ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 19, 2016

22-CA-125034 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

JD–09–16
Union City, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL
and Cases 22-CA-125034
22-CA-125866
1199, SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE 22-CA-140619
WORKERS EAST
Saulo Santiago, Michael P. Silverstein, and
Eric B. Sposito, Esqs., for the General Counsel.
David F. Jasinski and Rebecca D. Winkelstein, Esqs.
(Jasinski, P.C.), of Newark, New Jersey, for the Respondent.
William S. Massey and Patrick J. Walsh, Esqs.
(Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP), of New York, New York,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case involves the latest chapter
in a long relationship between Alaris Health at Castle Hill (Castle Hill or Respondent), a New
Jersey nursing home and its unionized employees. Tried in Newark, New Jersey, over 9 days
between June and October 2015, the case addressed complaint allegations that Castle Hill
committed numerous unfair labor practices during 20141 bargaining for a new contract: (1)
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)2 by refusing to
meet with the Union’s chosen bargaining committee and then delaying and refusing to provide
information requested by the Union which was relevant to bargaining; (2) violated Section
8(a)(1) by attempting to stifle employee participation in a likely strike through interrogation,
threats and surveillance; and (3) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by retaliating against 16
employee strikers by refusing to reinstate them and/or reducing their work hours.3
Castle Hill contends that the Charging Party, Service Employees International Union 1199
(the Union), is bogged down on past history in negotiating for successor contracts and engaged

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 2014.
2 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
3 The complaint was amended to modify pars. 21 through 24 (GC Exh. 1(w)). In addition, the General
Counsel subsequently withdrew complaint pars. 28-29 and modified par. 30 to remove reference to par.
28 alleging that Castle Hill unilaterally discontinued its dues-checkoff agreement with the Union.
JD–09–16
2
in a series of acts designed to “set up” Castle Hill for unfair labor practice charges, which it
denies, and then used those charges to mask an economic strike at Castle Hill and the other
three Alaris facilities as an unfair labor practice strike.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and 5
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and Castle Hill,4 I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
10
I. JURISDICTION
Castle Hill, a corporation, operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center providing in-
patient medical care at its facility in Union City, New Jersey, where it annually derives gross
revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $5000 directly 15
from points outside the State of New Jersey. Castle Hill admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, as well as a
health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, and the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
20
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Parties
Castle Hill is the successor-in-interest to Castle Hill Health Care Center. Although the 25
company name has changed, the facility’s ownership has remained the same and the individuals
involved in bargaining and the operational aspects mostly remain the same. At the relevant times
in this complaint, Castle Hill’s supervisors included: Nelson Maurice Duran, the administrator;
Regina Figueroa, Alaris’ vice president of operations for health care staffing; Alexandra Bracea,
the director of nursing; Laura Vartolone, the assistant director of nursing; Fredline Altenor, the 30
staffing coordinator; Lavonza Jaboiun, a nursing supervisor; Ann Taylor, a quality assurance
nurse from health care staffing who serves as a Castle Hill consultant. David Jasinski, Esq., has
served as Castle Hill’s labor counsel and chief negotiator during collective bargaining,
accompanied by Mendy Gold, a principal in Castle Hill.5
35
Castle Hill and its predecessors have recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of approximately 120 employees in successive collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which was effective from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2014:

4 Notwithstanding my instruction that the parties submit one “omnibus” brief addressing this case, as
well as the other three cases involving Alaris facilities, the General Counsel submitted separate briefs for
each case. Castle Hill moved to strike the General Counsel’s exhibits. I decided against such an extreme
measure but, in order to ensure that there was no prejudice to Castle Hill, I permitted it to submit
supplemental briefs in each case. Castle Hill declined the option.
5 Castle Hill admitted only that Duran was a Section 2(11) supervisor. However, the undisputed facts
established that Bracea, Jabioun and Vartalone were also statutory supervisors, while Jasinski, Altenor,
Figueroa and Taylor acted as agents within the meaning of Section 2(13).
JD–09–16
3
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs, and all other employees
excluding professional employees, registered nurses, cooks, confidential [employees],
office clerical employees, supervisors, watchmen and guards.6
The Union’s leadership includes: Milly Silva, the executive vice president; Clauvice 5
Saint Hilaire, the vice president; and Ron McCalla and Chistina Ozual, union organizers. During
collective bargaining, the Union’s chief negotiator was William Massey, Esq., assisted by
McCalla. Castle Hill’s employees designated as members of the bargaining committee were
Danielle Humphrey, Devika Smith, L. Stuckey, Ron Lesesne, Tosha Sangare and Marquis
Francois.710
The parties enjoy a relationship that both describe as respectful. An outsider’s more
accurate description is that Castle Hill and union representatives are professional labor
negotiators who represent their clients with tactical, albeit scripted, fervor. The parties began
meeting shortly before the 2010 contract expired, but controversy soon erupted over the method 15
of meeting and information requested by the Union. This was not a surprise, given the previous
disagreements during their 2007-2008 negotiations, which resulted in the Union going on strike,
filing an unfair labor practice complaint, and Judge Mindy Landow issuing a decision finding
unfair labor practices by Castle Hill in prematurely declaring impasse, unlawfully implementing
its final contract offer, failing to furnish the Union with requested information, and unilaterally 20
discontinuing pension fund contributions. The Board affirmed Judge Landow’s decision on
September 28, 2010. Castle Hill Health Care Ctr., 355 NLRB 1156 (2010).
B. The Union’s Information Requests
25
1. The December 27, 2013 request
Saint Hilaire initiated the process for a new contract in a letter, dated December 27, 2013.
He requested that Castle Hill engage in bargaining and offered alternative dates in February. He
also requested that Castle Hill furnish the Union with the following information by January 24: 30
detailed job descriptions and performance evaluations describing job duties for bargaining unit
positions; summary plan descriptions and related costs of available fringe benefits such as health
insurance, disability, pension, profit sharing and 401(k) plans;8 numbers of employees covered
by health insurance and related costs; temporary staffing agencies used and related costs; work
schedules for each nursing unit from January to October 2013; OSHA injury and illness records 35
for 2011-2013; health and safety policies; overtime work policies, shift differentials, and
premium pay; gross annual payroll information; cost reports submitted to Medicaid; and any
other documents describing any terms and conditions of employment for unit members.9

6 GC Exh. 3.
7 Section 17(c) of the agreement, entitled “Negotiations,” stated that the “Union negotiating
committee, not to exceed six (6) Employees, shall be paid for up to three (3) negotiating sessions, by the
Employer, at straight time rates, for all lost time from work.”
8 McCalla knew that Castle Hill did not maintain a 401(k) plan at the time of the previous
negotiations but credibly explained that it was a standard request that was made in the event that one was
created during the term of the expired agreement. (Tr. 153-154.)
9 Castle Hill did not dispute testimony by McCalla and Massey that employees complained about
short staffing. (GC Exh. 4.)
JD–09–16
4
Jasinski had several conversations with McCalla and Massey in January about dates to
commence collective bargaining. He apprised them several times that he would be engaged in a
lengthy trial in Atlantic City, New Jersey, during portions of February and March. The trial
eventually started on February 9 and lasted until March 22. Rebecca Winklestein, Esq.,
Jasinski’s co-counsel in this proceeding, served a similar role in that case.5
At some point during those discussions, Jasinski suggested a brief contract extension, but
did not request an extension of time to respond to the Union’s December 27 information
request.10 Neither Massey nor McCalla accepted that offer. McCalla did, however, express the
Union’s preference to bundle all four contracts together during collective bargaining, echoing the 10
Union’s position during the 2007 negotiations. Consistent with his response in 2007, Jasinski
refused, insisting there was a separate contract for each facility and each should be negotiated
separately. He proposed bargaining dates of either March 27 or 31.11
In a letter, dated February 21, McCalla responded to Jasinski by agreeing to meet on 15
either day and break out negotiations into separate bargaining sessions for each facility.
However, he also proposed to have an initial session with the bargaining committees for all four
facilities present in order for union officials to open with their remarks:
In our discussions concerning bargaining dates you said you have possible availability on 20
March 27 and definite availability on March 31. We request that we use one of those
dates to begin bargaining at Alaris Health at Boulevard East, Alaris Health at Castle Hill,
Alaris Health at Harbor View, and Alaris Health at Rochelle Park. If we need to move the
bargaining session for a different facility tentatively scheduled for the 31st, so be it. As
you know the four Alaris contracts expire on the March 31, 2014 and we’ve yet to 25
receive any response to information requests sent to the facilities on December 27, 2013.
We believe it’s important to start bargaining before the contracts expire as it’s our desire
to reach contract settlements in these facilities as quickly as possible.
While we understand the employer’s position on separate bargaining tables for each 30
facility and our agreement to hold four separate meetings on the first day of bargaining
we believe it would be advisable to add a fifth initial session with all facilities and
bargaining committees present to give our union leader Milly Silva and counsel Bill

10 There is no dispute regarding Jasinski’s assertion regarding his past practice of providing Castle
Hill’s response to the Union’s information requests on the first day of negotiations. (Tr. 2154.) Moreover,
his testimony that he told McCalla in January and Massey in February that he would not have an
opportunity to delve into the December 27 information request was also undisputed. However, in light of
Massey’s March 13 email demanding a response to the information request, it is clear that the Union
never consented to delayed document production until March 27. (Tr. 1420-1424, 1986-1987; GC Exh.
7.) It is also likely that Jasinski, an experienced labor litigator who defended against the Union’s unfair
labor practice charges resulting from previous contract negotiations, would have mentioned such an
agreement or understanding in subsequent communications.
11 Massey conceded that it was Jasinski’s longstanding position to negotiate each contract separately,
but noted that there were previous occasions prior to 2014 when the employer agreed to bargain two to
four facilities at different times on the same day. (Tr. 926-928.) Jasinski conceded that in 2010 all four
contracts were essentially bargained at the same time in the final bargaining session based on an off-the-
record meeting involving delegates from all four facilities. (Tr. 1509-1510.)
JD–09–16
5
Massey an opportunity to address the proceedings before we break into separate sessions.
This would obviously be an opportunity for management representatives to speak directly
with the employees and Union officials.
Please let us know which of these dates would be your preference.125
In a letter, dated February 26, Jasinski confirmed the proposed bargaining dates and
agreed to the proposal to have Silva and Massey open with remarks, but insisted they make them
at the beginning of each bargaining session for each of the facilities. He also renewed his request
for a 90-day contract extension, but made no mention of the December 27 information request:10
We are in receipt of your letter identifying a number of facilities whose contracts expire
on March 31, 2014. A brief response is warranted.
Each identified facility is a separate and independent operation with its own collective 15
bargaining agreement covering employees for that particular facility. They maintain
separation operations, including all necessary staff. Each facility is unique and the
bargaining history at each facility recognize its independence.
In light of these undisputed facts, we will adhere to our prior practice and not agree to 20
joint bargaining. Of course, Milly Silva and Bill Massey may present the Union’s
respective positions for each facility at each bargaining session and, quite candidly, we
welcome their attendance.
We are available and confirm the March 27 and 31 dates for each facility. Please notify 25
me of the times to commence negotiations for each facility. In scheduling for these
sessions, we request notification of the members of the bargaining committee who will be
attending. We request these names at least two (2) weeks in advance to avoid any
disruption in our staffing. Bargaining sessions, as in our prior negotiations, will take
place at the Union's offices in Edison.30
Finally, in a spirit of good faith and cooperation, as discussed, we will agree to the
extension of each collective bargaining agreement for an additional ninety (90) days. This
additional time will afford all parties the opportunity to formulate its bargaining positions
and engage in give-and-take at the bargaining table in an effort to reach an amicable 35
agreement that balances the needs of all parties. Should the Union wish to jumpstart the
negotiations and submit its initial proposals to us prior to the initial bargaining session,
we will accept and review each proposal. Thank you.13
On March 13, McCalla emailed Jasinski to inform him that each of the four Alaris 40
facilities would receive releases for bargaining committee members that day by fax and certified

12 Jasinski’s testimony regarding assurances by McCalla about negotiating the contracts separately is
consistent with McCalla’s documented agreement to do that— subject to an opening statement by Silva at
the beginning of negotiations. The assurances of separate bargaining, however, made no mention of the
composition of Castle Hill’s bargaining committee. (GC Exh. 5; Tr. 869, 1426-1427.)
13 GC Exh. 6.
JD–09–16
6
mail. Massey followed up with an email later that day regarding the commencement of
bargaining and the outstanding information requests:
This is to follow up on Ron’s correspondence below concerning the start of bargaining
with the four Alaris facilities. As you are likely aware, on December 27, 2013, the Union, 5
via Vice-President Clauvice St. Hilaire, served information requests on the four Alaris
facilities, copies of which are attached hereto for your convenience. Clauvice requested
that the sought after documents be produced to the Union by January 24, 2014. We are
now in March, only a couple of weeks away from sitting down to start negotiations, and I
understand that none of the four facilities has produced even a single document to the 10
Union. Similarly, I am advised that the facilities have not requested an extension of time
nor an explanation for the delay in producing these documents, which are relevant and
necessary for bargaining. Please have the four facilities produce the requested
information as soon as possible, but no later than March 18, 2014. Please advise your
clients to supply information as it becomes available rather than waiting to assemble all 15
the information requested. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards.14
2. The March 14 information request
In a letter, dated March 14, Massey followed up on his email to Jasinski from the day 20
before, insisting on a response to the December 27, 2013 information request by March 18. In
addition, Massey made a supplemental request for the most current payroll roster, daily
schedules from January to December 2013 (to the extent not already covered by the previous
request), actuarial plan values, and specific health insurance plan documents. The health
insurance documents sought included any relating to summary plan descriptions, costs, terms of 25
coverage, census data reflecting plans selected by employees, actuarial and utilization plan
values, and requests for proposals and financial impact related information.15
3. The March 27, 2014 bargaining session
30
On March 27, Castle Hill and the Union met at 11 a.m. at the Union’s offices in Iselin,
New Jersey, for the first collective-bargaining session. Two days were set aside for bargaining.
Bargaining was to start with the Castle Hill contract and be followed by negotiations over the
Harborview, Boulevard East, and Rochelle Park contracts. Massey, McCalla, Saint Hilaire, Silva,
Ozual, and approximately 20-25 employee delegates from Castle Hill, Rochelle Park, 35
Harborview, and Boulevard East were present for the Union. Jasinski was present for the
Employer, but Mendy Gold had not yet arrived.

14 Jasinski’s testimony established that he never had an agreement from the Union for an extension of
time to respond to the December 27 information request. When asked on direct examination about that
request, Jasinski simply lumped that issue in with his interest in a contract extension. (Tr. 1416-1418.)
Massey had no recollection of any such conversation, but “could appreciate . . . that it would be difficult
to do lots of other work while [Jasinski was] on trial.” (Tr. 930-931.) Nevertheless, the other trial only
extended into February and Jasinski simply ignored Massey’s March 13th reminder to provide the
information in advance of the March 27 bargaining session. (Tr. 926, 929-930, 1416-1418; GC Exh. 7.)
15 This request refined the previous request for monthly work schedules from one that sought daily
work schedules. (GC Exh. 8.)
JD–09–16
7
After waiting about an hour for Gold, Jasinski agreed to start the Castle Hill negotiations.
Milly Silva and Massey opened with brief opening remarks. After reviewing the sign-in sheet,
Jasinski protested the presence of employee-members from the facilities. He proclaimed Castle
Hill’s readiness to commence Castle Hill negotiations, but noted each contract was different and
the parties had not previously engaged in joint bargaining. Massey replied that the Union was 5
entitled to bargain with a team of its choosing. Jasinki disagreed, accused the Union of playing
games and was prepared to leave if employees from the other three facilities did not leave.
Massey asked him to reconsider and reiterated that the Union was entitled to pick its own team.
At that point, Jasinski placed a packet of information relating to Castle Hill’s December 27
information request and retreated to a caucusing room.1610
Shortly thereafter, Massey and McCalla went to speak with Jasinski. They asked him to
relent, but neither side budged over the composition of the Union’s bargaining committee. That
conversation ended when Gold arrived and Jasinski asked to confer with his client. A few
minutes later, Jasinski and Gold returned to the negotiation room. After confirming the Union’s 15
continued position regarding the composition of the bargaining committee, Jasinski said that they
would leave. At no point during this meeting did Jasinski assert confidentiality concerns as a
reason for excluding employees from other Alaris facilities during Castle Hill bargaining
sessions.
20
The parties then discussed future dates for bargaining and Jasinski provided Massey with
packets responsive to the December 27 information requests by Harborview, Boulevard East, and
Rochelle Park. The cover letter in each packet conveyed Jasinski’s view that the Union
previously requested the information:
25
Enclosed please find a copy of the requested information. As you will see, much of the
information was already in the position of the Union and available to the Union via its
members. We are glad to provide you with another copy. Should you have any additional
questions or require additional information, please advise.17
30
Before Jasinski and Gold left, the Union did not submit a proposal.18 Silva did, however,
ask about rumors that Boulevard East would be demolished to make way for apartment building
development. Jasinski replied that the Boulevard East question did not apply to the Castle Hill
negotiation, while Gold said that there was nothing to report. Jasinski said he would get back to
them about Boulevard East. Shortly thereafter, Jasinski and Gold left and did not return in order 35
to commence bargaining over Boulevard East, Harborview, and Rochelle Park.
In a letter, dated April 1, Jasinski proposed dates for the resumption of bargaining at the
four facilities:
40

16 I credit Jasinki’s undisputed testimony that some delegates in attendances made side remarks,
sneered, and laughed, but not his assertion that their conduct made it “not conducive to bargaining.” If
that were true, Jasinski, an experienced labor litigator, would have raised that as a concern. He made no
mention of their conduct as he walked out. (Tr. 80-83, 870-872, 1432-1434.)
17 GC Exh. 10; R. Exh. 2.
18 Castle Hill notes the discrepancy in testimony between Massey and Saint Hilaire as to whether the
Union was prepared to give a proposal if the bargaining session had gone forward. (Tr. 938, 1059.)
JD–09–16
8
After the abbreviated March 27th bargaining session, I want to reiterate that we are
available to meet on April 1st, 2nd and 3rd to continue negotiations for the referenced
facility. We understand that the Union did not believe it was prudent to meet on any of
those dates since it needed additional time to review information. In light of the
upcoming religious holidays, we confirmed that we are available on April 28th and 29th, 5
and also offered April 30th and May 1st to meet on any one of those dates for this
facility. We believe that it is best to dedicate one of these days for this facility only and
not piggyback any other negotiations for the designated dates. The employees deserve
our undivided attention. Unfortunately, despite our admitted avai1ability, the Union has
not confirmed any of those dates at this time.10
If the Union is interested in meeting to continue negotiations at this facility, we ask that
you confirm one of those dates for this facility. In addition, if you are interested in
moving the negotiations forward, if we receive your written proposal prior to our next
session, it will give us the ability to review it and prepare a response and to continue good 15
faith bargaining.
Finally, we again express our willingness to extend the current collective bargaining
agreement for an additional period of time to afford the parties the opportunity to
continue negotiations in good faith, and seek to reach an amicable resolution that 20
balances the needs of your members with the facility and the care for our residents.
Thank you.19
In his reply later that day, McCalla documented the parties’ March 27 meeting, disagreed
with Castle Hill’s “refusal to hold bargaining sessions for more than one facility per day “ as 25
“unreasonable and a poor use of the time and resources of all parties.” Notwithstanding Castle
Hill’s position, McCalla proposed to commence separate bargaining dates for each facility as
follows: Castle Hill on April 28; Boulevard East on April 29; Rochelle Park on May 1; and
Harbor View on May 2.
30
As discussed on March 27, we reiterate that your clients' refusal to hold bargaining
sessions for more than one facility per day is unreasonable and a poor use of the time and
resources of all parties. That said, assuming the Employers have not reconsidered on this
issue, the Union confirms our agreement from last week to bargain on April 28 and April
29, we accept your offer to bargain, on May 1, and we offer May 2 for a fourth session. 35
We propose the following sequence:20
4. The Union’s followup request
In a letter to Jasinski, dated April 9, Massey expressed concern over Castle Hill’s failure 40
to provide the Union with the information described in items 10, 11, and 12 of the December 27
request, and items 2, 3(b), (c), and (e) through (1) of the March 14 request. In addition, Massey
noted that the responses to items 14 and 15 of the December 27 request and item 3(a) of the

19 GC Exh. 12.
20 GC Exh. 11.
JD–09–16
9
March 14 request were incomplete. He asked for the outstanding information to be provided by
April 15.21
On April 21, Jasinski responded by reminding Massey that “each facility is separate and
we provided separate information for each facility. In the future, we request that any inquiry be 5
addressed for the individual facility.” In response to items 10 and 11, Jasinski stated that there
were no documents because the facility had not used agency personnel to perform bargaining
unit work. Item 12 was noted to be voluminous and Jasinski proposed that the Union “accept a
representative sample of work schedule[s] for a limited period of time.” As to items 13 and 14,
Jasinski referred Massey to the employee handbook.22 In a separate letter dated the same day, 10
Jasinski responded to the Union’s March 14 supplemental request by noting that items 1 and 3
were previously provided, while item 2 was burdensome and unnecessary. Jasinski requested the
Union to refine it to one not as overbroad.23
5. The April 28 bargaining session15
Prior to meeting with Castle Hill on April 28, the Union undertook a propaganda blitz in
a flier distributed to the employees at the four facilities:
At our first bargaining session on Thursday, March 27th, we came prepared to bargain 20
with management at each of our four facilities. But management refused to sit face to
face with our full bargaining team to discuss their proposals. They want to divide us and
weaken us, but we won't let that happen! We won't wait years for a new contract! For
more information, contact your organizer, Christina Ozual at [xxx-xxx-xxxx]. The next
negotiations are scheduled for Monday, 4/28 and Tuesday, 4/29. Let's all be ready to 25
stand strong and speak with one voice!24
Jasinski and Gold met with the Union for bargaining over the Castle Hill contract on
April 28. Massey, McCalla, Silva, Saint Hilaire, and Ozual were accompanied by eight
bargaining unit employees. The employees present included Davika Smith and Danielle 30
Humphrey from Castle Hill, Max Pedestin of Rochelle Park, and Denise Bowden of
Harborview.25 Jasinski expressed his continuing disapproval with the composition of the Union’s
bargaining team, but moved forward with the meeting. He provided the Union with Castle Hill’s
proposal to renew the contract and the Union provided a counterproposal, which included a
comprehensive economic package.26 Massey reminded Jasinski, however, that the Union was 35
still waiting for the CNA work schedules and health insurance related information. In response to
Jasinski’s letter asserting the 12-month request was burdensome, Massey agreed to accept 3
months of daily work schedules. With respect to health insurance, Jasinski said he would get
back to the Union.

21 GC Exh. 21.
22 GC Exh. 22.
23 GC Exh. 23.
24 GC Exh. 44.
25 R. Exhs. 6, 104.
26 The Union does not dispute that, notwithstanding Castle Hill’s failure or refusal to provide
necessary information requested on December 27 and March 14, it was still able to submit a proposal. (R.
Exh. 1; Tr. 939.)
JD–09–16
10
6. The employee schedules
In a letter, dated May 14, Jasinski furnished Massey with the monthly staffing schedules
at Castle Hill for each floor for all shifts from January 12 through end of June. The monthly 5
schedules reflected projected CNAs’ work schedules and floor assignments.27 On May 21,
Jasinski responded to Massey’s additional information request:
In response to your additional information request, we have provided you with all
relevant information. Most recently, we supplemented our initial response with schedules 10
for this Facility. The additional information which you have requested is simply without
merit. You are well aware of this fact, since similar information was requested when the
SEIU responded that the information was not available, since it would be a violation of
HIPAA.28
15
It is disconcerting that the Union now requests information which it has previously been
unable or refused to provide in negotiations. It was either an oversight or, worse,
disingenuous, to make these requests.
We are prepared to continue to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that balances 20
the interests of our employees and your members with those of the Facility. Should you
have any other questions, please advise.29
The parties met again for bargaining on May 29. Massey again opened with a statement
that the information provided in response to the Union’s request was not satisfactory because it 25
consisted of projected monthly schedules instead of daily reports reflecting actual work
performed by CNAs. Massey also asked what Jasinski meant by HIPAA protected information.
Jasinski insisted that the monthly schedules were sufficient, but did not identify the health related
documents that were HIPAA protected. He then presented Castle Hill’s counterproposal and
Massey provided the Union’s responses.30 The meeting concluded, with Massey agreeing to get 30
back to Jasinski with future bargaining dates.
7. The July 8 bargaining session
The parties’ July 8 bargaining session opened, as usual, with housekeeping issues, 35
including the Union’s request for daily schedules. Jasinski replied by insisting the Union owed
him information regarding the Union’s pension fund. Massey repeated the Union’s position that
the information provided on May 14 was insufficient for it to formulate staffing proposals.
Massey insisted the Union needed the actual daily schedules as opposed to projected monthly
schedules, due to the changes under the Affordable Care Act and needed to compare them to the 40

27 GC Exh. 13.
28 During the hearing, Jasinki sought to undermine the Union’s need for health insurance information
based on the lack of health or safety-related grievances filed and focused on several CBA provisions: Sec.
8 (grievance and arbitration procedure); and Sec. 29(c) (Health and Safety Committee whose purpose
“shall be to identify and recommend preventative measures where appropriate”).
29 GC Exh. 24.
30 GC Exh. 9; R. Exh. 3.
JD–09–16
11
levels of health care to be provided by the employer (“need to look to the ratios”). In addition,
Massey told Jasinski that Castle Hill failed to provide the Union with information responsive to
items 2, 3(b), (c), and (e) through (1) of the Union's request for information as described in the
supplemental request.
5
Castle Hill’s daily schedules, also referred to as attendance sheets, are generated by the
staffing coordinator, Fredline Altenor, and posted on a board next to the time clock. Although
printed a month in advance, these schedules are marked up by Altenor or supervisors to reflect
the days and shifts actually worked.31 In contrast, the monthly schedules generated a month in
advance do not reflect the days or shifts that are not actually worked due to sick or other leave. 10
On July 30, Jasinski replied to the Union’s continuing request for health plan information
and employees’ daily schedules:
We want to be clear and avoid any misunderstanding regarding your multiple information15
requests. The Employer has been fully responsive. The latest request purportedly asked
for supplemental information for the Employer's health plan which was nothing more
than harassment, grounded in bad faith, and not intended to facilitate contract
negotiations. It is intended to only stall negotiations. We are not about to allow that to
happen. At the negotiations, we informed you that the Employer is not in possession of 20
such information and/or the Union is requesting confidential information. We reiterated,
at the bargaining table, it is irrelevant, unnecessary and not intended to facilitate contract
negotiations.
In addition, the Union requested information concerning work schedules at this facility. 25
We provided the Union with the master list which represents our work schedules. This is
the only relevant information, and it was provided.
As stated across the bargaining table, the Employer will neither waive nor modify its
rights as set forth in the Managements Rights clause of the collective bargaining 30
agreement. Staffing has historically been a right reserved to this administration, and we
will not give-up in this contract negotiation our unilateral right to determine staffing at
this Facility. We will reject any Union proposal that modifies our rights concerning
staffing levels on the units and the way we staff this Facility. That is our final position
and we will not deviate from it.35
Once again, we suggest the Union focus on the negotiation of a new collective bargaining
agreement for our employees. We are puzzled with the Union's refusal to meet or
provide, dates for parties to bargain in good faith. We reiterate our request for new dates
to continue to negotiate.3240
C. Employees Prepare for a Possible Strike

31 GC Exh. 52.
32 GC Exh. 14.
JD–09–16
12
Beginning in March, Ozual or Saint Hilaire began holding monthly meetings with
employees in the first-floor breakroom. They provided employees with contract education,
bargaining updates, and listened to complaints. The bargaining updates included the significant
issues involving in bargaining such as health insurance coverage, pension plan funding, staffing,5
and the rumored demolition of Boulevard East. Ozual and Saint Hilaire also informed employees
about Castle Hill’s refusal to meet with the Union’s chosen committee on March 27 and its
refusal to provide requested information.
By May, the Union recommended that employees step up the pressure on Castle Hill by 10
engaging in informational picketing. On June 10, several Castle Hill employees participated in
informational picketing. The signs contained messages which read “1199 Stop Unfair Labor
Practices!”33 Employees who participated included Devika Smith, Diana Lewis, Lakeysa Smith,
and Marquis Francois.
15
Thereafter, the Union gradually increased the public pressure. In July, the Union’s New
Jersey communications coordinator, Bryn Loyd-Bollard, created “Alarisk.com”, a website
devoted to the Union’s bargaining campaign against Castle Hill. The website’s home page
included a news alert providing the economic motives behind a potential strike:
20
NEWS ALERT: HUNDREDS OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS
STRIKE AFTER CONTRACT TALKS SOUR.
Don't put your health at alarisk.
Stand up for quality care and good jobs in nursing home.25
Stand with nursing home residents, families and caregivers and tell the
owners of Alaris Health (formerly Omni Health Systems) to settle a
far contract that protects patients and workers.
Despite making $41 million in profit in 2012, many Alaris nursing
homes suffer from substandard staffing levels while hardworking30
caregivers live in poverty. The overwhelming majority of Alaris
nursing home employees earn less than $25,000 a year, and some have
to rely on public assistance just to make ends meet.
Our communities depend on skilled caregivers to provide for our loved
ones in their times of need. They deserve better. We deserve better.3435
Loyd-Bollard also arranged for radio advertisements publicizing the Union’s position and
generated fliers and a press release publicizing a July 23 rally. The fliers protested Castle Hill’s
unfair labor practices and refusal to negotiate in good faith for a reasonable contract.35
40
On July 23, Silva convened a press conference in Jersey City near Alaris’ corporate
headquarters. There were elected officials and approximately 10 employees from Alaris facilities
in attendance, including CNA Claudia Saldana, who proceeded to criticize Castle Hill’s

33 GC Exhs. 19(e)-(f).
34 GC Exh. 48.
35 GC Exhs. 44-45.
JD–09–16
13
collective-bargaining stance. In prepared remarks that followed, Silva excoriated Castle Hill for a
mélange of reasons as justification for a possible future strike, including unfair labor practices
and regressive economic proposals.
We are here today because Alaris Health, the multimillion dollar for-profit nursing chain 5
based here in Journal Square, is showing a callous disregard for the wellbeing of the
communities in which they operate.
The owners of Alaris are violating the rights of its employees, they are raking in huge
profits while maintaining substandard staffing levels, and they are planning to demolish 10
one of their long-term care facilities without being forthright to the nursing home’s
residents or caregivers about their plans. We are here to demand that Alaris start acting
responsibly.
The women and men standing beside me play a critical role as caregivers to some of the 15
most vulnerable people in our communities. It is essential that their rights and dignity as
workers be upheld, because there is a connection between the quality of life of caregivers
and the quality of care for patients.
It is of grave concern to us that Alaris has committed numerous unfair labor practices and 20
continues to act in the same disrespectful and illegal manner as they did five years back,
when they operated under the name Omni Health Systems. We do not want a repeat of
2009, when hundreds of nursing home workers had no choice but to go on strike in order
to protect standards for good jobs and quality patient care. Omni may have changed their
name to Alaris, but it seems that they haven't changed their ways.25
After nearly four months and 16 bargaining sessions, 450 caregivers at four Alaris Health
nursing homes are still working under expired contracts. All they are asking for are the
basics to make ends meet—something that must be insisted upon for every healthcare
worker who, as a fundamental requirement of her job, needs to remain physically and 30
mentally healthy.
Yet instead of moving forward, Alaris wants to further erode job standards in nursing
homes. They’re asking low-wage workers, who earn less than $23,000 a year full-time, to
pay even more for health insurance and to reduce critical benefits including sick leave. 35
Many workers already have no choice but to enroll in public assistance just to get their
children the healthcare they need, and the concessions that Alaris is seeking will only
make the situation worse.
We will not let vital healthcare jobs suffer so that Alaris, which makes $40 million in 40
profit a year, can walk away with even more.
It is disgraceful that Avery Eisenreich, the principal owner of Alaris, which receives
literally hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid and Medicare funding each year to
provide care to the elderly and vulnerable, decides to pocket millions for himself before 45
making sure that the caregivers who work directly with patients have what they need to
get by.
JD–09–16
14
Avery has also failed to address persistent staffing shortages at these four facilities, each
of which have certified nursing assistant staffing levels below both state and national
averages. Our union has proposed a framework for addressing staffing shortages, but
management has for months failed to provide the union with requested information on
staffing and has refused to negotiate over this critically important issue.5
And in Guttenberg, where Avery Eisenreich owns a facility on Boulevard East that is
home to 100 elderly and frail residents, he plans to demolish the nursing home in order to
build luxury high-rise apartments. He is not being upfront about what his plans are, and
the nursing home’s residents, their family members, and workers have been left in the 10
dark. This is incredibly disrespectful to everyone who depends on Boulevard East, either
as a patient or as an employee.
In many ways, Alaris is acting in complete disregard for the community. We are here
today to say that enough is enough. We do not want to strike. Our members would rather 15
be doing the job they love and caring for their residents instead of walking the picket line.
But they are ready to strike if they have to, to protect quality care and good jobs.
I’d like to introduce you to a few members of 1199, who work at Alaris nursing homes in
Hudson and Bergen counties. They have been working very hard these past months to 20
win a contract that respects their dignity as caregivers and as providers for their own
families.36
After the July rally, the Ozual and Saint Hilaire began laying the foundation for a strike.
They met with employees in the breakrooms approximately two to three times a week. During 25
the meetings, they told employees about planning for a strike because of Castle Hill’s regressive
economic proposals and unfair labor practices, including the refusal to provide requested daily
schedules.37
On August 19, several employees, including Saldana, spoke at a public meeting of the 30
Union City Board of Commissioners. Saldana explained that Castle Hill employees were “trying
to fight for a better contract,” criticized Castle Hill’s bargaining position, including its refusal to
pay for dependent health insurance, and pleaded for political support. Their efforts yielded
supportive resolutions from the Board of Commissioners and Hudson County, and Saldana posed
for a photograph with Union City’s mayor while holding a copy of the resolution. That 35
photograph appeared on the Union’s “Facebook” page, a social media website, the next day.38
40

36 GC Exh. 57.
37 The undisputed record reveals mixed reasons given by Ozual and Saint Hilaire to employees as
justification for a strike, including Castle Hill’s economic proposals and unfair labor practices. (Tr. 352,
1101, 1232, 1238-1240.)
38 GC Exhs. 31-33.
JD–09–16
15
D. Management Becomes Aware of Potential Strike in July
Duran was aware of the July 23 press conference at Journal Square and passed that
information along to Figueroa. Thereafter, he began to approach certain union supporters.39 In
late July, Duran called Saldana into his office and implored her and coworkers not to strike. 5
Saldana replied that she had no influence over coworkers and urged Castle Hill to reach an
agreement with the Union.
In late August, about a week after Saldana spoke before the Board of Commissioners,
Duran approached her in the sixth-floor dining room and said, “I can’t believe you stabbed me in 10
the back. I saw the picture with the mayor.” He then proceeded to show Saldana a copy of the
Union’s Facebook publication showing Saldana holding the resolution as she stood with Union
City Mayor Brian Stack. Saldana denied that she instigated anything and still considered Duran
her friend. Duran, unconvinced, sighed, “hah!” Other employees were present.
15
Sometime around mid-August, Duran told Saldana that Angela Rodriguez, a coworker on
the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, “was a big mouth and is instigating coworkers going on strike and
going to lose her job.” Saldana shared that conversation with Rodriguez.
Duran confronted Saldana one last time on the Friday before the strike. Duran20
approached her as she worked in the sixth-floor dining room. Speaking to her in Spanish and
English, Duran asked Saldana to “talk to [her] friends and not to go on strike,” adding that he
was new and wanted to “fix the place.” Saldana told Duran that she was only speaking for herself
and suggested he urge the owner to negotiate a fair contract with the employees. Duran said it
was a shame that Saldana, a good worker, as well as 17 single mothers, were going on strike and 25
lose their jobs. Saldana rebuffed the threat, insisting she enjoyed a good work history, had never
been disciplined, and would be good anywhere she ended up. Duran concurred with Saldana’s
assessment, but added that he felt “sorry for the single moms.” Saldana replied that she earned
only $11.96 after working at Castle Hill for 13 years. Duran replied that “you’re going to lose
your job because of the union and they’re not doing anything for you.”4030
A few weeks before the strike, CNAs were instructed to attend a meeting with Duran and
Bracea in the second-floor conference room.41 Once assembled, Duran asked why employees
were going on strike if Castle Hill was giving them what they requested and faulted the Union
for its lack of interest in negotiating. He warned that some employees would be locked out and 35
upon returning their assignments would not be the same.42 Around the same time, Duran spoke

39 Duran denied having one-on-one meetings with employees and insisted that he merely answered
questions if employees asked him about going on strike. He also denied threatening an employee if they
went on strike. However, Duran’s terse denials, considered in conjunction with his shifting and
contradictory testimony regarding the reasons for reinstatements after the strike, made him less than
credible and I credited employees’ versions of these pre-strike encounters. (Tr. 1563.)
40 Saldana appeared nervous throughout her testimony, but was very credible. (Tr. 281-284, 295-301.)
41 Bracea provided vague testimony about certain employees who came to her with questions and
anxiety about the ramifications of a strike. However, she did not provide a reliable account of Duran’s
meeting with employees. (Tr. 1641-1643.)
42 Lakeysa Smith did not possess a good recollection of the names of others present at the impromptu
meeting, but her testimony was generally spontaneous and credible. (Tr. 384-388.)
JD–09–16
16
individually with at least one CNA, Diana Lewis, and made the same point about Castle Hill’s
letter inserted with payroll checks asserting that the Union’s requests had been met.43
Duran and Bracea were not the only managers or supervisors who interacted with
employees over a potential strike. Figueroa, Alaris’ vice president of operations for healthcare 5
staffing, met with Castle Hill employees in the conference room around the end of July and into
August. Available employees were paged and asked to come to the meetings, which were
optional. The discussion was in English and lasted approximately 20-30 minutes. Duran was also
present and spoke. Some employees told Figueroa and Duran about their anxiety due to calls
from the Union about bargaining and a potential strike. Others simply listened and/or asked 10
questions. Figueroa followed with written talking points from a document that she distributed to
supervisors.44 Her talking points noted the need to care for the patients and families, and
discussed employees’ rights to choose whether or not to go on strike. After these meetings,
Alaris sent out a memorandum to employees warning that Castle Hill would have to hire
replacements if they went out on strike.4515
E. Unit Employees Decide to Strike
On August 27, Massey, Silva, McCall, Ozual, and Saint Hilaire met at the Union’s office
in Iselin, New Jersey, with ten employee delegates from Boulevard East, Rochelle Park, and 20
Harborview. Another six employees from Castle Hill participated by telephone. The union
officials met with the employees for about 1-1/2 hours.46 The Castle Hill contingent included
union delegate Marquis Francois. McCalla laid out a case for a strike based on the Union’s
inability to make significant headway in negotiations and the wide gap between proposals.
Massey followed with a recitation of the unfair labor practice charges filed for the four facilities25
and the complaints that would be filed. He also provided an explanation of the difference
between an economic strike and a strike premised on unfair labor practices.
Massey then proposed a resolution setting forth the reasons for going out on strike. At the
conclusion, the employee delegates present voted to send ten-day notices to engage in a three-30
day strike. The group also discussed and decided who would deliver the notices along with
McCalla. The delegates were also instructed to tell the membership that the strike was authorized
and it was motivated by economic and unlawful practice reasons.47 The employees present
signed the resolution and the six participating by telephone from Castle Hill voiced approval:
35

43 Lewis’ credible testimony was not disputed by Duran. (Tr. 452-453.)
44 R. Exh. 7.
45 Duran and Jasinski provided inconsistent testimony as to which document was used as talking
points at this time. However, the two documents were fairly similar in substance. (GC Exhs. 70-71.)
46 CNA Devika Smith was one of the Castle Hill employees who participated by telephone.
47 Art. IV, sec. 7 of the Union’s Constitution gives delegates the “responsibility of involving their
members in all affairs of the Union. Article V, Section 6(b) states the rights of members ‘[t]o vote on all
strike calls and strike settlements directly affecting the members as employees. Article VII, Section
11(1)(f) states that the’” Regional Delegate Assembly shall have the power to call strikes in its region,
subject to the approval of the members directly involved and the executive council. (R. 106.)
JD–09–16
17
At a meeting of the Alaris Bargaining Committee of 1199 SEIU United Healthcare
Workers East ("the Union"), held at the Unions office in Iselin, NJ on August 27, 2014,
upon the recommendation of Executive Vice President Milly Silva, the following
resolution was considered and adopted by the undersigned Committee members:
5
WHEREAS, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East is the collective bargaining
representative of bargaining unit employees of Bristol Manor Health Care Center, Castle
Hill Health Care Center, Harborview Healthcare Center and Palisades Nursing Center, all
affiliates of Alaris Health (collectively, "the Employer"); and
10
WHEREAS the Union has bargained in good faith with the Employer to negotiate a
collective bargaining agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has Violated our rights by committing Unfair Labor Practices,
specifically by failing and refusing to provide information requested by the Union that is 15
needed for bargaining (especially health insurance and staffing information), unduly
delaying in providing other information, and unlawfully interfering with the composition
of the Union's bargaining committee and
WHEREAS, Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board has informed the Union20
that a Complaint against the Employer alleging multiple Unfair Labor Practices in
connection with this unlawful conduct is forthcoming; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has continued to make unreasonable bargaining demands of
the Union and its members; and25
WHEREAS the Employer has continued to commit additional Unfair Labor Practices,
including by unlawfully polling and coercively interrogating Union members, and
threatening Union members with adverse employment consequences for engaging in
protected Union activity; and30
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the Union and its members hereby
determine to serve the Employer with the legally required ten-day notice of intent to
engage in a rally and vigil at Castle Hill Healthcare Center on or about September 10,
2014, in response to the Employer's ongoing Unfair Labor Practices and unreasonable 35
bargaining position; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the Union and its members hereby determine to
serve the Employer with a subsequent legally required ten-day notice of intent to engage
in a strike, for three days at each facility, in response to the Employer's ongoing Unfair 40
Labor Practices and unreasonable bargaining position.48
In a letter, dated August 29, Jasinski sought to discount the Union’s justification in
moving towards a strike, noting that it had been approximately 2 months since the parties’ last

48 It is undisputed that the strike resolution was not disseminated to the entire union membership for a
vote as required by the Union's constitution. (GC Exh. 15.)
JD–09–16
18
bargaining session. He referred to his request at the conclusion of their last session for future
bargaining dates, but the Union never proposed any. At this point, Jasinski suggested the parties
resume negotiations during the weeks of either September 8 or 15. He concluded by attributing
the standoff to the Union’s continuing request for ‘irrelevant and unnecessary” information, and
the Union’s attempts to resurrect staffing proposals that were previously resolved.495
On September 5, approximately ten employees, including Devika Smith and Marquis
Francois, delivered to Duran the contractually required ten-day notice of bargaining unit
employees’ intention to go out on strike for three days:
10
Notice I hereby given, pursuant to section 8(g of the National Labor Relations Act, that
1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, New Jersey Region and the employees it
represents intend to conduct a strike and picketing at Castle Hill located at 615 23rd
Street, Union City, NJ 07087. The strike and informational picket are to protest the
Employer's ongoing Unfair labor Practices and the Employer's unreasonable bargaining 15
demands. The strike will commence at 530 AM on Tuesday September 16, 2014 and end
at 653 AM on Friday September 19, 2014.50
Such action had been submitted to the membership for a vote in past years, as required by
the Union’s constitution.51 In this instance, unit members were informed of the scheduled strike 20
and provided with reasons attributing the strike action to Castle Hill’s bargaining posture and
unfair labor practices.52
On the same day, Jasinski emailed Massey, questioning the Union’s motives and
cancelling proposed bargaining dates in September in order for his clients to dedicate its “time, 25
effort and our resources to ensuring the strike contingency plan at each Facility that received a
strike notice is in place and fully operational.”53
F. Supervisors Statements About Strike Activity30
During the weeks prior to delivery of the Union’s strike notice, Castle Hill managers and
supervisors communicated their views to the CNAs. A few weeks before the strike, Duran
approached Devika Smith on the third floor and asked if she was striking. She told him yes. He

49 GC Exh. 25.
50 GC Exh. 16.
51 Castle Hill correctly notes that a membership strike vote was not conducted in accordance with the
Union’s constitution. (Tr. 2221, 2229.) However, the vote of the delegates was subsequently ratified by
the membership’s actions in going on strike and Castle Hill failed to cite any CBA or other legal
provision supporting the notion that the delegate’s strike vote was null and void or that it even has
standing to raise such a procedural objection. (R. Exh. 106 at 5-7.)
52 Castle Hill correctly notes that most employees who provided mostly scripted testimony as to their
reasons for favoring a strike mentioned economic reasons, but half of those employees also cited Castle
Hill’s alleged unfair labor practices regarding information requests and refusal to bargain in good faith.
53 R. Exh. 8.
JD–09–16
19
replied that she had a lot of influence and added it would be a shame to have employees go out
on strike and lose their jobs.54
Bracea approached CNA Komi Anakpa and asked him if he was going to join the strike.
In addition, Duran told Anakpa “I don’t know if you can afford to go on strike.”555
Duran also approached Saldana in the sixth-floor dining room, told her that Angela
Rodriguez had a big mouth, was instigating employees to go on strike, and would lose her job as
a result. Saldana passed along the comment to Rodriguez.56
10
About a week later, Smith’s head nurse and supervisor, Jaboiun, asked Devika Smith if
employees were going on strike and cautioned her to be careful because Duran was mad. About
2 weeks before the strike, Duran approached Smith again on the third floor and asked if she was
going on strike. Smith did not respond. Duran tried again about a week before the strike as Smith
spoke with a coworker outside the facility after her shift was over. After asking her if he was 15
going on strike, he said yes. Duran laughed and left.57
In late August or early September, Duran and Regina Figueroa convened meetings in the
second-floor conference room to apprise employees of the consequences of their actions if they
went out on strike. In these meetings, Duran told employees that he knew that employees were 20
going out on strike and asked why they were choosing that course of action. He also spoke about
wages and health insurance, including the fact that current employees would not have to
contribute for single-coverage health insurance, and that the only ones who would pay would be
new hires. The employees told him they wanted better benefits, higher wages, and most
importantly, a contract. Duran warned that their jobs were “on the line” and criticized the 25
Union’s tactics, insisting a strike would be futile in their efforts to get a better contract. He added
that some employees might not return to work if they went on strike since Castle Hill would need
people to cover their shifts. In addition, upon returning, some employees would have different
work assignments.58
30
In one of those group meetings in the second-floor conference room, Angela Rodriguez
replied to Duran’s inquiry as to their reasons for striking by explaining that they would not strike
if Castle Hill signed a contract. Duran responded that the Union was not interested in signing a
contract. He added that if the employees wanted more money they should go to school.59
35
In early September, Duran approached Diana Lewis on the third floor and warned that
some employees could be terminated if they went on strike. He insisted that Castle Hill
attempted to settle a contract with the Union, but blamed the standoff on the Union’s

54 Smith’s provided detailed and credible testimony regarding statements by Duran and Jaboiun. (Tr.
226-233.)
55 This finding is based on Anakpa’s credible testimony. (Tr. 670.)
56 Saldana and Rodriguez provided credible and consistent testimony regarding Duran’s remarks. (Tr.
302-303, 695.)
57 Jaboiun did not testify.
58 This finding is based on the credible testimony of CNAs Lakeysha Smith (Tr. 383-387), Leanne
Crawford (Tr. 485-489), and Angelina Murrilla (Tr. 737-739.).
59 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Angela Rodriguez. (Tr. 683-687.)
JD–09–16
20
intransigence. Lewis did not respond and Duran clarified his statement further by advising that
she could be fired. He suggested she think about that.60
Altenor, the staffing coordinator, was responsible for calling floaters and informing them
of their shift assignments. A few days before the strike, she approached Brenda Moto-Lopes, a 5
part-time floater, on the first floor and asked if she was going on strike. After Moto-Lopes said
she intended to strike, Altenor warned that her hours could be cut. Moto-Lopes replied that she
was not scared. Altenor said she was not threatening, but noted that management was going to let
a lot of people go.61
10
G. Supervisors Observe Employees During Prayer Vigil
In early September, employees from all four facilities also participated in a prayer vigil
with Silva and their local State Assemblyman in front of Castle Hill.62 The participants included
Castle Hill employees Diana Lewis and Leanne Crawford. As they prayed, Duran and a female 15
looked at them from about ten feet away. He could be heard saying that their action was a joke,
there was nothing to worry about, it was just bad publicity, and it would not be a problem to do
what he had to do next.63
H. Alaris Prepares for the Strike20
Castle Hill is subject to New Jersey State requirements for minimum staffing ratios at its
nursing facilities.64 It was no surprise therefore, that after receiving the ten-day notice on or
around September 5, Jasinski drafted another memorandum for distribution to employees
warning that they would be replaced if they went out on strike. The document acknowledged 25
receipt of the ten-day strike notice, challenged the Union’s rationale for the strike, outlined
Castle Hill’s proposed concessions, and the Union’s refusal to return to the bargaining table.
While acknowledging each employee’s choice of whether or not to strike, he stated the facility
had no choice but to implement a “contingency plan” and “hire qualified replacement workers in
the event any employee abandons his or her job.”6530
In anticipation of its staffing needs prior to the strike, Castle Hill hired eight part-time
CNAs in early September. 66 Around the same time, Castle Hill entered into contracts with three
temporary staffing companies. Addenda were attached to each form agreement requiring that
Castle Hill retain the temporary employees for minimum terms of four or six weeks. This was a 35
peculiar development in light of the Union’s prior notice of a three-day strike.67

60 This finding is based on Lewis’ credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 453-455.)
61 Brenda Moto-Lopes was very credible. (Tr. 793-794.)
62 GC Exh. 35.
63 I base the finding regarding the observation of employees on Leanne Crawford’s credible and
undisputed testimony. (Tr. 489-492.)
64 R. Exh. 13.
65 GC Exh. 70.
66 GC Exhs. 58-61, 76-78, 81.
67 I did not credit the vague testimony of Jasinski, Figueroa and Taylor regarding alleged negotiations
by unidentified persons which resulted in Castle Hill agreeing to the terms in the attached addenda. (R.
JD–09–16
21
I. The Strike
Massey did not speak with Jasinski about the strike beforehand, but sent him an email
and voice mail the day before on September 15. On the same day, Jasinski called McCalla
requesting he alert employees not to walk off early because it could leave the facilities 5
understaffed and compromise their licenses.68
As predicted, certain Castle Hill employees/unit members ceased work and engaged in a
strike on September 16. Over the next 3 days, the striking employees picketed outside the
facility.69 Their signs demanded Castle Hill engage in good-faith bargaining and protested unfair 10
labor practices. In addition, the Union coordinated a prayer vigil and rally outside Castle Hill on
September 17, the second day of the strike. Accompanied by Silva and a local politician, several
employees spoke during the vigil.70
During the picketing on September 16, employees observed Bracea, the director of 15
nursing, accompanied by Laura Vartolone, the assistant director of nursing, on the second-floor
patio holding a cellular telephone in the direction of the striking employees in a clear indication
that she was photographing them. Devika Smith made eye contact with her and Bracea lowered
the telephone.71 On September 17, the second day of the strike, picketing employees observed
Duran and Bracea taking photographs from the second-floor recreation room.7220
During the strike, Castle Hill covered the shifts of the striking CNAs with an assortment
of nonstriking employees from Castle Hill and other Alaris facilities, supervisors and other
nonunit quality assurance CNAs, newly hired employees, and temporary staffing agency
employees. In all, three staffing companies provided approximately 18 temporary employees to25
work at Castle Hill during the strike.73
J. Employees Attempt to Return to Work
30
On September 18, the last day of the strike, Jasinski informed Massey that some strikers
would not be allowed to return to work the next day because of the contractual commitments
with the staffing agencies. Massey questioned why Castle Hill would make such a commitment
if employees gave notice of a three-day strike. Jasinski explained that Castle Hill needed to be

Exhs. 9-11.) Linda Dooley, an Alaris officer who signed the agreements was available, but did not testify,
and the circumstances by which the addenda were added were not explored. (Tr. 722, 2636.)
68 GC Exh. 28.
69 GC Exh. 19(f).
70 GC Exh. 35.
71 Bracea confirmed credible testimony of Devika Smith, Marquis Francois, and Murilla. She
attributed her actions in the midst of a strike to excitement over seeing local politicians present at the
employee rally (Tr. 237-244, 359-360, 740-742, 1637; GC Exh. 18.)
72 I based this finding on Angela Rodriguez’s credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 690-
691.) Although credible in other respects, however, I do not credit Saldana’s testimony regarding
management surveillance since she failed to include such details in her otherwise detailed Board affidavit.
(Tr. 327-329.)
73 GC Exhs. 52, 73.
JD–09–16
22
cautious in case the employees changed their minds and remained on strike for a longer period of
time. Massey disagreed, noting that the Union’s history belied such a concern. In an email sent
later that day, Massey, on behalf of all Castle Hill employees/unit members who engaged in the
strike, made an unconditional offer to return to their former or substantially equivalent positions
of employment.745
On September 19, employees who participated in the strike reported to work at Castle
Hill. At the beginning of each of the three shifts, employees were informed by managers or
supervisors whether they were being permitted to return to work. Fifteen CNAs who participated
in the strike and engaged in picketing were not reinstated to work on September 19: Devika 10
Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Diana
Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu
Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin, and Komi Anakpa.75
Although Castle Hill refused to reinstate 15 CNAs on September 19, 3 nonunit 15
employees, Angelo Daug, Doris Arco, and V. Brooks, were assigned and performed CNA-
related bargaining unit work that day. Daug and Arco, Castle Hill’s quality assurance CNAs,
were replaced in their regular roles by three Alaris at Essex facility in order to facilitate that
arrangement. Brooks was temporarily reassigned from another Alaris facility.76
20
The employees eventually returned to work and, as positions opened up, Jasinski would
call and inform Massey, who would notify the employee to return to work.77
In addition to the 15 employees not reinstated, two employees suffered a reduction in
work hours after returning to work.78 Brenda Mota-Lopes participated in the strike and picketed25
outside Castle Hill and Harborview, but was not locked out.79 However, after returning to work
on September 20 and 21, Moto-Lopes worked 8-hour shifts, but was not assigned work the
following weekdays. During the week of September 28 and October 4, she was assigned to work
24 hours each week. During the remainder of October, Moto-Lopes’ work hours were reduced to
an average of between 16 and 32 hours, and she received no overtime.80 30
Leanne Crawford was locked out and, after being reinstated on October 27, also incurred
reduced work hours. She was a floating CNA who participated in the strike, carried signs
alleging unfair labor practices and calling for improved medical coverage.81 After being

74 GC Exh. 28.
75 The findings omit reference to testimony and other evidence regarding subsequent reinstatements,
offers of reinstatement, and shift assignments. Those are matters for compliance, if applicable. (GC Exhs.
13, 27, 52.)
76 GC Exh. 52 at F3.
77 Duran was also not credible regarding the reinstatement process. He initially testified that the
Bracea and Taylor made the staffing decisions. However, after insisting he did not participate in those
decisions, Duran was confronted with prior testimony that he did participate in the staffing decisions.
78 The initial claim of reduced hours for Diana Lewis was not pursued.
79 GC Exh. 19(p).
80 The extent of Moto-Lopes’ diminution in work hours and pay subsequent to the strike is a matter
left to compliance, if applicable. (GC Exh. 55; Tr. 788-789, 803-807.)
81 GC Exh. 19(n).
JD–09–16
23
reinstated, her work schedule averaging 8-10 days per pay period before the strike was reduced
to 6-7 days per pay period. She complained about the reduction in hours to Altenor in November
and her schedule was further reduced to an average of 6 days per pay period. Crawford
complained again and her schedule was further reduced to an average of 5-6 days per pay
period.825
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. CASTLE HILL’S OBJECTION TO THE UNION’S BARGAINING COMMITTEE
The complaint alleges that Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 10
by refusing to bargain with the Union on March 27 because employee representatives
from the other three facilities were present. Castle Hill contends that its insistence that the
Union’s bargaining committee be restricted solely to Castle Hill employees was
consistent with past practice. Additionally, Castle Hill contends that the parties'
collective-bargaining agreement limited the Union's bargaining committee to six15
members.
Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees and employers the right to “to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing” and the Supreme Court has
recognized this right as fundamental to the statutory scheme. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin 20
Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 33 (1937). Generally, both parties have a right to choose
whomever they wish to represent them in negotiations, and neither party can control the
other party's selection of representatives. General Electric Co., 173 NLRB 253, 255
(1968), enfd. 412 F.2d 512, 516-517 (2d Cir. 1969); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v.
NLRB, 415 F.2d 174, 177-178 (8th Cir. 1969) (affirming Board determination that “so 25
long as it confines negotiations to terms and conditions of employment within the
bargaining unit, it has free rein . . . in its choice of negotiators.”)
The right to choose one’s bargaining representatives, however, is not absolute. An
exception to the general rule arises when the situation is so infected with ill-will, usually 30
personal, or conflict of interest as to make good-faith bargaining impractical. See, e.g., NLRB v.
ILGWU, 274 F.2d 376, 379 (3d Cir. 1960) (ex-union official added to employer committee to
“put one over on the union”); Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 108 NLRB 1555 (1954) (union
established company in direct competition with employer); NLRB v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 182
F.2d 810 (6th Cir. 1950) (union negotiator expressed great personal animosity towards 35
employer). But cf. NLRB v. Signal Mfg. Co., 351 F.2d 471 (1st Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert.
denied 382 U.S. 985 (1966) (similar claim of animosity rejected). On the other hand, where the
employer simply asserts that there was ill-will and a conflict of interest relative to the proposed
union representatives, the Board is unlikely to grant an exception to the presumptive rule that
both employers and employees have an unrestricted right to choose their own representative. 40
Atlas Refinery, Inc., 354 NLRB 1056, 1070 (2010) (employer "violated § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by refusing to bargain with the Union as long as [the union's designated representative] was
part of the bargaining committee”).

82 I based this finding on Crawford’s credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 497-500; GC Exh. 41.)
JD–09–16
24
Mere inclusion of persons outside the negotiating unit does not constitute exceptional
circumstances. NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 599 F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1979) (other
units); Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 415 F.2d 174, supra at 177-178 (other
locals); General Electric Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d 512, 517-520 (2d Cir. 1969) (other international
unions); Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d 40, 44 (6th Cir. 1963) (other locals). Further, the 5
employer's claim that the union's use of outsiders is an unlawful attempt to compel companywide
or multiplant bargaining also is insufficient unless the employer can demonstrate that the union
actually attempted to bargain outside unit boundaries. Indiana & Michigan Electric, 599 F.2d at
191; Minnesota Mining, 415 F.2d at 178; General Eelctric, 412 F.2d at 519-520.
10
In this case, there was no evidence that the Union sought to force Castle Hill into
multiemployer bargaining through the presence of bargaining unit members from the
other three facilities. NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., supra, 599 F.2d 185
(employer asserting that union sought to force companywide negotiations must
demonstrate that the coordinated bargaining in question was done in bad faith with that 15
objective in mind). The only hint of Union strategy that affected all four facilities was its
desire to have Silva and Massey make opening statements out the outset of bargaining.
See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 46, AFL-CIO, 302
NLRB 271, 273-274 (1991) (union not justified in refusing to negotiate with employer
group’s chosen committee of members and non-members at the outset of separate 20
bargaining sessions in accordance with a longstanding practice of including all both
group members and nonmembers under a single collective-bargaining agreement).
Some delegates in attendances made side remarks, sneered and laughed in
response to Jasinski’s remarks on March 27. However, Jasinski never mentioned that as 25
an issue on March and it was hardly an indication that the participation of employees
from the other three facilities represented a “clear and present danger to the collective
bargaining process” or would create ill will and make bargaining impossible. See
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 46, AFL-CIO, 302
NLRB at 273-274 (union did not meet burden of showing that the employer group's 30
chosen representatives were “so tainted with conflict or so patently obnoxious as to
negate the possibility of good-faith bargaining”).
Castle Hill’s additional concern at hearing that the presence of employees from other
facilities would violate the confidentiality of Castle Hill employees does not pass muster. See 35
Milwhite Co., Inc., 290 NLRB 1150, 1152 (1998) (mere fear that negotiations will result in
compromising confidentiality is insufficient), citing General Electric Co., 173 NLRB at 255.
Castle Hill cites CBS, Inc., 226 NLRB 537, 539 (1976), as support for the proposition
that the Union’s bargaining representatives presented “a clear and present danger to the 40
bargaining process or would create such ill will as to make bargaining impossible or futile.” That
case, however, involved a conflict of interest regarding the composition of a bargaining
committee because one committee member was part of a labor organization that did not represent
CBS's members, but rather, two key competitors. That is hardly the scenario here. Castle Hill
also cites Fitzsimons Mfg. Co., 251 NLRB 375, 379-380 (1980), for a similar proposition. In 45
Fitzsimons, however, an employer lawfully excluded a union representative who engaged in an
JD–09–16
25
unprovoked physical attack on company's personnel director. Id. That scenario was also
inapplicable.
Given the absence of evidence of exceptional circumstances indicating bad faith on the
part of the Union, Castle Hill was obligated to bargain with the Union’s bargaining committee on 5
March 27 even though employee-members from the other three facilities were present. General
Eelctric, 412 F.2d at 520. By walking out of the negotiations under those circumstances, Castle
Hill refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. See
Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d at 44 (employer unlawfully refused to negotiate with union
bargaining committee, which added temporary representatives from affiliated bargaining units in 10
order to improve communication between them); NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.,
supra, 599 F.2d 185 (employer unlawfully refused to bargain with union negotiating committee
because the union was coordinating the various bargaining efforts).
II. CASTLE HILL’S DELAY IN PROVIDING INFORMATION15
The complaint alleges that Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it
unreasonably delayed in providing the Union with information requested in order to prepare for
bargaining. Castle Hill contends that it responded in a manner reasonably consistent with past
practice and that union officials sanctioned the delay because of counsel’s other commitments.20
The duty to timely furnish requested information cannot be defined in terms of a per se
rule. Good Life Beverage Co., 312 NLRB 1060, 1062 fn. 9 (1993). Rather, what is required is a
reasonable good-faith effort to respond to the request “as promptly as circumstances allow.”
Id. See also Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000). In evaluating the promptness of an 25
employer's response, the Board considers the complexity and extent of the information sought,
its availability, and the difficulty in retrieving the information. West Penn Power
Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), citing Samaritan Medical Center, 319 NLRB 392, 398 (1995),
enfd. in relevant part 394 F.2d 233 (4th Cir. 2005). Since “information concerning terms and
conditions of employment is presumably relevant,” it must be “provided within a reasonable 30
time, or, if not provided, accompanied by a timely explanation.” In Re W. Penn Power Co., supra
at 597(citing FMC Corp., 290 NLRB 483, 489 (1988)). Even a relatively short delay of 2 or 3
weeks may be held unreasonable. See, e.g., Capitol Steel & Iron Co., 317 NLRB 809, 813
(1995), enfd. 89 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1996) (2-week delay unreasonable under the circumstances
because the information sought was simple, close at hand, and easily assembled); Aeolian 35
Corp., 247 NLRB 1231, 1244 (1980) (3-week delay unreasonable under the circumstances).
Castle Hill received the Union’s initial information request on December 27 and a
supplemental request on March 14. In early January, Jasinski informed Massey and McCalla that
he would be busy with a State court proceeding in parts of January and February. In that regard, 40
he proposed several times to extend the term of the expiring contract, but the Union never
agreed. At no time, however, during his written and verbal communications with the Union did
he request an extension of time to respond to the information requests. That is because Jasinski
always intended to produce a response to the information requests on the first day of bargaining.
45
Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Co., 291 NLRB 980(1988), enfd, 909 F.2d 1484 (6th Cir.
1990), cited by Castle Hill, is inapplicable here. In that case, the Board found a delay in
JD–09–16
26
providing requested information justified to the extent that the employer's confidentiality
interests outweighed a union's need for information. The employer feared that competitors might
gain an advantage if they acquired information about tariff rates contained in certain business
contracts. In this case, however, Castle Hill never asserted confidentiality concerns as an excuse
for the delay at any time prior to March 27. 5
The passage of nearly 3 months in responding to the Union’s initial information request
and 5 weeks responding to the supplemental request was unreasonable. Castle Hill was entirely
mum on the subject notwithstanding follow-up reminders by the Union to provide the
information prior to the March 27 bargaining session. Instead, Jasinski simply delivered the 10
information at the March 27 session, where union representatives had a relatively short period of
time to review the information. The tactic was clearly calculated to prolong bargaining by
ensuring that the Union would need more time to analyze the information provided and, thus, be
unable to commence meaningful bargaining at the first session. The fact that Castle Hill
previously delayed in producing requested information until the first bargaining session does not 15
rescue it from a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
III. REFUSAL TO PROVIDE DAILY SCHEDULES AND HEALTH INSURANCE
INFORMATION
20
The General Counsel contends that Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
on July 30 when Castle Hill refused to provide information requested by the Union which was
relevant and necessary to the performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representative,
specifically employees’ daily work schedules and health insurance information. Castle Hill
refused to provide such further work schedule information, insisting that the Union should be 25
satisfied with the monthly master schedules provided. With respect to the health insurance
information, Castle Hill claimed it was prohibited from releasing such information under the
privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.83
An employer has a duty to furnish relevant information necessary to union 30
representatives for the proper performance of their duties as the exclusive bargaining
representative. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 153 (1956); Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440
U.S. 301, 303 (1979); W-L Molding Co., 272 NLRB 1239, 1240-1241 (1984); NLRB v. Acme
Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967); A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356 NLRB No.
76, slip op. at 2 (2011). Information requests regarding bargaining unit employees' terms and 35
conditions of employment are “presumptively relevant” and must be provided. Whitesell Corp.,
352 NLRB 1196, 1197 (2008), adopted by a three-member Board, 355 NLRB 635 (2010),
enfd. 638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2011); Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005).
The standard for establishing relevancy is the liberal, “discovery-type standard.” Alcan 40
Rolled Products, 358 NLRB No. 11, slip op. at 4 (2012), citing and quoting applicable
authorities. The Union, in accord with its duty, sought copies of daily work schedules in order to
formulate and present appropriate proposals on behalf of employee-members. See
Wayneview Care Center, 352NLRB 1089, 1115 (2008) (work schedules relating to unit

83 45 CFR §§ 160 and 164.
JD–09–16
27
employees, are presumptively relevant, including information on current schedules for each
department). Moreover, the Union was entitled to production of schedules of work actually
performed by employees and was not relegated to the monthly work schedules. See McGuire
Steel Erection, Inc. & Steel Enterprises, Inc., 324 NLRB 221, 223-224 (1997) (employer
unlawfully refused to provide additional payroll records on the grounds that it already provided 5
the union with other types of payroll records); National Grid USA Service Co., Inc., 348 NLRB
1235 (2006) (union was entitled to copies of invoices containing base line information, not just
unverified summaries made by employer); Merchant Fast Motor Line, 324 NLRB 563 (1997)
(union was not required to accept an employer’s declaration as to profitability or summary
financial information provided by the employer); McQuire Steel Erection, Inc., 324 NLRB 221 10
(summaries of payroll records deemed not sufficient to meet a respondent's statutory obligation).
Similarly, Castle Hill was obligated to furnish the requested health insurance information
necessary for the Union to formulate its own proposal. One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc., 55
NLRB 1237 (2010). The Union was entitled to the requested information concerning the costs of 15
health insurance to Castle Hill and covered employees in order to analyze them within the
context of the Affordable Care Act. This was significant information, given the Union’s
bargaining objective to increase dependent health insurance coverage and its interest in exploring
alternative proposals to offset the costs.
20
Jasinski initially insisted the Union already had the information, which was incorrect; the
Union had only been provided with partial information relating to gross payroll benefits, monthly
health plan costs, and a summary description of the plan. After the Union persisted, he agreed to
inquire further and, on May 21, raised vague privacy objections under HIPAA. Such
confidentiality concern came more than 2 months after the information request. Moreover, the 25
documentary evidence and Jasinski’s vague testimony failed to identify how any of the requested
health insurance related documents involved the confidential medical information of any
employees. Lastly, Jasinski refused Massey’s offer to work out an accommodation for the release
of the allegedly confidential information. See Castle Hill Health Care Center, 355 NLRB at
1183-1184 (generalized confidentiality concern unavailing as an excuse to refuse information 30
request); Exxon Co. USA, 321 NLRB 896, 898 (1996) (confidentiality objection must be timely
raised).
Under the circumstances, Castle Hill’s refusal to provide health insurance information on
May 21 and daily work schedule information on July 30 as requested by the Union violated 35
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. INTERROGATION AND THREATS REGARDING STRIKE ACTIVITY
The complaint alleges that Castle Hill engaged in various violations of Section 8(a)(1) of 40
the Act. The standard in determining whether employer conduct violates that section of the Act is
based on whether statements made to employees reasonably tend to interfere with the free
exercise of employee rights under the Act. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969).
In assessing the lawfulness of an interrogation, the Board applies the totality of 45
circumstances test adopted in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. sub nom.
Hotel Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). The Board has
JD–09–16
28
additionally determined that in employing the Rossmore House test, it is appropriate to
consider the factors set forth in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964): whether
there was a history of employer hostility or discrimination; the nature of the information
sought (whether the interrogator was seeking information to base taking action against
individual employees); the position of the questioner in the company hierarchy; the place 5
and method of interrogation, and; the truthfulness of the reply. In applying the Bourne
factors, the Board seeks to determine whether under all of the circumstances the
questioning at issue would reasonably tend to coerce the employee at whom it was
directed so that he or she would feel restrained from exercising rights protected by
Section 7 of the Act. Westwood Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 935, 941 (2000). 10
A. Interrogation of Employees Regarding Strike Activity
In July, Duran, the highest ranking Castle Hill supervisor, approached Saldana
while she worked, implored her to convince coworkers not to go on strike and asked for 15
her help in resolving employees’ concerns. Saldana rebuffed him and explained that
employees would not go on strike if management negotiated a fair contract and then
nobody would go on strike. Under the circumstances, Duran’s remarks were coercive in
nature and violated Section 8(a)(1). Reno Hilton Resorts, 320 NLRB 197, 207 (1995).
20
Although not specifically alleged in the complaint, the General Counsel moves to
further amend it to conform to the proof that Duran also unlawfully interrogated Devika
Smith regarding her participation in the strike. The motion is granted, as the statements,
albeit not alleged, resulted from testimony which was received without objection and
reasonably fell within the ambit of other coercive statements made by Duran to 25
employees during individual and group encounters in August and September. See Hi-
Tech Cable Corp., 318 NLRB 280 (1995) (conforming pleadings to proof allowed where
complaint alleged similar coercive statements by same manager, had an opportunity to
cross-examine the witness and present witnesses in opposition, and addressed their
legality in its post-hearing brief); Meisner Electric, Inc., 316 NLRB 597 (1995) (same).30
Duran twice interrogated Devika Smith on two occasions after she handed him the
Union's 10-day strike notice. In the first incident, Duran approached Smith as she worked
and asked whether she was going on strike, but Smith did not respond. A few days later,
Duran approached Smith outside the facility entrance after work and asked if she was 35
going out on strike. Smith said yes. In neither instance did Duran assure Smith that no
reprisals would be taken against her as a result of her response. Such assurances were
necessary given that Duran was crisscrossing the facility threatening employees,
including Smith herself, with termination if they participated in the strike. In both
instances, Duran unlawfully interrogated Smith in violation of Section 8(a)(1). 40
B. Threats to Employees of Job Loss or Other Reprisals
In determining whether a supervisor's statement is unlawfully coercive, the test is
whether the employee would reasonably be coerced by it. See Engelhard Corp., 342 45
NLRB 46, 60-61 (2004) (test for coercion under Sec. 8(a)(1) is “whether the employer
engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free
JD–09–16
29
exercise of employee rights under the Act”) (emphasis in original), enfd. 437 F.3d 374
(3d Cir. 2006). Under the circumstances, the aforementioned statements supervisors were
clearly coercive in violation of Section 8(a)(1). See, e.g., Hialeah Hospital, 343 NLRB
391, 391 (2004) (manager's statements to employees that he felt “betrayed” and “stabbed
in the back” implied employee disloyalty in supporting the union and constituted an 5
implicit threat of unspecified reprisals).
In July, Duran approached Devika Smith, a union delegate, while she worked,
and, noting her influence with coworkers, said that it would be a shame for Smith and her
coworkers to go on strike and lose their jobs.10
In August, Saldana testified before the Union City Board of Commissioners and
succeeded in getting the political support of that body. The next day, her photograph
holding a resolution standing alongside the mayor appeared on the Union’s Facebook
website. Shortly thereafter, Duran confronted Saldana at work. He accused her of 15
backstabbing him and implied retaliation for her activity.
Similarly, about 3 weeks before the strike, Head Nurse Jabouin approached
Devika Smith at work, told her that Duran was mad and he wanted to know when
everybody was going on strike. After Smith refused to share any information with her, 20
Jaboiun warned Smith to "be careful" because Duran was mad and persisted in asking
again when employees would go on strike.
About a week before the September 16 strike, Duran approached Diana Lewis as
she was exiting a resident's room. Duran candidly told Lewis that he knew that "you all" 25
were going on strike. When Lewis did not respond to Duran, he continued by saying
that he did not know what she was going to do, but if you all go on strike, some of the
strikers can be fired. When Lewis again refused to indulge Duran, he ratcheted up the
rhetoric. Duran told her that if you all go on strike, you could be fired. Duran told her to
think about it and he walked off of the floor.30
On the Friday before the September 16 strike, Duran confronted Saldana again as
she worked. Duran insisted that Saldana join him at a side table. When Saldana complied,
Duran told her that it was a shame that she was going to lose her job because she was
such a good worker. Duran then declared that 17 other single mothers were also going to 35
lose their jobs for going on strike.
The aforementioned supervisory statements sent clear messages that engaging in
Section 7 activity was harmful to Castle Hill. See Hoffman Fuel Co., 309 NLRB 327, 327
(1992) (employer's questioning coupled with a veiled threat unlawful where there was no 40
legitimate purpose for ascertaining the employee's prospective union activities). Duran’s
implied threats of termination violated Section 8(a)(1).
In addition, threatening employees that a strike will lead to job loss is unlawful
because it incorrectly conveys to employees that their employment will be terminated as 45
a result of a strike, whereas the law is clear that economic strikers retain certain
reinstatement rights. Baddour, Inc., 303 NLRB 275 (1991) (without explanation the
JD–09–16
30
employer stating “you could end up losing your job by being replaced with a new
permanent worker” was unlawful); Larson Tool & Stamping Co., 296 NLRB 895, 895-
896(1989) (employees could lose their jobs to permanent replacements). By threatening
employees with loss of their jobs if they participated in a strike, Duran violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.5
C. Coercive Statements at Group Meetings
At group meetings held in late August or early September in the second-floor
conference room, Duran interrogated employees as to why they were going on strike, 10
threatened them with termination, and changes in working conditions.
In assessing the lawfulness of an interrogation, the Board applies the totality of
circumstances test adopted in Rossmore House, supra. Circumstances considered in
evaluating the tendency to interfere include the (1) background, (2) the nature of the 15
information sought, (3) the identity of the questioner, and (4) the place and method of the
interrogation. Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217, 1218 (1985); Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1178 fn. 20 (1984). Conversations about union activity between
employers and employees are considered lawful when they involve open union
supporters, in a casual setting, and are unaccompanied by coercive statements. Toma 20
Metals, Inc., 342 NLRB 787 (2004) (lawful for a supervisor to ask an employee what is
up with the rumor of the union where they had a friendly relationship); Emery
Worldwide 309 NLRB 185, 186-187 (1992) (no violation where a low-level supervisor
engaged in a casual, amicable conversation with an employee that did not involve
coercive statements).25
Applying the totality of the circumstances, Duran’s statements were coercive in nature.
First, it is clear that Castle Hill and, specifically, Duran have a history of hostility towards the
Union. Second, it is evident that the questioners were merely trying to thwart a strike. Third,
Castle Hill’s highest ranking official and a high-ranking Alaris representative were questioning 30
the employees. Fourth, the questioning was not done in a casual setting but took place at work in
a conference room. These factors support the conclusion that Duran’s questions were unlawfully
coercive.
Additionally, Duran’s statements relating to termination and changes in working 35
conditions at the aforementioned meetings were unlawfully coercive. Threatening
employees that a strike will lead to adverse action, including job loss is unlawful because
it incorrectly conveys to employees that their employment will be adversely affected as a
result of a strike, whereas the law is clear that economic strikers retain certain
reinstatement rights and other protections. Baddour, Inc., supra, 303 NLRB 275 (without 40
explanation the employer stating “you could end up losing your job by being replaced
with a new permanent worker” was unlawful); Larson Tool & Stamping Co.,
296 NLRB at 895-896 (employees could lose their jobs to permanent replacements).
Duran made no differentiation between economic and unfair labor practice strikes. As the
Board has stated, “employers cannot tell employees without explanation that they would 45
lose their jobs as a consequence of a strike or permanent replacement.” Baddour, 303
NLRB at 275. Accordingly, Duran’s statements violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
JD–09–16
31
V. SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES DURING STRIKE
Duran photographed the striking employees from a second-floor window in the
facility as they picketed outside on September 16, the first day of the strike. Similarly, on 5
September 16 and 17, Bracea took photographs of the striking employees from inside
Castle Hill as they picketed in front of the facility. Bracea explained her actions on
September 17 as those of a bewildered bystander interested in photographing politicians
who joined the strikers on the second day of the strike. On that occasion, she was
accompanied by Laura Vartolone, the assistant director of nursing.10
It is not unreasonable to expect that the spectacle of a mass protest of employees
carrying signs and chanting slogans would pique the interest of managers, supervisors,
and employees working within the facility. The Board does, however, consider the
photographing and videotaping of employees unlawful, “if the observation goes beyond 15
casual and becomes unduly intrusive.” F. W. Woolworth Co., 310 NLRB 1197 (1993).
See also Local Joint Executive Bd. of Las Vegas v. N.L.R.B., 515 F.3d 942, (9th Cir.
2008), quoting Kenworth Truck Company, Inc. and Mark Johnson, 327 N.L.R.B. 497
(1999).
20
Castle Hill failed to demonstrate any justification for the photographing of picketing
employees outside Caste Hill. See United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 204 v.
N.L.R.B., 506 F.3d 1078, (D.C. Cir. 2007); Timken Co., 331 NLRB. 744, (2000); National Steel
and Shipbuilding Co. v. N.L.R.B., 156 F.3d 1268, 1271–72 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (upholding the
Board's finding that a company committed an unfair labor practice by videotaping union rallies 25
without sufficient justification). There was no evidence of violence, unruly behavior, or past
actions on the part of picketing employees indicating any possibility of a disruption to Castle
Hill’s operations which might otherwise have justified photographing their activity by the
facility’s manager and nursing director. Under the circumstances, Castle Hill violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in unlawful surveillance of picketing employees outside its 30
facility on September 16 and 17.
VI. REFUSAL TO REINSTATE 15 EMPLOYEES
The complaint alleges that the Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by 35
refusing to reinstate certain employees when they returned to work the day after the strike ended.
Castle Hill argues that its striking employees were not entitled to reinstatement because they
engaged in an economic rather than unfair labor practice strike.
Strikes may be categorized as either economic or unfair labor practice strikes. Spurlino 40
Materials, LLC, et ano. v. NLRB, 805 F.3d 1131, 1136-1137 (D.C. Cir. 2015), citing Gen. Indus.
Emps. Union, Local 42 v. NLRB, 951 F.2d 1308, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1991). That categorization
carries significant consequences. Economic strikers run the risk of replacement if, during the
strike, the employer takes on permanent new hires. NLRB v. International Van Lines, 409 U.S.
48, 50, 93 S.Ct. 74, 34 L.Ed.2d 201 (1972); Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311. 45
Economic strikers are nevertheless, entitled, upon their unconditional offers to return to work, to
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, if no permanent replacements
JD–09–16
32
have been hired to replace them and the positions remain open. NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co.,
389 U.S. 375, 378–79, 88 S.Ct. 543, 19 L.Ed.2d 614 (1967).
In the case of an unfair labor practice strike, employees are entitled to immediate
reinstatement to their former positions upon their unconditional offers to return to work, even if 5
the employer has hired replacements. See International Van Lines, 409 U.S. at 50–51, 93 S.Ct.
74; Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 278, 76 S.Ct. 349, 100 L.Ed. 309 (1956); Gen.
Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311; Hajoca Corp. v. NLRB, 872 F.2d 1169, 1177 (3d
Cir.1989). Accordingly, an employer violates the Act if it fails to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers once they have made an unconditional offer to return to work. See Alwin Mfg. Co. v. 10
NLRB, 192 F.3d 133, 141–142 (D.C. Cir.1999).
In determining whether the General Counsel has met his burden of establishing that an
employer’s unfair labor practices caused the employee’s decision to go on strike, the Board looks
to the employees' motivations for striking, considering both objective and subjective 15
evidence. See Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1312; Spurlino Materials, 357 NLRB No.
126, slip op. 15-16 (2011); Executive Management Services, 355 NLRB 185, 194-196
(2010); Chicago Beef Co. v. Local 26, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, 298 NLRB
1039 (1990). A strike wholly driven by the desire of employees to obtain favorable employment
terms is an economic strike. When employees strike as a result of an employer's unfair labor 20
practices, the strike is an unfair labor practice strike. See International Van Lines, 409 U.S. at
50–51, 93 S.Ct. 74; Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311.
In this case, there is undisputed evidence of statements by the Union and employee-
members during the months leading up to the strike indicating that it was attributable to Castle 25
Hill’s unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain and provide the Union with requested
information relevant to the bargaining process. They expressed these sentiments in public
statements, which were followed up with the filing of unfair labor practice charges, and
confirmed during testimony that they acquiesced to the Union’s recommendation to strike
because of unfair labor practices and for better wages, health insurance coverage and pension 30
plan, i.e., economic reasons. See Citizens Publishing & Printing Co., 263 F.3d 224 , 235 (3d Cir.
2001) (facts supported finding that Board’s decision to issue a complaint “galvanized bargaining
unit members' belief that an unfair labor practice had been committed and served as the
flashpoint for discussion about calling a strike”).
35
Much of the testimony essentially reiterated what Ozual, Massey, and other union
representatives told employees as the reason for their recommendations to strike. They were
educated about the distinctions and ramifications between an economic strike and an unfair labor
practice strike. Clearly, much of the testimony insisting that the strike was attributable to unfair
labor practice charges was self-serving. In determining causation or motivation for a strike,40
however, “the Board will not ‘calculate the degree of importance, or weight to be attached to the
employer's unfair labor practices in characterizing the nature of a strike.” Executive Management
Services, 355 NLRB at 193 (citing Cal Spas, 322 NLRB 41, 60 (1996)). Additionally, although
the strikers’ characterization of their motives for the strike may be given substantial weight, the
Board is supposed to examine the factual context of the strike, and be wary of inconsistencies 45
between the facts and any self-serving rhetoric by strikers. Executive Management Services,
JD–09–16
33
supra at 194. The factual context of the strike and ULPs needs to be examined regardless of the
strikers’ testimony. Id.
It is evident that meaningful collective bargaining was hamstrung at the outset by Castle
Hill’s failure to provide responsive information prior to March 27 and then refusing to 5
commence bargaining with Castle Hill’s chosen bargaining committee. While certainly not
dispositive of the reasons for an eventual strike nearly 6 months later, it set the tone for a ragged
path of trickling information and resistance in providing relevant work schedule information.
Under Board law, the motivation of Castle Hill employees to strike in order to improve 10
their bargaining position and assail Castle Hill’s unfair labor practices means that the strike must
be characterized as an unfair labor practice strike. See Executive Management Services, supra at
193; Domsey Trading Corp., 310 NLRB 777, 791 (1993); General Drivers & Helpers Union,
Local 662 v. NLRB, 302 F.2d 908, 911 (D.C.Cir.1962). “The employer's unfair labor practice
need not be the sole or even the major cause or aggravating factor of the strike; it need only be a 15
contributing factor.” Teamsters Local Union No. 515 v. NLRB, 906 F.2d 719, 723
(D.C.Cir.1990); Alwin Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d at 141; Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311.
See also Struthers Wells Corp. v. NLRB, 721 F.2d 465, 471 (3d Cir.1983); NLRB v. Cast Optics
Corp., 458 F.2d 398, 407 (3d Cir.1972).
20
The Union, on behalf of the striking workers, gave Castle Hill a 10-day notice prior to the
strike that employees would strike on September 16, 17, and 18. On September 18, the Union
notified Castle Hill that the striking employees would return to work the next day. Under the
circumstances, Castle Hill refuse to reinstate the following 15 employees on September 19 which
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.25
VII. REDUCTION IN WORK HOURS OF TWO EMPLOYEES
The complaint alleges that Castle Hill reduced Moto-Lopes and Crawford’s hours
because they engaged in a protected strike earlier that year. Castle Hill contends that neither 30
employees’ work hours were reduced after the strike and denies that any reduction is attributable
to union animus.
In determining whether adverse employment action is attributable to unlawful
discrimination, the Board applies the analysis set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), 35
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). The Wright Line
framework requires proof that an employee's union or other protected activity was a motivating
factor in the employer's action against the employee. 251 NLRB at 1089. The elements required
to support such a showing are union or protected concerted activity, employer knowledge of that
activity, and union animus on the part of the employer. Amglo Kemlite Laboratories, 360 NLRB 40
No. 51, slip op. at 7 (2014); Consolidated Bus Transit, 350 NLRB 1064, 1065 (2007), enfd. 577
F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009). Proof of animus and discriminatory motivation may be based on direct
evidence or inferred from circumstantial evidence. Robert Orr/Sysco Food Services, 343 NLRB
1183, 1184 (2004); Purolator Armored, Inc. v. NLRB, 764 F.2d 1423, 1428-1429 (11th Cir.
1985). Factors which may support an inference of antiunion motivation include employer 45
hostility toward unionization, other unfair labor practices committed by the employer
contemporaneous with the adverse action, the timing of the adverse action in relation to union
JD–09–16
34
activity, the employer's reliance on pretextual reasons to justify the adverse action, disparate
treatment of employees based on union affiliation, and an employer's deviation from past
practice. 764 F.2d at 1429.
Although Brenda Moto-Lopes was reinstated after returning to work after the strike, her 5
work hours were significantly reduced after the strike from an average before the strike of 5-6
days per week, plus overtime. Similarly, upon her reinstatement on October 27, Leanne
Crawford’s work schedule was reduced from an average of 8-10 days per pay period to 5-6 days
per pay period. Before the strike, Moto-Lopes worked 5-6 days each week, and earned about 16-
24 hours of overtime each pay period. After the strike, Moto-Lopes worked 24 hours per week 10
for 3 weeks and worked between 16 and 32 hours for the rest of October with no overtime.
Similarly, Crawford went from working 8-10 days per pay period before the strike to 5-6 days
per pay period after the strike. As such, the revision to the schedules of Moto-Lopes and
Crawford constituted adverse action.
15
The evidence clearly establishes that Moto-Lopes and Crawford engaged in a protected
strike activity. Equally clear is the fact that Castle Hill had knowledge of both employees’
protected strike activity. There is also sufficient evidence of animus to support a prima facie case
in view of its 8(a)(1) violations found in this case. Furthermore, the timing of certain actions
showed that union activity was a factor in the reduction of hours, where Moto-Lopes’ staffing 20
coordinator told her, prior to the strike, that if she went on strike, her hours could be cut.
The General Counsel having established a prima facie case, the burden shifted to Castle
Hill to prove that union activity was not a motivating factor in Moto-Lopes and Crawford’s hour
reductions. Wright Line, supra; approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 25
U.S. 393 (1983). None of the explanations offered by Castle Hill meets this burden. Castle Hill
did not provide a single witness to testify on the subject of Moto-Lopes or Crawford’s hour
reduction. Therefore, Mota-Lopes' testimony regarding her hour reduction was not reasonably
disputed. Similarly, Crawford’s hour reduction was not explained sufficient for Castle Hill to
meet its burden under the Wright Line analysis.30
Under the circumstances, Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by reducing the
work hours of Moto-Lopes and Crawford upon their reinstatement after the strike. Wright Line,
supra; Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12 (1996).
35
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Castle Hill was an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) 40
of the Act.
2. The Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all relevant times, Nelson Duran, Alexandra Bracea, Lavonza Jaboiun, and Laura 45
Vartolone were supervisors of Castle Hill within the meaning of the Act, and David Jasinski,
Regina Figueroa, Ann Taylor, and Fredline Altenor were agents within the meaning of Section
JD–09–16
35
2(13) of the Act.
4. Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by:
(a) Refusing on March 27, 2014 to bargain in good faith with the Union’s chosen 5
bargaining committee.
(b) Delaying for 3 months before producing information requested by the Union which
was relevant and necessary to its role as unit employees’ labor representative prior to the
commencement of collective bargaining between the parties on March 27, 2014.10
(c) Refusing to provide health insurance information on May 21, 2014 and daily work
schedule information on July 30, 2014 as requested by the Union which was relevant and
necessary to its role as unit employees’ representative.
15
5. Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the following manner:
(a) Duran’s interrogated Duran in July and Devika Smith in September 2014 as to
whether they planned to go on strike.
20
(b) Duran threatened Devika Smith in September 2014 by stating that it would be
a shame for Smith and her coworkers to go on strike and lose their jobs.
(c) Duran threatened Saldana in August 2014 by accusing her of backstabbing him and
implying retaliation after she appealed successfully for support for the Union City Board of 25
Commissioners.
(d) Jaboiun warned Devika Smith in late August 2014 to be careful because
Duran was mad and wanted to know when everybody was going on strike.
30
(e) Duran threatened Diana Lewis in September 2014 by warning that he knew
employees were going on strike, warned that if they could be fired as a result and told her
to think about it.
(f) Duran threatened Saldana on September 12, 2014 by stating that she and 17 35
other employees would lose their jobs if they went out on strike.
(g) At group meetings held in late August or early September 2014 in the second-
floor conference room, Duran interrogated employees as to why they were going on
strike, threatened them with termination, and changes in working conditions. 40
(h) Duran and Bracea engaged in surveillance of employees as they participated in
picketing outside Castle Hill on September 16 and 17, 2014.
6. By failing and refusing, on September 19, 2014, to immediately reinstate 45
fifteen employees who engaged in an unfair labor practice strike and had made an
JD–09–16
36
unconditional offer to return to work, Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
7. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.5
REMEDY
Having found that Castle Hill has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it
to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On request, Caste 10
Hill shall bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees concerning
terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement. Castle Hill shall also, within 14 days of the Board’s Order,
offer the 15 employees who engaged in an unfair labor practice strike in September 2014, and
were not immediately reinstated on request, recall to their former positions, terminating, if 15
necessary, any replacements who occupy those positions, or if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed. In addition, the two employees whose work hours were reduced
after returning from the strike shall have their previous work hours restored. I shall also order
Castle Hill to make whole the unfair labor practice strikers who were denied reinstatement or 20
suffered loss of work hours for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8
(2010). In addition, I shall order Castle Hill to expunge from its files any reference to the failure 25
to reinstate the strikers, and to notify them in writing that this has been done. Finally, I shall
order Castle Hill to post a notice to all employees in accordance with J. Picini Flooring, 356
NLRB No. 9 (2010).
Castle Hill shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay 30
to the appropriate calendar quarters. Castle Hill shall also compensate the discriminatee(s) for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering
periods longer than 1 year. Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 (2012).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the 35
following recommended84
ORDER
The Respondent, Alaris Health at Castle Hill, Union City, New Jersey, its officers, 40
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from

84 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 purposes.
JD–09–16
37
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting 1199,
SEIU United Healthcare Workers East or any other union.
(b) Coercively interrogating and threatening any employee about union support or union 5
activities.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of employees participating in picketing.
(d) Refusing to provide or delaying in providing necessary and relevant information to 10
the Union.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
15
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:20
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs, and all other
employees excluding professional employees, registered nurses, cooks,
confidential [employees], office clerical employees, supervisors, watchmen and
guards.25
(b) On request, furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested
concerning daily work schedules and health insurance on May 21 and July 30, 2014.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Devika Smith, Claudia 30
Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfls, Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne
Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie
Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin, Komi Anakpa, and Brenda Moto-Lopes full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously 35
enjoyed.
(d) Make Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfls,
Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo,
Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin, 40
Komi Anakpa and Brenda Moto-Lopes whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, expunge from its files any 45
reference to the failure to reinstate the strikers, and to notify them in writing that this has been
done and that such adverse actions will not be used against them in any way.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in 5
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or
(g) Within 14 days after serv
Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Regi10
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 to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to p
distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such 15
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facilit
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 20
March 27, 2014.
(h) Within 21 days after service
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.25
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 3,
30

85 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 National Labor Re
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
38
ice by the Region, post at its facility in Union City, New
“Appendix”85 in both English and Spanish. Copies
on 22, after being signed by
hysical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
y involved in these
by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
2016
____________________________________
Michael A Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
lations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
JD–09–16
der.
JD–09–16
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 notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for supporting 1199,
SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question or threaten you concerning your union support or activities.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of your union or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to timely provide the Union with necessary and relevant information.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs, and all other
employees excluding professional employees, registered nurses, cooks,
confidential [employees], office clerical employees, supervisors, watchmen and
guards.
WE WILL, on request, furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested
concerning daily work schedules and health insurance on May 21 and July 30, 2014.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana,
Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford,
Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie
Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin, Komi Anakpa, and Brenda Moto-Lopes full
JD–09–16
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exists, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
WE WILL make Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils,
Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo,
Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin,
Komi Anakpa, and Brenda Moto-Lopes whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
resulting our refusal to reinstate them or, upon their reinstatement, reducing their work hours,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest compounded daily.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the
appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL compensate Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfls,
Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo,
Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin,
Komi Anakpa, and Brenda Moto-Lopes for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving
one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year.
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-3110
(973) 645-2100, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-125034 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
JD–09–16
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (973) 645-3784.