Abbott-Northwestern Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 1063 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

ABBOTT-NORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL
Abbott-Northwestern Hospital and Hospital and
Nursing Home Employees Union , Local No.
113, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 18-CA-6929
21 March 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 9 August 1982 Administrative Law Judge
Sidney J. Barban issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.
We do not agree with the judge's findings that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by withdrawing recognition from and re-
fusing to bargain with the Union as the representa-
tive of psychiatric assistants employed at the Re-
spondent's Northwestern Division, and unilaterally
changing wages and other conditions of employ-
ment of such employees. The judge's decision is
contrary to well-established unit scope principles
because, in essence, it orders the Respondent to
bargain in an inappropriate unit. Accordingly, we
reverse the judge and dismiss the complaint.
This case was submitted to the judge on a stipu-
lated record. The Respondent is a member of a
multiemployer association-Health Manpower
Management, Inc. (HMMI)-which has negotiated
a series of collective-bargaining agreements with
the Union covering about 4500 service and mainte-
nance employees, including the Respondent's.
These contracts are executed separately by each of
HMMI's 22 member hospitals. Since the 1970
merger creating the Respondent, it has operated
the Abbott Hospital and the Northwestern Hospital
as separate divisions. Until the 2-year agreement
signed in March 1979, the Respondent signed sepa-
rate contracts with the Union for each division.
In August 1978, the Respondent and the Union,
in anticipation of expansion of the Northwestern
Division facility and consolidation thereof certain
operations performed at each division, agreed that
in the future there would be only one bargaining
agreement covering employees at both of the Re-
spondent's facilities. All job classifications were to
be included in the new agreement, "except the psy-
chiatric assistants classification at Abbott." Accord-
ingly, the contract in effect at material times here
refers specifically to psychiatric assistants em-
ployed at only five HMMI member locations, in-
1063
cluding the Respondent's Northwestern Division,
but not its Abbott Division. The Union never has
been recognized as the representative of psychiatric
assistants at Abbott.
In November 1979-during the term of the rele-
vant contract-the Respondent consolidated the
mental health operations of both its divisions at the
Northwestern Hospital location. As part of this
consolidation, the Respondent transferred approxi-
mately 63 unrepresented psychiatric assistants from
the Abbott Division facility to Northwestern,
where about 9 represented psychiatric assistants
were employed. Since that time, the merged staff
of all psychiatric assistants has worked under
common supervision and performed the same
duties at the Northwestern location.
For about 9 months, the Respondent continued
to apply its contract with the Union to the 9 psy-
chiatric assistant positions which were identified
with the Northwestern Division before the consoli-
dation, and applied its nonrepresented employee
policies to the 63 positions formerly located at
Abbott. On 15 August 1980, however, the Re-
spondent advised the Union that it no longer rec-
ognized the Union as the representative of any of
the psychiatric assistants. Since that date, the Re-
spondent has treated all psychiatric assistants as
being unrepresented and has altered their terms and
conditions of employment.
Both before and after the merger of the psychiat-
ric assistants at Northwestern, the Respondent filed
petitions for an election in a unit of all psychiatric
assistants employed by it. The Regional Director
dismissed both petitions on the grounds that no
question concerning representation existed because
the consolidation of the Abbott and Northwestern
psychiatric assistants simply involved a change in
work location, not duties, and no demand for rec-
ognition had been made. The Board denied the Re-
spondent's request for review of both dismissals.'
The judge found, as alleged in the complaint,
that an appropriate unit consists of all service and
maintenance employees of the Respondent and
other employer-members of HMMI, "including the
psychiatric assistants employed by Respondent at
its Northwestern facility."2 The judge then con-
I None of the Board's current Members participated in those represen-
tation proceedings
z Member Hunter joins his colleagues in honoring the parties' stipula-
t,on as to the appropriateness of the multiemployer service and mainte-
nance unit here and notes that he generally will accept unit stipulations in
the health care field In so doing, he recognizes that acceptance of par-
ties' unit stipulations fosters the statutory policy of encouraging the prac-
t,ce and procedure of collective bargaining, permits the expeditious reso-
lution of questions concerning representation, and is consistent with Con-
gress' concern that disruptions in health care institutions caused by initial
organization activities be minimized He also recognizes, however, that a
Continued
274 NLRB No. 162
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cluded that "[s]ince Respondent has agreed to rec-
ognize the Union as the bargaining representative
of all the psychiatric assistants at the Northwestern
facility for the term of the bargaining agreement,
under well-established principles of law, Respond-
ent's actions violated the bargaining agreement and
violated the Act. In the circumstances of this case,
there is no reason to treat the 63 transferred psy-
chiatric assistants any differently than new employ-
ees hired off the street."
In finding a violation, the judge effectively ac-
creted the 63 Abbott psychiatric assistants into the
group of 9 Northwestern psychiatric assistants, es-
sentially finding that the Northwestern facility
merely had been expanded. He did this, even
though the complaint is limited to the Respondent's
withdrawal of recognition in connection with the
nine Northwestern employees.
Here, after a legitimate change in operations, the
Respondent was faced with the problem of having
to apply different terms and conditions of employ-
ment to a small portion of a larger group of em-
erations between its Northwestern Division and its
Abbott Division has been obliterated by the merger
and therefore the Northwestern Division no longer
exists for purposes of the contract provisions cov-
ering psychiatric assistants. Third, the parties exe-
cuted an agreement, in contemplation of the merger,
in which they specifically agreed that the 63
Abbott Division psychiatric assistants would not be
represented by the Union. Lastly, the 1980-1982
revised contract for the service and maintenance
unit dropped any reference to psychiatric assistants
while the Union reserved only its position that it
continued to represent the nine historically repre-
sented employees.
In sum , the judge erred by accreting the 63 un-
represented employees and in ordering the Re-
spondent to bargain in an inappropriate unit. Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint inasmuch
as the unit from which the Respondent withdrew
recognition on a limited basis is inappropriate.3
ORDER
ployees, even though all of them performed the The complaint is dismissed.
same tasks under common supervision at the same
facility. The judge himself found that, despite the
Respondent's attempts to differentiate among the
employees, having represented and unrepresented
psychiatric assistants working side-by-side "mani-
festly became unworkable." Nevertheless, the
judge found appropriate a unit including some, but
not all, of the employees working in the classifica-
tion of psychiatric assistant.
In addition to mandating an impractical situation,
the judge's finding is inconsistent with longstanding
unit principles because it orders the Respondent to
bargain in a unit which includes some of the psy-
chiatric assistants and not others. In our view, no
unit is appropriate with respect to the Respondent's
psychiatric assistants which fails to include all of
them.
Further, the 63 historically unrepresented psychi-
atric assistants cannot properly be found to have
been accreted into the unit for several reasons.
First, the General Counsel did not allege a with-
drawal of recognition from the merged unit.
Second, the previous split in the Respondent's op-
stipulated unit may so substantially contravene the congressional admoni-
tion to avoid undue proliferation of units as to increase significantly the
likelihood of disruption to health care Furthermore , there may be situa-
tions when the stipulation is derived from the mere convenience of the
parties to the detriment of important rights and interests of the employ-
ees, or situations where the stipulation otherwise is contrary to the poli-
cies of the Act In all such circumstances Member Hunter will decline to
honor the parties' stipulation because the public interest must outweigh
the convenience of the private parties involved
In view of the findings below , Member Hunter finds it unnecessary to
pass on the judge 's conclusion that the multiemployer unit was appropri-
ate
3 Member Dennis finds it unnecessary to consider any accretion issue
and relies solely on the inappropriate unit rationale
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Administrative Law Judge This
matter was submitted to the Division of Judges on a stip-
ulated record, dated March 10, 1982, and has been as-
signed to me for the issuance of a decision and other ap-
propriate action. The complaint, which was issued June
30, 1981, based on a charge filed by the above-named
Charging Party (the Union) on October 29, 1980, alleges
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) since about
August 15, 1980, by withdrawing recognition from and
refusing to bargain with the Union as the bargaining rep-
resentative of psychiatric assistants previously employed
at Respondent's Northwestern Division, and unilaterally
changing wages and other conditions of employment of
such employees. The answer denies the unfair labor
practices alleged.
On the entire record in this case , and after due consid-
eration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material to this matter , Respondent has
been and is engaged in the operation of hospitals located
at Minneapolis , Minnesota . During a recent annual
period , in the course of such operations , Respondent re-
ceived gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and received
ABBOTT-NORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL
goods and materials at such facilities from directly out-
side the State of Minnesota of a value in excess of
$50,000
Respondent admits and I find that Respondent is now,
and has been at all times material herein an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act, and a health care institution
within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the Union is now,
and has been at all times material herein, a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11 THE FACTS
A. Background
Prior to 1970, Abbott Hospital and Northwestern Hos-
pital each operated a hospital and certain subsidiary fa-
cilities at two seperate locations in Minneapolis Follow-
ing a corporate merger of these two in 1970, Respondent
continued to operate the two hospitals and adjacent fa-
cilities as separate operating divisions, known as the
Abbott Division and the Northwestern Division.
For a number of years, Respondent and its predecessor
hospitals have been members of a multiemployer bargain-
ing association, known as Health Manpower Manage-
ment, Inc. (HMMI), which represents approximately 22
hospitals in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area,
for negotiation and administration of collective-bargain-
ing agreements. It is stipulated that the members of
HMMI constitute a multiemployer bargaining unit.
The Union has, for many years, represented nonprofes-
sional (service and maintenance) employees of HMMI
member hospitals in the multiemployer unit. This has
been embodied in a series of collective-bargaining agree-
ments, including one running from March 1, 1979, to
February 28, 1981, covering the approximately 4500 em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit. These contracts are execut-
ed seperately by each member of HMMI Since the cor-
porate merger in 1970, Respondent has executed seperate
contracts, negotiated by HMMI for that unit, for each of
its divisions
Although the employee classifications covered by the
agreement at the various HMMI member hospital loca-
tions are substantially the same, a few variations have
grown up during the years. Thus, the agreement for the
term from March 1, 1979, to February 28, 1981, refers
specifically to psychiatric assistants at only five HMMI
member locations, including Respondent's Northwestern
Division, but not its Abbott Division.
B. Bargaining for Psychiatric Assistants Employed by
Respondent
The Union has never been recognized as representing
psychiatric assistants employed by Respondent at Re-
spondent's Abbott Division.
In November 1974, the job classification of psychiatric
assistant was established at Respondent and the Union
agreed to include this classification in the multiemployer
contract between the parties covering nonprofessional
(service and maintenance) employees at Respondent's
Northwestern Division Subsequent bargaining agree-
ments negotiated by HMMI with the Union covered the
1065
psychiatric assistants employed at the Northwestern Di-
vision, but not at the Abbott Division
On August 7, 1978, Respondent and the Union, in an-
ticipation of the completion of remodeling the expansion
of facilities at Respondent's Northwestern Division,
which would allow consolidation of certain operations
formerly performed separately at each of the two divi-
sions, agreed that henceforth there would be only one
bargaining agreement covering unit employees at Re-
spondent's operations, with the understanding that all job
classifications, whether common to both previous agree-
ments, or not common to both previous agreements,
would be included in the new agreement, "except the
psychiatric assistants classification at Abbott. Psychiatric
assistants currently at Northwestern are included" in the
coverage of the agreement (p 4, par. 11 of the stipula-
tion) The agreement negotiated by HMMI, effective
from March 1, 1979, to February 29, 1981, executed on
May 2, 1979, specifically provides for coverage of psy-
chiatric assistants at only "Abbott-Northwestern
Hospital/Northwestern Division," and four other hospi-
tals, not including the Abbott Division.
Among the operations which Respondents planned to
consolidate at the expanded Northwestern Hospital loca-
tion was the mental health operations of both its divi-
sions, including the transfer of its psychiatric assistants
employed at the Abbott Division to work alongside the
psychiatric asistants employed at the Northwestern Divi-
sion facility In November 1979, Respondent transferred
approximately 63 psychiatric assistants who had been
employed at Respondent's Abbott Division to the facility
at its Northwestern Division where approximately nine
psychiatric assistants were employed i The merged staff
of all psychiatric assistants since that time has worked
under common supervision and performed the same basic
duties and functions at the same location.
From the time that the staffs of psychiatric assistants
were consolidated (in November 1979) until August 15,
1980, Respondent attempted to apply its contract with
the Union to the nine positions which were identified
with the Northwestern Division before the consolidation,
and to apply its policies applicable to nonrepresented em-
ployees ("non-contract policies") to the 63 positions for-
merly identified with the Abbott Division These non-
contract policies were substantially different from those
contained in the union contract at the time of the con-
solidation, especially with respect to salary schedule,
fringe benefits, layoff policy, and job posting
The staffing of psychiatric assistants in Respondent's
mental health unit has always been based on a combina-
tion of full-time and part-time positions Hours of the
part-time staff vary depending on employee desires and
staffing needs. At various times from November 1979
through August 15, 1980, when vacancies occurred due
either to employee turnover or to the need for additional
staff, psychiatric assistants were transferred among posi-
i The distance between the Abbott Division and the Northwestern Di-
vision is not stated in the stipulation of facts, but in Exh R (the Regional
Director's decision dismissing Case 18-RM-1081, discussed hereinafter) it
is stated that the distance of the transfer from one facility to the other
was 1-1/2 miles
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions asserted to be represented by the Union and posi-
tions asserted not to be represented . During this period,
both the number of hours and the number of positions
fluctuated within the group of psychiatric assistants as-
serted to be represented by the Union and those alleged-
ly not represented
This is to advise you that, effective immediately, the
hospital is declining to recognize Local 113 as the
bargaining representative of any of the psychiatric
assistants or mental health counselors employed by
Abbott-Northwestern hospital.
Since August 15 , the Respondent has treated all psy-
chiatric assistants as being unrepresented and has granted
wage increases to some or all of them and otherwise
changed their conditions of employment without regard
to whether they were formerly employed at the North-
western Division , where psychiatric assistants were rep-
resented by the Union , or at the Abbott Division, where
they were not
A new bargaining agreement between Respondent and
the Union , negotiated by HMMI pursuant to a wage re-
opening provision of the prior contract was executed for
the term from March 1 , 1980, to March 1 , 1982 Al-
though the new contiact does not specifically cover the
classification of psychiatric assistants , it was agreed by
the Respondent and the Union that execution of the new
agreement by the Union did not constitute a waiver of its
claim that it still represents the nine psychiatric assistants
formerly employed at the Northwestern Division Re-
spondent and the Union further agreed that the dispute
over the psychiatric assistants would be left to the Board
for its resolution when disposing of the instant matter.
C. Prior Proceedings Before the Board
Prior to the actual merger of the Abbott psychiatric
assistants and the Northwestern psychiatric assistants at
the expanded Northwestern facilities , Respondent, on
May 9 , 1979, filed a petition for an election in a proposed
unit of all psychiatric assistants employed by Respond-
ent, excluding supervisors and all other employees (Case
18-RM-1059). The petition was dismissed by the Re-
gional Director on May 31 , 1979, on the ground that the
petition failed to raise a question concerning representa-
tion in the established multiemployer service and mainte-
nance unit and because the consolidation and expansion
of the Respondent 's facilities involved only a change in
and expansion of work location, and not a change in
work duties of the psychiatric assistants . Respondent
filed a request for review , which , on September 11, 1979,
was denied by the Board solely on the ground that no
demand for recognition for the employees involved had
been made and no question concerning representation ex-
isted.
On November 23, 1979, after the psychiatric assistants
from both of Respondent 's divisions had been merged
and were working side by side, Respondent filed a
second petition for an election among Respondent's psy-
chiatric assistants (Case 18-RM-1083 ) That petition was
dismissed by the Regional Director on November 30,
1979, on the grounds that.
It does not appear that the Employer 's petition
herein raises a question concerning representation in
the established service and maintenance employee
bargaining unit or that the Employer has suffficient
objective considerations to support its petition, since
the consolidation and expansion of the Abbott-
Northwestern facilities involves only a change in
and expansion of work location and not a change in
work duties of the psychiatric assistants . Further, it
appears that the relocation involves the addition of
only 63 unrepresented psychiatric assistants to a unit
of 4,500 service and maintenance employees, and
that there has been no demand for recognition for
the employees in the unit involved in the petition.
On December 12, 1979, Respondent filed a request for
review of the Regional Director's dismissal of the peti-
tion in Case 18-RM-1081 . The Board sustained the Re-
gional Director's dismissal, stating:
The Board agrees with the Director that the
Union's claim of accretion of the Employer-Peti-
tioners unrepresented psychiatric assistants to the
existing multiemployer service and maintenance unit
does not raise a question concerning representation
within the single employer unit within the meaning
of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. See United Hospitals, Incorporated and Chil-
dren's Hospital, Inc, 249 NLRB No. 63 (1980).
There was also a petition filed by an individual, on
November 9, 1979, seeking to decertify the psychiatric
assistants employed by Respondent at its Northwestern
Division facility (Case 18-RD-964). This petition was
dismissed by the Regional Director on November 30,
1979. The petitioner did not request a review of the Re-
gional Director 's decision.
D. The Appropriate Unit
Based on the record as a whole, and in particular the
collective -bargaining agreement in effect at times materi-
al to this proceeding, I find , essentially as alleged in the
complaint , that the following unit is an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All non-professional (service and maintenance) em-
ployees employed by Respondent and other em-
ployer-members of HMMI, parties to the multiem-
ployer contract negotiated by that organization
with the Union for such employees, including the
psychiatric assistants employed by Respondent at its
Northwestern facility.
In its brief (p 8), Respondent asserts that "[w]hile [the
General Counsel] alleges the appropriateness of a unit in-
cluding `psychiatric assistants employed at Respondent's
Northwestern facility,' the facts are undisputed that such
facility no longer existed after completion of the consoli-
dation ." However , to the contrary , according to the stip-
ulation , the only change in the Northwestern facility af-
fecting the psychiatric assistants was the addition of two
ABBOTT-NORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL
floors to the building in which they worked, and the
transfer of 63 psychiatric assistants to that location The
collective-bargaining agreement, executed May 2,' 1979,
clearly applied to the Northwestern facility, and the psy-
chiatric assistants employed at that location
III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
In spite of the apparent complexity of this matter, the
essential facts may be summarized as follows. The Union
has been recognized as the bargaining representative of
Respondent's nonprofessional service and maintenance
employees, including psychiatric assistants , at Respond-
ent's Northwestern facility for some time, as evidenced
by several multiemployer collective-bargaining agree-
ments to which Respondent and the Union are parties.
These agreements cover maintenance service and person-
nel at a large number of seperate facilities operated by
various employees in the Minneapolis-St Paul area (but
not necessarily psychiatric assistants at all locations) 2
In November 1979, at a time when approximately 9
psychiatric assistants were employed at the Northwest-
ern facilities, and clearly covered by the bargaining
agreement (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "the
original psychiatric assistants"), Respondent transferred
approximately 63 psychiatric assistants who had previ-
ously been unrepresented (sometimes referred to as "the
transferred psychiatric assistants") from its Abbott facili-
ties to its Northwestern facilites. From this point on, the
transferred psychiatric assistants and the original psychi-
atric assistants worked side by side, performing basically
the same kind of work, under the same supervision.
For a short time, Respondent attempted to continue to
apply the terms of the bargaining agreement to the 9
original psychiatric assistants , but applied different, non-
conduct terms and conditions to the 63 transferred psy-
chiatric assistants at the Northwestern facilities. The situ-
ation manifestly became unworkable. In about 3-1/2
months, Respondent notified the Union that it would no
longer recognize the Union as the bargaining representa-
tive of any of the psychiatric assistants employed at its
Northwestern facilities
Since Respondent has agreed to recognize the Union
as the bargaining representative of all the psychiatric as-
sistants at the Northwestern facility for the term of the
bargaining agreement , under well-established principles
of law, Respondent's action violated the bargaining
agreement and violated the Act. In the circumstances of
this case, there is no reason to treat the 63 transferred
psychiatric assistants any differently than new employees
hired off the street.
However, this case seems to have been presented on a
more limited basis. Thus, though the Union' s original
charge claimed that Respondent was obligated by the
bargaining agreement to recognize the Union as the rep-
resentative of all the psychiatric assistants at the North-
western facilities, the Union was later induced to amend
2 The agreement in effect at the times material herein specifically
refers to psychiatric assistants at five seperate locations, including the
Northwestern facility There is no showing that psychiatric assistants are
employed at any of the other facilities covered by the agreement except
at Respondent's Abbott facilities, where the psychiatric assistants were
not covered by the agreement
1067
the charge to exclude the 63 psychiatric assistants.
Though the General Counsel's complaint alleges that all
psychiatric assistants at Northwestern are included in the
unit, the complaint alleges only that Respondent violated
the Act by withdrawing recognition from and refusing to
bargain with the Union as the representative of the nine
original psychiatric assistants, and unilaterally changing
the working conditions of those employees.2
This presents a problem Thus, Respondent argues that
since the General Counsel claims that it is obligated to
recognize the Union for only part of a classification (psy-
chiatric assistants) working at the same location, there-
fore there "is no conceivable way that the psychiatric as-
sistants formerly employed at the Northwestern Division
can be deemed to be an appropriate unit, either separate-
ly or as part of a broader unit (Br. 8),' and in the ab-
sence of an appropriate unit Mine Workers (Jones &
Laughlin Steel Corp.), 83 NLRB 916 (1949).
However, the complaint alleges, as I have found, an
appropriate unit "including psychiatric assistants em-
ployed at Respondent's Northwestern facility," and it is
clear that at times when the bargaining contract in effect
covered that unit, Respondent refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union for psychiatric assistants in that
appropriate unit, refused and failed to apply terms and
conditions of the contract to their working conditions,
and unilaterally altered their working conditions. In the
circumstances of this case, I therefore find that Respond-
ent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act and a health care institution within the meaning
of Section 2(14) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 At all times material to this proceeding, the Union
has been the exclusive bargaining representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of all the em-
ployees in the unit set forth below, which is an appropri-
ate unit for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
All non-professional (service and maintenance) em-
ployees employed by Respondent and other em-
ployer-members of Health Manpower Management,
Inc., parties to the multi-employer contract negoti-
ated by that organization with the Union for such
employees, including the psychiatric assistants em-
3 In the stipulation of facts (made after the issuance of the complaint),
it is stated that by entering into a new bargaining agreement with Re-
spondent, the Union did not waive "its claim that it still represents the
nine psychiatric assistants formerly employed at the Northwestern [facili-
ty] "
* See, e g, Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 247 NLRB 970 at
972 (1980), where the Board held "[V]oluntary recognition of an arbi-
trary grouping of service and maintenance employees is not sufficient jus-
tification for splintering employees who have a common community of
interest , evidenced by [common working conditions ], and, in many in-
stances, by the performance of similar duties " But cf St. Rose de Lima
Hospital, 233 NLRB 1511 (1976).
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployed by Respondent at its Northwestern Division
facility.
4 By withdrawing recognition from and refusing to
recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its psychiatric assistants employed at its
Northwestern facility, by failing and refusing to apply
the terms of its collective-bargaining contract with the
Union to its psychiatric assistants employed at that facili-
ty, and by unilaterally altering the terms and conditions
of employment of such employees, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, which unfair labor
practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act
It having been found that Respondent violated the Act
by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its draw any benefit or improvements heretofore granted
psychiatric assistants at its Northwestern Division facili-
ty, by failing and refusing to apply the terms and condi-
tions -of its collective -bargaining agreement with the
Union to such employee, and by unilaterally altering the
working conditions of such employees , it will be recom-
mended that Respondent be ordered to (1) recognize and
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit found hereinabove,
including the psychiatric assistants employed at Respond-
ent's Northwestern Division, (2) apply the terms and
conditions of the bargaining agreement with the Union
then in effect to the employees in the appropriate unit,
including the psychiatric assistants employed at Respond-
ent's Northwestern Division , and (3 ) make the psychiat-
ric assistants employed at Respondent's Northwestern
Division whole for any loss of wages or other benefits or
conditions which they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent 's unfair labor practices found above with in-
terest thereon as prescribed by the Board in Florida Steel
Corp., 231 NLRB 651 ( 1977). See also Isis Plumbing Co.,
138 NLRB 716 ( 1962) 5
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
5 No portion of the Order is intended to require Respondent to with-