Trinity Health-Michigan d/b/a Trinity Health Ann Arbor Hospital

JD-03-26 Ypsilanti, MI

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DIVISION OF JUDGES

TRINITY HEALTH-MICHIGAN d/b/a

TRINITY HEALTH ANN ARBOR HOSPITAL,

Respondent

and Case No. 07-CA-348449

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL

UNION HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN,

Charging Party

Patricia Fedewa, Esq., for the General Counsel. Brian D. Shekell, Esq., For Respondent.

DECISION¹

Renée D. McKinney, Administrative Law Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On August 12, 2024, Charging Party Service Employees International Union Healthcare Michigan filed an unfair labor practice charge against Respondent Trinity Health-Michigan d/b/a Trinity Health Ann Arbor Hospital, docketed by Region 7 of the Board as Case Number 07-CA- 348449. The initial charge was served on August 16, 2024. A first amended charge was filed on August 29, 2024 and served on August 30, 2024. A second amended charge was filed on July 8, 2025 and served on July 10, 2025.

1

JD-03-26

2

A trial was conducted in this matter on Monday, August 25, 2025, in Detroit, Michigan. All parties were afforded the right to call and examine witnesses, present any relevant documentary evidence, and argue their respective legal positions. The General Counsel²and the Respondent filed post-trial briefs in support of their position by November 21, 2025, which I have carefully 5 considered.

On the entire record, I made the following findings, conclusion of law, and recommendations.

10

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION

Respondent is a corporation with an office and place of business located in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Respondent operates an acute care hospital and provides healthcare services. In 15 conducting its operations during the calendar year ending December 31, 2023, Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and purchased and received at its Ypsilanti facility goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of Michigan. At all material times, Service Employees International Union Healthcare Michigan has 20 been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Based on the foregoing, I find that this dispute affects commerce and that the Board has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Act.

25

II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

The complaint, issued on July 23, 2025, alleges Section 8(a)(5) and (1) withdrawal of recognition and refusal to bargain with the Charging Party since August 12, 2024. The complaint seeks as a remedy that Respondent cease and desist withdrawing recognition, the imposition of a bargaining order and schedule, and a Mar-Jac Poultry, 136 NLRB 785 (1962) extension of the 30 certification year.³

The answer, filed timely, admits that Respondent withdrew recognition but denies that doing so was unlawful.⁴The answer also asserts as an affirmative defense that the Board's

2

JD-03-26

3

decision in Chelsea Industries, 331 NLRB 1648 (2000), enfd. 285 F.3d 1073 (D.C. Cir. 2002), is either inapplicable or should be overruled.

The transcripts and exhibits in this case generally are accurate, but I hereby make the following transcript corrections: page 56, lines 17-25 and page 57, lines 1-25 - remarks 5 attributed to "Mr. Shekell" should read "Judge McKinney".

A. The Certified Unit

On August 9, 2023, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued a Certification of 10 Representative (GCX 3.) certifying the following bargaining unit (Unit) of Respondent's employees:

Unit: All full-time, regular part-time, and contingent lab tech 1s, patient service representatives, and trainers working at or out of Trinity Outpatient Labs Ann 15 Arbor, located at: Reichert Center Lab, 5333 McAuley Drive, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197; Arbor Park Lab, 4972 Clark Road, Suite #101, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197; Domino's Farms Lab, 4200 Whitehall Drive, Suite 230, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; West Arbor Lab, 4350 Jackson Road, Suite 110, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103; Cherry Hill Lab, 49650 Cherry Hill Road, Suite #130, Canton, Michigan 48187; 20 Fowlerville Lab, 202 East Van Riper Road, Suite 300, Fowlerville, Michigan 48836; Milan Lab, 870 East Arkona Road, Suite 130, Milan, Michigan 48160; Plymouth Lab, 990 West Ann Arbor Trail, Suite 208, Plymouth, Michigan 48170; Ann Arbor Oncology Lab, 5303 Elliott Drive, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197; Canton Oncology Lab, 1600 Canton Center Road, Canton, Michigan 48188; Genoa Lab, 25 2305 Genoa Business Park, Suite 130, Brighton, Michigan 48114; Canton Non- Oncology Lab, 1600 S. Canton Center Road, Suite 110, Canton Michigan 48187; Partners in Internal Medicine Lab—Ann Arbor, 2200 Green Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; Partners in Internal Medicine Lab—Canton, 255 North Lilley Road, Canton Michigan 48187; IHA 7 Mile Lab, 37595 Seven Mile Road, 2nd 30 Floor, Livonia, Michigan 48152, but excluding all directors, managers, lab section leaders, and agency/traveler staff and guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.

B. Management Receives the Decertification Petition and Checks It 35 On August 8, at 2:41p.m., Ted Theodoroff, Lab Manager, received a decertification petition (Petition) from employee Kim Bloodworth with 28 signatures dated July 30 through August 7. (Tr. 22, 23; RX 2.) Bloodworth also provided three texts dated August 2 through 8 with three employee names. (GCX 5; RX 1, 2.) The same day, Theodoroff emailed the Petition to 40 several of Respondent's officials, including Sharon Petty, Outpatient Phlebotomy Manager (Tr. 18-19, 21.) and Tonia Schemer, Chief Human Resources Officer. (Tr. 28-29.) participate in the instant proceedings, [Respondent] is being improperly subjected to unconstitutional agency authority because Board members and the Board's administrative law judges are improperly insulated from removal in violation of Article II of the United States Constitution." The Board, by whose decisions I am bound, has rejected this defense. Seaport Hotel Boston, 373 NLRB No. 142, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2024). Therefore, I do the same.

3

JD-03-26

4

The Petition stated "[w]e, the undersigned, no longer wants [sic] to be represented by SEIU." (RX 2.)

From August 8-12, Schemer and Human Resources representatives Amber Coon and 5 Kirstin Parian,⁵compared the names listed on the Petition to a report of the 50 Unit employees pulled from the Workday database maintained by Respondent's Human Resources system, and to the information located in Workday. They determined that the employees listed on the Petition were active employees. (Tr. 29-31, 34-36, 43, 44, 55; GCX 10; RX 2.)

10

After consulting with counsel, Schemer determined that a majority of employees signed the Petition and that Respondent "would notify [the Charging Party] that our [employees] had made the decision to decertify" the Charging Party as the collective bargaining representative of the Unit employees. (Tr. 30-31.)

15

C. Management Withdraws Recognition from the Charging Party and Notifies the Unit On August 12, Respondent's counsel sent an email (GCX 5.) to Charging Party representative Robert Gibson, stating in pertinent part:

20

This is to inform you that the Hospital has received objective evidence that an overwhelming majority of the bargaining unit colleagues do not wish to be represented by the Union any longer. By law, we are required to honor their decision. See, Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pac., Inc., 333 NLRB 717, 724 (2001) (Holding that an employer violates Section 8(a)(2) by "continuing to recognize a 25 union that it knows has actually lost majority support"). The Hospital therefore withdraws recognition of the Union as bargaining agent and declines further communication or bargaining with the Union."

The same day, Petty e-mailed Unit employees, Respondent's President Alonzo 30 Lewis, Schemer,⁶and other recipients stating that Respondent withdrew recognition of the Charging Party as the representative of the Unit. (GCX 4; Tr. 20.) Schemer's email stated in pertinent part:

Today we notified the union that we have withdrawn recognition and suspended 35 bargaining. Consistent with your wishes, we will now proceed with the direct relationship that you have asked for.

4

JD-03-26

5

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint that about August 12, Respondent withdrew recognition of the Union and thereby failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. 5 While Respondent admits that it withdrew recognition from the Union on August 12, it denies that it violated the law in doing so.

The General Counsel argues that Respondent failed to show that the Union lacked majority support at the time recognition was withdrawn. (GC Br. 6-7.) This is so because, the General Counsel maintains, Respondent (1) failed to show that employee petition signatures 10 were authenticated and (2) withdrew recognition "based on evidence received within the certification year." (GC Br. 8.) (quoting Chelsea Industries, Inc., 331 NLRB at 1651). A. The Majority of Unit Employees Apparently Signed the Petition

With regard to the General Counsel's argument that employee signatures were not authenticated, Respondent contends (R. Br. at 4.) that hearing testimony established that its 15 human resources team "confirmed that the petition contained the signatures of a majority of the bargaining unit members." The portions of the transcript cited by Respondent came from 611(c) testimony by Schemer, elicited by the General Counsel.

Yet, in relevant part, Schemer stated, first, that she compared the signatures on the petition to information in Workday, which "houses all colleague information". (Tr. 30.) Then, 20 referring to General Counsel's Exhibit 10, a report "of all the colleagues that reported to Sharon Petty in the lab" generated using Workday, Schemer stated that she, Coon, and Parian,

"confirmed active employment" of the employees who signed the petition. (Tr. 34 and 35.) General Counsel's Exhibit 10 does not feature employee signatures. There was no testimony as to whether other documents in Workday do contain signatures. Finally, neither 25 Coon, Parian, nor Schemer testified that signatures were affirmatively checked. Accordingly, I find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that the credited evidence does not tend to show that Respondent specifically checked the employees' signatures against its business records or some other signature exemplar.

Yet, my understanding is that an employer does not have to authenticate petition 30 signatures or show "that the employees who signed the petition were actually in the unit on the date of the withdrawal of recognition." Guerdon Industries, Inc., Armor Mobile Homes Division,

218 NLRB 658, 660 (1975). Rather, the employer must only show that majority of the employees apparently signed the decertification petition. Ibid. (agreeing "with the Administrative Law Judge that the petition, with a majority of the employees apparently having 35 signed it, could have constituted sufficient reason for Respondent to have doubted the Union's

5

JD-03-26

6

continuing majority status, and thereby would have sanctioned Respondent's withdrawal of recognition", if Respondent's action had been taken "in a context free of unfair labor practices").⁷ I find that by checking the names of the employees who signed the petition against the Workday-generated report and information in its Workday database and confirming active employment, Respondent satisfied its burden under Levtiz Furniture to rely on objective 5 evidence in withdrawing recognition of the Union. The majority of the Unit apparently signed the petition.

B. Respondent's Withdrawal of Recognition from the Union was Unlawful Turning, then, to the General Counsel's reliance on Chelsea Industries to conclude that Respondent's withdrawal of recognition was unlawful, Respondent counters (R. Br. 9-10.) that 10 Chelsea Industries is factually distinguishable from the instant case in that the employer held on to a disaffection petition received midway through during the certification year and ran out the clock in bargaining to withdraw recognition. This is opposed to the circumstances in this case where there is, as Respondent observes, no contention that Respondent delayed bargaining or otherwise bargained in bad faith. Respondent reasons (R. Br. 10.) that as employees signed the 15 petition in the waning days of the certification year, the otherwise valid petition was received from employees just one day prior to the end of the certification year, and recognition withdrawn only after the certification year ended, Chelsea Industries does not compel finding a violation here.

As I interpret Respondent's argument on this point, it amounts to a contention that 20 Chelsea Industries only applies when the employer otherwise was bargaining in bad faith,⁸as did Chelsea Industries. However, the Board has applied the Chelsea Industries' holding to find that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act even when the employer did not otherwise bargain in bad faith. See, e.g.. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 368 NLRB No. 30, slip op. at 1 (2019) (affirming the administrative law judge where the employer withdrew recognition from the union 25 based on a petition that employees signed and presented to it 3 weeks before the end of the certification year in the absence of other unfair labor practices). Respondent's second argument against Chelsea Industries is plain:

6

JD-03-26

7

…Chelsea Industries should be overturned by the Board. Application of a rule which would disqualify a group of employees['] clear intention to express disaffection with their union based on that information being gathered just days before the expiration of the certification year places an unfair and highly technical burden on employees acting on their own. Moreover, this requirement places a 5 burden on employee free choice that is unsupported by Levitz. As an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board, such a decision to overrule current Board law lies beyond my authority.

Thus, I find the Board's holding and reasoning in Chelsea Industries prohibited Respondent's infringement on the certification year in this case.⁹Accordingly, I find that 10 Respondent's reliance on the decertification petition signed within the certification year in withdrawing recognition from the Union after the certification year constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

15

1. Trinity Health-Michigan d/b/a Trinity Health Ann Arbor Hospital (Respondent) is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

2. SEIU Healthcare Michigan (Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and is the certified bargaining representative of the following appropriate 20 unit of Respondent's employees (Unit):

All full-time, regular part-time, and contingent lab tech 1s, patient service representatives, and trainers working at or out of Trinity Outpatient Labs Ann Arbor, located at: Reichert Center Lab, 5333 McAuley Drive, Ypsilanti, Michigan 25 48197; Arbor Park Lab, 4972 Clark Road, Suite #101, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197; Domino's Farms Lab, 4200 Whitehall Drive, Suite 230, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; West Arbor Lab, 4350 Jackson Road, Suite 110, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103; Cherry Hill Lab, 49650 Cherry Hill Road, Suite #130, Canton, Michigan 48187; Fowlerville Lab, 202 East Van Riper Road, Suite 300, Fowlerville, Michigan 30 48836; Milan Lab, 870 East Arkona Road, Suite 130, Milan, Michigan 48160; Plymouth Lab, 990 West Ann Arbor Trail, Suite 208, Plymouth, Michigan 48170; Ann Arbor Oncology Lab, 5303 Elliott Drive, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197; Canton Oncology Lab, 1600 Canton Center Road, Canton, Michigan 48188; Genoa Lab, 2305 Genoa Business Park, Suite 130, Brighton, Michigan 48114; Canton Non-35 Oncology Lab, 1600 S. Canton Center Road, Suite 110, Canton Michigan 48187; Partners in Internal Medicine Lab—Ann Arbor, 2200 Green Road, Ann Arbor,

7

JD-03-26

8

Michigan 48105; Partners in Internal Medicine Lab—Canton, 255 North Lilley Road, Canton Michigan 48187; IHA 7 Mile Lab, 37595 Seven Mile Road, 2nd Floor, Livonia, Michigan 48152, but excluding all directors, managers, lab section leaders, and agency/traveler staff and guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. 5

3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by withdrawing recognition from the Union as the representative of the Unit set forth above, on or about August 12, 2024, based upon a decertification petition signed during the certification year.

10

4. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

5. Respondent has not violated the Act in any other manner.

15

REMEDY

Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. 20

I have found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by withdrawing recognition from the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of its employees and thereby failing and refusing to collectively bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees. Accordingly, the 25 Respondent shall recognize the Union and, upon request, bargain for a reasonable period of time (as set forth in Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp., 334 NLRB 399 (2001), enfd. 310 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2002)), with the Union as the bargaining representative of the unit employees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed document.¹⁰30 The Respondent shall post an appropriate informational notice, as described in the attached appendix. This notice, on a form provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices 35 to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the Respondent shall distribute the notice electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if Respondent customarily communicates with its

8