Labor Relations Commission v. University Hospital, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1971 |
| Parties | , 77 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2374, 65 Lab.Cas. P 52,550 LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION et al. 1 v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
George H. Foley, Boston, for University Hospital, Inc. (John F. Dunn, Boston, for Massachusetts, Hospital Ass'n, amicus curiae, with him).
Joseph A. Furnari, Boston, for State Labor Relations Commission.
Robert F. Muse, for intervener, Building Service Employees International Union, Local 254 AFL-CIO.
Before TAURO, C.J., and SPALDING, REARDON, and BRAUCHER, JJ.
This is a petition brought by the Labor Relations Commission (Commission) under G.L. c. 150A, § 6(e), St.1954, c. 681, § 10, for the enforcement of an order previously issued by it against University Hospital, Inc. (hospital). The case is before us on the appeal of the hospital from a final decree entered by a three judge panel of the Superior Court granting the relief sought by the Commission. G.L. c. 212, § 30, inserted by St.1959, c. 600. We summarize the pertinent facts leading up to the filing of the petition in the Superior Court.
On October 8, 1968, the intervener (union) filed with the Commission a petition under G.L. c. 150A, § 5(c), asking that it be certified as the collective bargaining representative for about forty of the hospital's maintenance employees. The Commission held a hearing on the petition at which the hospital requested that the proposed bargaining unit (unit) be enlarged so that it would also included (a) about twenty-nine maintenance employees not included in the petition of the union, (b) 276 dietary section employees, (c) sixty-nine housekeeping department employees, (d) eighty-one nursing service nonprofessional employees, and (e) an unspecified number of employees of miscellaneous departments.
On February 14, 1969, the Commission, in a written decision, established a unit consisting of forty of the hospital's 'skilled tradesmen in the Maintenance Department.' The unit included journeymen, helpers and apprentices in the following trades: air conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, carpenters, electricians, furniture refinishers, groundsmen, machinists (maintenance), mason-plasterers, oilers, painters, plumber-steamfitters, instrument repairmen, sheet-metal men--welders, truck drivers, electronics technicians--maintenance, and general maintenance helpers. Additional employees who the hospital contended were a part of its maintenance department were excluded by the Commission from the unit on the ground that they did not have a sufficient community of interest with the skilled tradesmen, and that their duties differed widely in skill requirements from those employees covered by the unit. 2
In its decision of February 14, the Commission ordered that an election be held at which members of the unit might select a bargaining representative. Thereafter the date for the election was fixed as March 3, 1969, and the hospital asked that it be postponed one week. The Commission held a hearing on the request on February 27, 1969, after which it ordered the election postponed to March 5, 1969. Between February 27 and March 5, 1969, the hospital (a) sent each employee in the unit three different letters advising the employee not to vote for the union, (b) gave each such employee a similar letter with his time card on the day of the election, and (c) called a meeting for such employees for the day before the election for the purpose of reviewing the issues in the election.
With thirty-seven of the forty eligible members of the unit voting at the election the vote was twenty-four in favor of the union, seven opposed, and other ballots protested, challenged or declared void. On March 7, 1969, the hospital filed written objections to the election with the Commission on the grounds that the unit established by the Commission was not an appropriate unit, and that the time between the notice of the election and the date of the election was not sufficient 'to satisfy the requirements of due process of law and freedom of speech' under the State and Federal constitutions, 'nor did it afford to * * * (the hospital) the opportunity to be represented at the election by counsel of its choice.' The last ground stated related to a conflicting engagement of the hospital's counsel. After holding a hearing thereon, the Commission, by a written decision, rejected the hospital's objections, giving reasons for its action. On March 21, 1969, the Commission certified the union as the bargaining representative for the unit.
On April 1, 1969, the union wrote to the hospital suggesting a conference for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement to cover employees in the unit established by the Commission. The hospital, through its counsel, wrote to the union stating the same grounds contained in its written objections of March 7, 1969, described above, and concluding that 'the hospital respectfully declines to bargain with your union unless and until directed to do so by a definitive court decision.'
On April 7, 1969, the union filed with the Commission a written charge that the hospital had refused to bargain collectively with the certified representative of the employees of the unit. On April 18, 1969, the Commission acting under G.L. c. 150A, § 6(c), issued a complaint against the hospital making the same charge which was made by the union and ordered a hearing to be held thereon. At the hearing, counsel for the hospital conceded that it had refused to bargain with the union for the reasons previously stated in its written objections of March 7, 1969, and refused to bargain unless ordered by a court to do so. After the hearing, the Commission on August 11, 1969, filed a written decision holding that the hospital 'from April 4, 1969, has refused to bargain collectively with the union, in violation of the State Labor Relations Law (Chapter 150A)' and concluding with an order (a) that the hospital cease and desist from such refusal to bargain collectively with the union, and (b) that upon request, it bargain with the union, and in no event later than fifteen days from the date of the order. It is this order which the Commission asked the Superior Court to enforce in this proceeding.
General Laws c. 150A, § 6(e), St.1954, c. 681, § 10, provides that if the Commission petitions the Superior Court for the enforcement of one of its orders, the 'order or decision of the commission shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards for review provided in paragraph (8) of section fourteen of chapter thirty A.' 3 It also provides that 'no objection that has not been urged before the commission * * * shall be considered by the court,' except in extraordinary circumstances. In the Superior Court the hospital raised only those two objections which it had filed with the Commission under date of March 7, 1969. We shall consider them separately. For that purpose we have before us the same record which was filed in the Superior Court by the Commission. It includes transcripts of the several hearings before the Commission.
1. The hospital contends that the order of the Commission establishing the skilled tradesmen of its maintenance department as a bargaining unit is unlawful. Although it uses the words 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law,' in arguing this point, it does not expand on those words and instead relies basically on the claim that the order is unsupported by substantial evidence. It is by that standard that we test the validity of the order. General Laws c. 30A, § 1(6), defines 'substantial evidence' as 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' Singer Sewing Mach. Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 341 Mass. 513, 517, 170 N.E.2d 687, 689; McCarthy v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Committee in Dept. of Community Affairs
...c. 30A, §§ 1(6) and 14(8)(e). Boston Edison Co. v. Selectmen of Concord, 355 Mass. 79, 92, 242 N.E.2d 868; Labor Relations Commn. v. University Hosp. Inc., Mass., 269 N.E.2d 682. c Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action, 596. The reviewing court must examine the committee's decisi......
-
Bos. Police Dep't v. Civil Serv. Comm'n
...on a de novo review, fact finding is the role of the commission and not the reviewing court. See Labor Relations Comm'n v. University Hosp., Inc., 359 Mass. 516, 521, 269 N.E.2d 682 (1971) ("A court may not displace an administrative board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even......
-
Southern Worcester County Regional Vocational School Dist. v. Labor Relations Com'n
...v. National Labor Relations Bd., 340 U.S. 474, 488 (71 S.Ct. 456, 465, 95 L.Ed. 456) (1951)." Labor Relations Comm'n v. University Hosp., Inc., 359 Mass. 516, 521, 269 N.E.2d 682 (1971). The commission's decision is supported by substantial All eight teachers presented evidence that they we......
-
Middleborough v. Housing Appeals Committee
...justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo." Id., quoting Labor Relations Comm'n v. University Hosp., Inc., 359 Mass. 516, 521, 269 N.E.2d 682 (1971). Next, this court itself has said that the term "subsidy" in the act must be read expansively. See Welles......