supervisor’s conduct presents a problem when it reasonably 

tends to coerce or interfere with the employees’ free choice in 

the election. Many charge nurses here clearly supported the 

Union. But without any indication in the record that the 

support tended to coerce or interfere with the registered 

nurses’ free choice, we will not disturb the Board’s reasonable 

conclusion with respect to those charge nurses.

The conduct of charge nurses Gilliatt and Silva presents a 

closer question. Silva approached or sent text messages to six 

registered nurses to notify them about Union meetings. 

Gilliatt instructed about 10 registered nurses to attend the 

meetings. And she actually told some registered nurses to 

sign authorization cards.

But even assuming that the initial conduct of Gilliatt and 

Silva tended to coerce or interfere with the registered nurses’ 

free choice, their conduct was mitigated by their subsequent 

actions. After Gilliatt and Silva were promoted, they actively 

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 9 of 13
10

campaigned against the Union in the run-up to the election. 

Gilliatt told 20 to 30 registered nurses that she no longer 

supported the Union; Silva told four. And Gilliatt and Silva 

both signed personalized company letters that urged 

registered nurses to vote against the Union. The letters

reached most registered nurses.

By the time of the election, therefore, registered nurses

would have had no reason to feel pro-Union coercion or 

interference from Gilliatt’s or Silva’s earlier conduct. Indeed, 

any registered nurses who felt pressured by Gilliatt or Silva 

would have felt coerced to vote against the Union.

In short, Veritas has not shown that we should overturn 

the Board’s decision upholding the election. See SNE 

Enterprises, Inc., 348 N.L.R.B. at 1042-44; Northeast Iowa 

Telephone Co., 346 N.L.R.B. at 466-67; Harborside 

Healthcare, Inc., 343 N.L.R.B. at 909-13.

III

Veritas also challenges some of the evidentiary rulings

that were made by the ALJ at the hearing and that were

approved by the Board. We review the ALJ’s rulings for 

abuse of discretion. See Perdue Farms, Inc. v. NLRB, 144 

F.3d 830, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1998).1

 1 As a technical matter, it might be argued that the Board 

reviews the ALJ’s ruling for abuse of discretion, see Aladdin 

Gaming, LLC, 345 N.L.R.B. 585, 587 (2005), and we review the 

Board’s decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard. But 

little if anything turns on the wording. The key point is this: When 

an ALJ’s evidentiary ruling has been upheld by the Board, our 

review is deferential.

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 10 of 13
11

Veritas complains about two of the ALJ’s evidentiary 

rulings.

First, the ALJ redacted some documents and limited

certain testimony so as to prevent disclosure of the names of 

registered nurses who had been in contact with the Union.

Veritas claims it would have used the names and the 

communications to more fully develop the record and to test 

witness credibility. The Board concluded that the ALJ’s 

evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion.

“It is well settled that Section 7 of the Act gives 

employees the right to keep confidential their union activities, 

including their attendance at union meetings.” Guess?, Inc., 

339 N.L.R.B. 432, 434 (2003) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 157). For 

an employer to obtain information about confidential union 

activities, “the employer’s interest in obtaining this 

information must outweigh the employees’ confidentiality 

interests under Section 7 of the Act.” Id. In National 

Telephone Directory Corporation, for example, the Board 

ruled that an employer could not seek the names of employees 

who signed authorization cards or attended union meetings 

because of “the potential chilling effect on union activity that 

could result from employer knowledge of the information.” 

319 N.L.R.B. 420, 421 (1995). That potential chilling effect 

outweighed the employer’s “right to test the credibility of the 

General Counsel’s witnesses” during cross-examination. Id.

Here, the ALJ protected names of nurses who attended

Union meetings or expressed views about the Union during 

the Union’s organizing campaign. In light of the settled 

principles protecting the confidentiality of employees’ union 

activities, the Board reasonably determined that the ALJ did 

not abuse her discretion in protecting the names of the 

registered nurses.

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 11 of 13
12

Second, the ALJ excluded testimony about 

communications between the Union and the charge nurses. 

See 29 C.F.R. § 102.35(a)(4); Hovey Electric, Inc., 328 

N.L.R.B. 273, 273 n.1 (1999). The ALJ “declined to receive 

evidence of interactions solely between union representatives 

and supervisory charge/relief charge nurses” because “such 

interactions, unknown to eligible voters, could not reasonably 

tend to interfere with employees’ free and uncoerced election 

choice in any material way.” Veritas Health Services, Inc., 

No. 31-RC-8795, slip op. at 5 n.7 (N.L.R.B. July 7, 2010). 

The ALJ’s explanation is reasonable, and the Board therefore 

reasonably determined that the ALJ did not abuse her 

discretion in excluding this testimony.

IV

Veritas raises one final argument: that the unfair labor 

practice charge against it was untimely. A union ordinarily 

must file an unfair labor practice charge within six months of 

the alleged unfair labor practice. See 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). 

Veritas claims that it refused to bargain with the Union on 

April 14, 2010, but that the Union did not file a charge until

February 3, 2011. Veritas ignores, however, that a new 

refusal to bargain constitutes a new violation of the Act. See 

Bentson Contracting Co. v. NLRB, 941 F.2d 1262, 1264 n.2 

(D.C. Cir. 1991). As the Board explained below, the Union 

sent Veritas a letter on January 26, 2011, asking Veritas to 

bargain collectively with the Union. On February 2, 2011, 

Veritas refused to do so. The charge was filed the next day. 

Therefore, the unfair labor practice charge was timely. See 

Veritas Health Services, Inc., 356 N.L.R.B. No. 137, slip op. 

at 1 n.1, 2 (Apr. 12, 2011).

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 12 of 13
13

* * *

We deny Veritas’s petition for review and grant the 

Board’s cross-application for enforcement.

So ordered.

USCA Case #11-1107 Document #1363330 Filed: 03/13/2012 Page 13 of 13