Opinion ID: 795770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Present Unfair Labor Practice Charges and the NLRB's Decision

Text: 33 On February 2, 2000, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against St. Vincent. The Union charged that St. Vincent subcontracted out the work of the RC department to prevent RC department employees from voting in the Union election, in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the NLRA. 34 On March 22, 2000, the Board's General Counsel issued a complaint against St. Vincent and a notice of hearing. In its answer to the complaint, St. Vincent denied the allegations and alleged as an affirmative defense that its subcontracting decision was based on valid business reasons unrelated to the union organizing activities of the RC department. 35 The matter was heard before an ALJ. See St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 338 NLRB No. 130, 2003 WL 1785029,  (Mar. 31, 2003). The ALJ analyzed the General Counsel's case under Wright Line, 251 N.L.R.B. 1083, enforced, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989, 102 S.Ct. 1612, 71 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982). The ALJ credited the General Counsel's clear evidence that St. Vincent knew that the RC department was the core of the Union's organizing drive, and that the Union's organizing campaign burgeoned in July 1999. The ALJ also concluded that the timing of the terminations militated in favor of the General Counsel's case: 36 Announcing the change in the status of the employees, and subcontracting out their work, only about 3 weeks after the filing of the petition for an election seems on its face so suspicious that if there were any evidence of animus or direct intent to discriminate that one would not hesitate to find the subcontracting to have been violative of the [NLRA]. . . . 37 In further support of the General Counsel's case, the ALJ found that the alleged motivation behind St. Vincent's subcontracting decision seem[ed] to lack plausibility and noted the seeming lack of a clear rationale for the way in which [the subcontracting decision] was carried out. The ALJ noted that St. Vincent's asserted business justification was almost too much to believe and that [o]n its surface it appear[ed] to be a fabrication, and not a very good one at that. 38 Notwithstanding these findings, the ALJ found that there was no reason to ignore or disbelieve the testimony of [St. Vincent's] witnesses to the effect that since the subcontracting the problems have largely vanished. After crediting St. Vincent on this point, the ALJ concluded that the General Counsel failed to carry its burden of persuasion under Wright Line. The ALJ stated that no matter how improbable[St. Vincent's] action, or its timing, in subcontracting may seem . . . on the surface, there is no reasonable basis on this record . . . causing me to doubt or challenge the very fact of its success in, at long last, remedying the RC department's longstanding, seemingly intractable, problems. After finding that changing managers is a time honored and frequently used solution to management problems, the ALJ concluded, no matter how reluctantly, that St. Vincent's decision passe[d] muster. 39 The Union and the General Counsel appealed the ALJ's decision to the Board. In its brief boilerplate decision, the Board affirmed the ALJ's rulings and findings. Furthermore, the Board concluded that 40 [a]ssuming arguendo that the General Counsel satisfied his initial burden under Wright Line, we find that [St. Vincent] has proven its affirmative defense under Wright Line of demonstrating that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the employees' protected activities. Specifically,[St. Vincent] has established that it implemented its subcontracting decision within the 30-to-60 day time-frame it announced prior to the filing of the petition for a representation election. 41 St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 2003 WL 1785029, at  n. 4 (internal citation omitted). 42 The Union filed this petition for review pursuant to Section 10(f) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160(f). The Union challenges both the Board's conclusion that the General Counsel failed to carry its burden of persuasion, and its conclusion that St. Vincent established its affirmative defense under Wright Line. The Union argues that neither conclusion is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.