Advocate South Suburban Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 2006

346 N.L.R.B. 209 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

ADVOCATE SOUTH SUBURBAN HOSPITAL
346 NLRB No. 23
209
Advocate South Suburban Hospital and Service Em-
ployees International Union. Case 13–CA–42246
January 10, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On September 21, 2005, Administrative Law Judge
Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering
briefs. The Respondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Advocate South Suburban
Hospital, Hazel Crest, Illinois, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
The Respondent argues that the judge improperly applied a pre-
sumption of credibility in favor of employee Susan Hall’s testimony
because Hall was a current employee. Although the Respondent is
correct that the Board has not created a presumption in favor of the
testimony of current employees, the Board has found that “the testi-
mony of current employees which contradicts statements of their su-
pervisors is likely to be particularly reliable because these witnesses are
testifying adversely to their pecuniary interests . . . [t]hus, a witness’
status as a current employee may be a significant factor, but it is one
among many which a judge utilizes in resolving credibility issues.”
Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995) (citations omitted), affd.
mem. 83 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 1996). Here, the judge relied on a variety
of factors such as the demeanor of the witnesses as well as the current
employee status of Hall. Consequently, we have no reason to reverse
the judge’s credibility determination, even if he mistakenly described
Board law as creating a presumption in favor of the testimony of a
current employee.
Dawn Blume, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Keith A. Reed and Sarah N. Chomiak, Esqs. (Seyfarth Shaw
LLP), of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respondent.
Michael H. Slutsky, Esq. (Allison, Slutsky & Kennedy, P.C.), of
Chicago, Illinois, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Chicago, Illinois, on July 11 and 12, 2005. The
charge was filed by Service Employees International Union
(the Union)1 on November 19, 2004, and amended on January
6, 2005, and again on January 28, 2005. The complaint, which
was issued on March 8, 2005, alleges that the Respondent, Ad-
vocate South Suburban Hospital (the Hospital), violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
More specifically, it is alleged that on or about August 10,
2004, the Respondent, by Beverly Mulvihill interrogated Susan
Hall, an employee, about her union activities, created the im-
pression that employees’ union activities were under surveil-
lance, and threatened Hall with unspecified reprisals because of
her union activities. It is further alleged that on or about Octo-
ber 10, 2004, the Company by one of its security guards, un-
known to the General Counsel, impliedly threatened Hall with
termination because of her protected activities, and promul-
gated an overly broad no-solicitation rule by informing Hall
that if she talked to the Union on the Respondent’s property she
would be arrested.
The Respondent filed an answer, admitting the jurisdictional
allegations in the complaint, as well as the supervisory status of
Beverly Mulvihill, but denying that it knew the identity of the
security guard. The Respondent also denied that it had engaged
in unfair labor practices.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, an Illinois corporation, with an office and
place of business in Hazel Crest, Illinois, is a health care insti-
tution which, during the last year, derived gross revenues in
excess of $250,000. With purchases of materials and goods
valued in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State
of Illinois, the Respondent is admittedly an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1 We have amended the caption to reflect the disaffiliation of the
Service Employees International Union from the AFL–CIO effective
July 25, 2005.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD210
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In connection with the Union’s effort in the summer of 2004
to organize the employees at Advocate South Suburban Hospi-
tal, two union representatives came to the home of Susan Hall,
a certified nursing assistant employed by the Hospital. The
union representatives spoke about concerns expressed by an-
other employee about working conditions at the Hospital and
invited her to a union meeting. About a week or two later she
attended the union meeting at the Tinley Park Convention Cen-
ter, where employees and union organizers were introduced and
where the employees were invited to speak about what they
wanted to see changed at the Hospital. Hall also spoke up at
the meeting, first with a question and then stating that she did
not know how she could help. Another similar meeting was
scheduled 1 or 2 weeks later at the same location. Employees
from affiliated hospitals were also present at the second meet-
ing. The employees were asked by the Union to provide their
names, addresses, and telephone numbers. A photographer was
available to take pictures of the employees. Hall had her pic-
ture taken at the second union meeting. The meetings usually
ended with a prayer.
Hall also spoke in the hallway of the Hospital about the Un-
ion with coworkers on her unit. They had asked her what she
thought about the Union. In late July or early August 2004,
Hall had a conversation about the Union with her supervisor,
Beverly Mulvihill, manager of surgical services.
According to Hall, she was working overtime from 3 to 7
p.m. on that day, when Mulvihill met her in the hall at about
3:30 or 4 p.m. Mulvihill said that she wanted to talk to her.
Also present in the office was Kathy Mrozek, director of nurs-
ing. Hall recalled her visit to her supervisor’s office as follows
(Tr. 137–138, 154, 230, 250):
She asked me, had I heard people speaking about the Union.
And I told her everybody’s talking about it. I understand spe-
cifically you have been talking to employees about the Union.
And I told her I really didn’t want to discuss it. And she said,
we make examples of those who go around talking to others
about the Union, they will be a sacrificial lamb.
Hall responded, “do whatever,” and walked out of the office.
Apprehensive about her job and upset about the encounter with
her supervisor, Hall notified the Union.
Beverly Mulvihill, manager of surgical services, who had
been with the Hospital for about 20 years, contradicted Hall’s
testimony. Mulvihill testified that she had been Hall’s supervi-
sor since 2000, and that she had met with Hall in her office
from time to time about job related matters. She recalled meet-
ing with Hall on August 12, 2004—the date closest to the time
of the alleged union conversation—to discuss Hall’s job per-
formance. Mulvihill said that she had called her to the office
and gave her a disciplinary warning for rude behavior towards a
patient (R. Exh. 17). But Mulvihill denied discussing the Un-
ion at that meeting, or making any of the statements attributed
to her by Hall. When asked whether she had ever questioned
Hall about the Union or made statements, such as, “[w]e make
examples of those who talk to others about the Union,” or,
“there will be a sacrificial lamb,” Mulvihill said she did not.
Mulvihill testified that she had discussed the Union at a unit
meeting when Hall was present, but that she gave out only gen-
eral information and told the employees that “it’s got to be
everybody’s decision on their own and it doesn’t make any
difference to me what they decide” (Tr. 323).
Mary Katherine Mrozek, director of nursing and a 25-year
veteran at the Hospital testified that she usually sees Mulvihill
on a daily basis and, having known her since 1976, that she
considered Mulvihill to be a friend. When asked whether she
had an occasion to be in Mulvihill’s office on or about August
9, 2004, at a time when Hall was also present, she replied: “No,
I did not” (Tr. 382).
Hall testified about a second incident involving the Union.
Hall was on her way to work on October 13, 2004. As she
approached the Hospital, she saw two union representatives
passing out union flyers. One of the union agents was C. J.
Grimes. Hall stopped to talk to them and rolled down her car
window, when one of the representatives placed a flyer on her
car seat. At that point a security guard came up to Hall, saying,
“move it or loose [sic] it” (Tr. 147). Hall then pulled into the
parking lot in front of the Hospital. The security guard ap-
proached her again in a white company car and asked whether
she knew those people. He also said, “If you’re caught talking
to them on hospital property or take anything from them, you
can be arrested” (Tr. 147). Hall replied, “I don’t think so.”
According to Hall, the security guard continued the conversa-
tion as follows (Tr. 147): “He said they’re vagabonds, you
don’t need to be talking to them and if you are caught passing
out any of this stuff that they’re passing out on hospital prop-
erty, you will be walked off company premises.” Hall told him
okay. She received several more union pamphlets from Grimes
and proceeded to drive her car to the rear parking lot of the
Hospital. As she gathered her belongings, including the union
literature, to enter the building, the security guard approached
her again saying, “You cannot pass that out on hospital time.”
Hall responded, “I’m not on the clock” (Tr. 148).
Hall did not know the name of the security guard. She de-
scribed him as a tall African American with short hair and rim
glasses. He wore a blue uniform, a badge, and a hospital ID.
Even though she had seen him before, she could not ascertain
his name. Shortly before the hearing in this case, Hall made
another effort to identify the guard by asking Tommy Robert, a
public safety officer employed by the Hospital. Although he
testified that he did not recall such a conversation, Hall testified
that Robert told her that the guard’s first name was Roger and
that Roger was no longer employed by the Respondent.
The testimony of Aletha Ross, vice president of human re-
sources, confirmed that a security officer by the name of Roger
Spraggs had been employed by the Hospital at the time of the
incident, and that he had left his job in December 2004. He left
without a forwarding address (R. Exh. 18).
The record also contains the testimony of James Cureton,
manager of public safety, who testified in great detail about the
function of security guards and the extent of their authority on
hospital premises. His testimony corroborated Hall’s testimony
that security guards wore blue uniforms, showing a badge and
an ID, and that they drove company vehicles of the type de-
scribed by Hall. He also explained their role in enforcing com-
ADVOCATE SOUTH SUBURBAN HOSPITAL 211
pany policies, such as the Hospital’s solicitation and distribu-
tion policy, and rules regarding security and safety (GC Exh.
3). Their official job title is public safety officer. Their job
description shows the extensive range of their duties and re-
sponsibilities under the broad stated purpose, “To provide pro-
tection and safety to all patients, visitors, staff, employees,
equipment, and the facility of the hospital and satellite clinics”
and “To enforce hospital policy and protection” (GC Exh. 2).
The job description also provides the officers with wide discre-
tion and personal initiatives to accomplish their wide range of
responsibilities.
Analysis
The record presents two factual scenarios setting the stage
for the alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Each
scenario depends upon the credibility of the testimony of Susan
Hall, a longtime employee at the Hospital. The first incident,
the conversation with her supervisor, Beverly Mulvihill, is
strongly contested by the Respondent, requiring a credibility
resolution as to whether such a conversation actually occurred.
Under withering cross-examination and with accusations of
making inconsistent prior statements, Hall adamantly main-
tained that during a union campaign at the Hospital in late July
or early August, Mulvihill called her into the office and first
asked her about the Union, that Mulvihill then said that she
heard that Hall was talking to people about the Union, and fi-
nally stated that they make examples of those who go around
talking to others about the Union, they will be a sacrificial
lamb. Mulvihill denied that she had made the statements and
Mrozek who, according to Hall witnessed the conversation,
also denied hearing those comments.
The record contains numerous union pamphlets and a video-
tape which deal with the same conversation. The Respondent,
pointing to inconsistencies between the testimony and the union
material, attempted to discredit Hall’s testimony.
I have considered the demeanor and behavior of the wit-
nesses on the witness stand, the witnesses’ manner of testifying,
whether the witnesses impressed me as truthful, whether the
witnesses impressed me as having an accurate memory and
recollection, whether they had a motive for not telling the truth
and whether the witnesses had any interest in the outcome of
the case, or friendship or hostility toward other people con-
cerned with the case. I have also taken into consideration
whether the testimony was reasonable or plausible and whether
the testimony was contradicted or supported by other credible
evidence. And I have considered whether the witnesses were
biased or prejudiced which may have colored their testimony.
Generally, I found Hall to be a credible witness. She im-
pressed me as being sure of her recollection of the salient facts
and gave spontaneous answers without any attempt to be eva-
sive. Her demeanor was forthright and appeared honest. Mind-
ful from the outset that I would have to make a credibility de-
termination, I probed the reliability of her answers myself. I
was impressed by the certainty and conviction in her responses
to my inquiry. Under vigorous cross-examination, she was
steadfast and consistently and repeatedly recalled Mulvihill’s
statements to her, first the interrogation about the Union, then
the remark that management was aware of Hall’s union talk
with other employees, and then the threat of making examples
of those who talk to others about the Union, the sacrificial lamb
(Tr. 137–138, 254, 195, 230, 250). By confronting her em-
ployer, and defying her supervisor, Hall had nothing to gain by
her testimony. To the contrary, as a current employee, she
risked the ire of management. There is also no evidence that
Hall was hostile to management or was biased as a result of
having been disciplined. Under these circumstances, I agree
with the General Counsel that Hall’s testimony is presumed to
be credible. Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995).
Nevertheless, I believe that Hall had the tendency to exag-
gerate or embellish her statements in minor respects, which
appeared to affect the accuracy of her testimony. For example,
Hall testified that she never read the union brochures nor
looked at her picture in them, because she has a hard time look-
ing at herself. She may have avoided looking at all of the pam-
phlets, but I find it difficult to accept that she was totally unfa-
miliar with the contents in the union literature, particularly
when these brochures purported to reflect her conversation with
Mulvihill. Likewise her testimony that she “cried the whole 16
hours,” following the episode, because she felt that her job was
threatened. I interpret her remarks as a figure of speech that
she was upset and distraught for that duration and unsure to
whom to turn for help.
The Respondent seized on these instances and argues at
length that Hall’s entire testimony is unreliable, particularly in
the light of Mulvihill’s testimony, denying not only that such a
meeting occurred, but also that such comments about the Union
were ever made. Mulvihill as a witness made a self-assured
and professional impression. She testified that she attended
company sponsored training sessions covering employees’
rights, and that supervisors were provided with a document,
alerting them about union tactics, and warning them that asso-
ciates (employees) would likely deceive management or lie
about their union involvement (GC Exh. 8). She revealed that
members in her family had belonged to a union, and that the
reference to the term “sacrificial lamb” was incongruous with
her religious beliefs. Her testimony concerning the relevant
issues appeared to me mechanical, as if she had rehearsed the
answers. On occasion she appeared hesitant or reluctant to
respond to counsels’ questions. She was evasive as to whether
she had attended training sessions dealing with union issues. In
several respects I found her testimony difficult to accept, when,
for example, she stated that she was neutral as to the employ-
ees’ union sentiments or that it’s their choice, and that it didn’t
make any difference to her what they decide. Management
took issue with the Union’s tactics in a memorandum sent to
the employees (GC Exh. 7). And Mulvihill’s testimony criti-
cally described the tactics of union representatives who “came
to their [employees’] door, banged on their door, wouldn’t go
away [and] stuck their foot in their door” (Tr. 332). She ap-
peared clearly biased in favor of management and defensive of
her own role in the alleged scenario.
The testimony of Kathy Mrozek for the purpose of corrobo-
rating Mulvihill was of limited value, because the focus of her
inquiry was limited to the events of August 9, 2004, and the
question whether she had witnessed an employee discipline in
August. Hall did not recall the exact date of the meeting, when
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD212
she testified that the day of the conversation occurred sometime
in late July or early August at a time when she was assigned to
a double shift. That day in question could have occurred during
the last few days in July or the first several days in August.
Moreover, Hall did not testify that the conversation about the
Union occurred in connection with a disciplinary action. Mro-
zek did testify that she did not overhear anyone refer to a sacri-
ficial lamb in connection with their union activities, but she was
never asked whether she ever witnessed a conversation between
Hall and Mulvihill about the Union. I find the testimony of this
witness, a friend of Mulvihill and a member of management,
significant as to matters not asked of her and conclude that it
was biased in favor of management.
The Respondent also challenged Hall’s testimony with prior
inconsistent statements made in union brochures and video-
tapes. These documents, prepared by the Union, contain state-
ments by employees, including Hall, about working conditions
at the Hospital (R. Exhs. 6–12). Hall is quoted describing the
incident in Mulvihill’s office. As pointed out by the Respon-
dent, the purported statements made in the same conversation
contain some variations. For example, according to one bro-
chure, Mulvihill began the conversation by saying, “I’ve been
hearing rumors that there’s talk about a union,” in others she
supposedly said, “have you heard anything about the union—
well, what have you heard” (R. Exhs. 6, 9, 10). In the video,
depicting Hall in front of an audience and reading from a text,
she uses similar language (R. Exh. 12). Hall’s testimony gave
three slightly different versions that Mulvihill initiated the con-
versation with: “I’ve been hearing people talk about the Un-
ion,” and “had she heard people speaking about Union,” and
“have you been hearing about the Union” (Tr. 137–138, 154,
230, 250). The Respondent questioned the witness with other
examples of similar discrepancies between the various docu-
ments. But Hall distanced herself from the contents of the ma-
terial. During her testimony, she agreed with some of the
statements attributed to her, but disagreed with others and testi-
fied without contradiction that the Union composed the bro-
chures, as well as the videos, and that the Union had scripted
the information contained therein. She also testified that she
was uncomfortable using any of it, because “it made Advocate
look like they were monsters,” but that she wanted to show the
intimidation and coercion by management. The union material
which seemed to have been composed with some literary li-
cense obviously incorporated some of the information provided
by the witness. I find that it generally supported her testimony
and appeared consistent with her sworn account of the conver-
sation. In any case, I credit Hall’s sworn testimony as more
reliable than the printed material.
As alleged in the complaint and in agreement with the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Union, I find that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) in three respects for unlawfully interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Mulvihill’s questioning of
Hall about the Union after calling her into the office, was coer-
cive under the circumstances. Central to the conversation was
the Union without any other work-related business, and by
intimating that management was aware of Hall’s union activity
and by insinuating adverse consequences as a result, clearly
created a highly coercive atmosphere. Hall described Mulvi-
hill’s attitude as stern and recalled being distraught and upset
after leaving the office, which is an indication that the conver-
sation was anything but casual or cheerful. The Board does not
consider any interrogation as unlawful, but looks at all the sur-
rounding circumstances to determine whether it tended to be
coercive. Emery Worldwide, 309 NLRB 185, 186 (1992);
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). For example, where
the supervisor’s questioning of an employee was accompanied
by a veiled threat, the Board found a violation of Section
8(a)(1). Hoffman Fuel Co., 309 NLRB 327, 329 (1992). And
where the questioning occurred in supervisor’s office, directed
solely at the employee’s union activities and involved no other
work-related business, the employer violated the Act.
The General Counsel properly cites Home Depot, U.S.A.,
317 NLRB 732 (1995), as closely analogous to the present
scenario, because there, as here, a statement creating the im-
pression of surveillance, coupled with a statement soliciting a
response was found to be unlawful interrogation and creating
the impression of unlawful surveillance. The Union similarly
argues, citing Ready-Mix, Inc., 337 NLRB 1189 (2002), that a
statement by management soliciting a reply from an employee,
such as, I heard you were passing out union cards, is considered
unlawful interrogation. In any case, I have credited Hall’s tes-
timony that Mulvihill clearly asked her whether she had heard
people speak about the Union, and then saying that she under-
stood specifically Hall talking about the Union. Hall had spo-
ken to other employees about the Union and had attended some
meetings, but she was not an open union activist, much less a
known union organizer. These statements not only amounted
to unlawful interrogation, but also to creating the impression of
surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1). A supervisor’s
statement, “I hear you are involved with the Union,” without
accompanying threats, was held unlawful, because it implied
surveillance. Overnite Transportation Co., 254 NLRB 132,
133 (1981). Informing employees which ones were the union
activists when their activities were not openly known, gives the
impression of unlawful surveillance. Peter Vitalie Co., 310
NLRB 865, 874 (1993).
The coercive nature of Mulvihill’s statements become even
more apparent in the context of her final comment, that man-
agement would make examples of those who go around talking
to others about the Union, they will be a sacrificial lamb. I find
the Respondent’s argument that these statements were not di-
rected at Hall, nor indicative as threats of reprisal, puzzling. By
anyone’s perception, these statements were threats of unspeci-
fied reprisals. A supervisor’s statement that engaging in union
activities would have serious consequences constitutes an
unlawful threat. J. P. Stevens & Co., 245 NLRB 198 (1979). I
agree with the General Counsel and the Charging Party that the
Respondent violated the Act.
However, I find it difficult to find a violation involving the
conduct of the security guard on October 13, 2004, for a num-
ber of reasons. The identity of the safety officer is unknown.
The most reliable information revealed by Hall shortly before
the trial in this case was that his first name was Roger. He was
also described as a tall African American with glasses and short
hair, wearing a blue uniform. According to the Respondent, the
ADVOCATE SOUTH SUBURBAN HOSPITAL 213
description might fit Roger Spraggs, who was employed as a
security guard at that time, and who is no longer employed and
left without a forwarding address. The record shows that the
security personnel employed by the Hospital have a wide range
of responsibilities, that they are responsible for enforcing the
rules regarding the safety of the patients and employees. They
have wide discretion to act and have the authority to request
people to leave the hospital property and call the police.
Clearly, they are agents of the Respondent within the purview
of Section 2(13) of the Act. In any case, the particular officer
who could have given his version of the incident was unavail-
able. There is no evidence that the Respondent intentionally
failed to produce the witness. The record contains a written
note, dated November 24, 2004, written by Spraggs to the ef-
fect that there was no contact or confrontation with a union
supporter on October 13, 2004 (R. Exh. 18). Even though the
witness was unavailable, I find this hearsay document to be of
little significance, because it was not verified, and presumably
prepared in anticipation of litigation.
I believe that the general scenario as described by Hall may
have occurred. But, as pointed out by the Respondent, Hall
could have reported the incident to management or ascertained
the officer’s identity at the time of its occurrence. Moreover,
because of Hall’s tendency to exaggerate or embellish a par-
ticular incident, the record lacks the precision of the actual
statements at issue. An employee’s right to distribute union
literature on the employee’s own time and in nonwork areas of
the Hospital should be clear and unambiguous. A slight varia-
tion in the statements made by a security guard attempting to
prohibit solicitation in patient care areas or ban union activity
in the Hospital during the employee’s working time is critical.
And whether or not the guard promulgated an unlawful no-
solicitation rule or uttered a threat as alleged depends on these
nuances. Under these circumstances, I don’t have the confi-
dence in the accuracy of the witness’s recollection to find a
violation. Added to that is the inherent unfairness to the Re-
spondent whose most important witness on this issue was un-
available during the trial. I accordingly find that these allega-
tions should be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Advocate South Suburban Hospital is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Service Employees International Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By coercively interrogating employee Susan Hall about
her union sympathies, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. By creating the impression that the employees’ union ac-
tivities were under surveillance, the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By threatening employee Susan Hall with unspecified re-
prisals because of her union activities, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Advocate South Suburban Hospital, Hazel
Crest, Illinois, its officers, successors, agents, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating employees about their union
sympathies.
(b) Creating the impression that the employees’ union activi-
ties were under surveillance.
(c) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals be-
cause of their union activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Hazel Crest, Illinois, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 13 after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since July 1, 2004.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD214
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees about their
union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that the employees’ un-
ion activities were under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with unspecified reprisals
because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
ADVOCATE SOUTH SUBURBAN HOSPITAL