UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGION 28

PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC. and Cases 28-CA-089300 28-CA-099144

INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED EMERGENCY PROFESSIONALS, LOCAL NO. 1

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, IT IS ORDERED THAT Case 28-CA-099144, filed by Independent Certified Emergency Professionals, Local No. 1 (the Union) against Professional Medical Transport, Inc. (Respondent), is consolidated with Case 28-CA-089300 filed by the Union against Respondent, in which a Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued on November 30, 2012. This Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing which is based on these charges, is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. (the Act), and Section 102.15 of the Boards Rules and Regulations, and alleges Respondent has violated the Act as described below: 1. (a) The charge in Case 28-CA-089300 was filed by the Union on

September 14, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on the same date.

(b)

The first amended charge in Case 28-CA-089300 was filed by

the Union on November 30, 2012, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on the same date. (c) The charge in Case 28-CA-099144 was filed by the Union on

February 26, 2013, and a copy was served by regular mail on Respondent on February 27, 2013. 2. (a) At all material times, Respondent has been a corporation with

an office and place of business in Mesa, Arizona (Respondents facility), and has been engaged in the business of providing emergency medical services and transportation. (b) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period ending

September 14, 2012, Respondent purchased and received at Respondents facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Arizona. (c) At all material times, Respondent has been an employer

engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within

the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set

forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: John Wilson Ted Beam John Karolzak Maureen Thompson Ann Hebert Joy Carpenter Chief of Ambulance Service Operations Manager CEO of SW Ambulance Senior Vice President of Human Resources Human Resources Director Human Resources Manager

Kelly OConner Beverly Lemoine Jim Roeder Wayne Clonts Glenn Trainor Jeff Baker 5. (a)

Scheduling Manager 911 Regional Manager-Scottsdale Compliance Manager General Transport Operations Manager Training Supervisor Operations Manager

The following employees of Respondent (the Unit) constitute a

unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time field paramedics, EMTs IEMTs and registered nurses, excluding administrative staff individuals, support services or personnel not directly operating in the field as an EMS provider, guards, office clericals and supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act. (b) Since about July 7, 2006, and at all material times, Respondent

has recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. This recognition has been embodied in a recognition agreement dated July 7, 2006. (c) At all times since July 7, 2006, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,

the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. 6. Tony Lopez (Lopez). (b) (c) About August 1, 2012, Respondent shut down Unit 603. Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in (a) About September 17, 2012, Respondent suspended its employee

paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b), because Lopez and other employees formed, joined, and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities. 7. (a) About June 11, 2012, Respondent, by John Wilson, at

Respondents facility by letter, bypassed the Union and dealt directly with its employees in

the Unit by offering them monetary bonuses if they ratified Respondents collectivebargaining proposal by July 1, 2012. (b) (c) About August 1, 2012, Respondent shut down Unit 603. About January 3, 2013, Respondent: (1) Chandler to other duty stations; and (2) Chandler. (d) About January 17, 2013, Respondent transferred unit employees Moved all personnel to new duty stations in the City of Transferred all paramedics working in the City of

from Station Two to Station Three. (e) About March 1, 2013, Respondent changed the location and

duties of the employees at Unit 284. (f) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in

paragraphs 7(b) through 7(e) without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with Respondent with respect to this conduct or the effects of this conduct and without first bargaining with the Union to a good-faith impasse. (g) The subjects set forth in paragraphs 7(b) through 7(e) relate to

wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the Unit and are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collective bargaining. (h) Since about January 30, 2013, the Union, by written request,

has requested that Respondent furnish the Union with the following information:

(1) Any compensation given to former Chandler medics that were transferred to GT and lost the ability to earn overtime. (2) The adjustments of all paramedics pay, companywide that had a pay adjustment for scheduling changes or reductions. (i) The information requested by the Union, as described above in

paragraph 7(h), is necessary for, and relevant to, the Unions performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. (j) Since January 30, 2013, Respondent has failed and refused to

furnish the Union with information described above in paragraph 7(h). 8. By the conduct described above in paragraph 6, Respondent has been

discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 9. By the conduct described above in paragraph 7, Respondent has been

failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collectivebargaining representative of its employees within the meaning of Section 8(d) of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 10. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect

commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. As part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order requiring that Respondent reimburse amounts equal to the difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a lump-sum payment and taxes that would have been owed had there been no discrimination. As part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in paragraph 7, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order

requiring Respondent, upon a request by the Union, to restore the status quo ante as it existed for the affected Unit employees before the date of the unilateral changes. The Acting General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged. ANSWER REQUIREMENT Respondent is notified that, pursuant to Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Boards Rules and Regulations, it must file an answer to the complaint. The answer must be received by this office on or before May 8, 2013, or postmarked on or before May 7, 2013. Unless filed electronically in a pdf format, Respondent should file an original and four copies of the answer with this office. Respondent should serve a copy of the answer on each of the other parties. An answer may also be filed electronically through the Agencys website. To file electronically, go to www.nlrb.gov, click on File Case Documents, enter the NLRB Case Number, and follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of the answer rests exclusively upon the sender. Unless notification on the Agencys website informs users that the Agencys E-Filing system is officially determined to be in technical failure because it is unable to receive documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours after 12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for filing, a failure to timely file the answer will not be excused on the basis that the transmission could not be accomplished because the Agencys website was off-line or unavailable for some other reason. The Boards Rules and Regulations require that an answer be signed by counsel or non-attorney representative for represented parties or by the party if not represented. See Section 102.21. If the answer being filed electronically is a pdf document containing the required signature, no paper copies of the

answer need to be transmitted to the Regional Office. However, if the electronic version of an answer to a complaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature, then the E-filing rules require that such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Office by traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic filing. Service of the answer on each of the other parties must still be accomplished by means allowed under the Boards Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be filed by facsimile transmission. If no answer is filed, or if an answer is filed untimely, the Board may find, pursuant to a Motion for Default Judgment, that the allegations in the complaint are true. NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on May 13, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. (local time), at 2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400, Phoenix, Arizona, and on consecutive days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Respondent and any other party to this proceeding have the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this consolidated complaint. The procedures to be followed at the hearing are described in the attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to request a postponement of the hearing is described in the attached Form NLRB-4338. Dated at Phoenix, Arizona, this 24th day of April, 2013.

/s/ Cornele A. Overstreet Cornele A. Overstreet, Regional Director Attachments

FORM NLRB-4338 (6-90) 95kdh

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

NOTICE

Cases: 28-CA-089300 28-CA-099144

The issuance of the notice of formal hearing in this case does not mean that the matter cannot be disposed of by agreement of the parties. On the contrary, it is the policy of this office to encourage voluntary adjustments. The examiner or attorney assigned to the case will be pleased to receive and to act promptly upon your suggestions or comments to this end. An agreement between the parties, approved by the Regional Director, would serve to cancel the hearing. However, unless otherwise specifically ordered, the hearing will be held at the date, hour and place indicated. Postponements will not be granted unless good and sufficient grounds are shown and the following requirements are met: (1) The request must be in writing. An original and two copies must be filed the Regional Director when appropriate under 29 CFR 102.16(a) or with the Division of Judges when appropriate under 29 CFR 102.16(b). (2) Grounds must be set forth in detail; (3) Alternative dates for any rescheduled hearing must be given; (4) The positions of all other parties must be ascertained in advance by the requesting party and set forth in the request; and (5) Copies must be simultaneously served on all other parties (listed below), and that fact must be noted on the request. Except under the most extreme conditions, no request for postponement will be granted during the three days immediately preceding the date of hearing.

Professional Medical Transport, Inc. 222 East Main Street Mesa, AZ 85201-7410

Ellen Shadur Gross, Attorney at Law Baker & Hostetler LLP 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120 Gerald Morales, Attorney at Law Snell & Wilmer 1 Arizona Center Phoenix, AZ 85004-2280

Independent Certified Emergency Professionals, Local No. 1 11417 East Decatur Street Mesa, AZ 85207-2339