Decision 2868M – * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC


Decision Date: August 15, 2023

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description: Service Employees International Union, United Health Care Workers West (SEIU) filed charges against three Respondents: (1) El Camino Healthcare District; (2) El Camino Hospital (ECH), a California nonprofit corporation whose sole member is the District; and (3) Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC (SVMD), a single-member limited liability corporation wholly owned by ECH. The case arose when SVMD began operating five clinics it purchased from Verity, an NLRA-covered entity. SEIU had represented a bargaining unit at the former Verity clinics. SVMD acknowledged that it was a successor employer and had to bargain with SEIU, but four disputes nonetheless arose. First, the parties dispute whether SVMD is subject to the NLRA or the MMBA. Second, the parties dispute whether only SVMD must bargain over terms and conditions at the former Verity clinics, or whether all Respondents must do so. Third, the complaint alleged unlawful unilateral changes and interference. Finally, the complaint alleged that Respondents unlawfully disseminated unilateral mass communications concerning employee decisions whether to support SEIU. After an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a formal hearing, the ALJ transferred to a different state agency without having issued a proposed decision. The Board then resolved the case based on the record.

Disposition: First, the Board determined that SVMD is an MMBA-covered employer. Second, the Board concluded that Respondents have a single-employer relationship and therefore all three Respondents had a bargaining obligation. Third, the Board dismissed an allegation concerning allegedly unlawful discipline but sustained five central claims: outright failure to bargain when ECH refused to join negotiations over the former Verity clinics; unilateral changes to an employee dress code; a further unilateral change, and interference, via a new solicitation and distribution policy; failure to bargain over the effects of a work relocation; and failure to meet and confer prior to disseminating mass communications concerning employees’ right to support their union or to refrain from doing so.

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

No items found