ALARIS HEALTH AT HARBORVIEW

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 19, 2016

22-CA-125023 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

JD–12–16
Jersey City, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ALARIS HEALTH AT HARBORVIEW
and Cases 22-CA-125023
22-CA-125882
1199, SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE 22-CA-140591
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 proceeding was one of four
cases tried ad seriatim involving Alaris Health’s New Jersey nursing homes and their unionized
employees. Heard in Newark, New Jersey on July 29 through 31, 2015, the case addressed
complaint allegations that Alaris Health at Harborview (Harborview or Respondent), committed
numerous unfair labor practices relating to 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 threats of job loss; and (3)
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to reinstate two employee strikers after they
unconditionally offered to return to work.3

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 2014.
2 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
3 The complaint was amended to modify pars. 23, 24, 25 and 31. (GC Exh. 101(w)). In addition, the
General Counsel subsequently withdrew complaint pars. 28, 29 and 32, and modified par. 30 to remove
reference to par. 28 alleging that Harborview’s unilateral discontinuation of the Union dues check-off.
JD–12–16
Harborview 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 in a series of acts designed to “set up” Harborview for unfair labor practice charges,
which it denies, and then used those charges to mask an economic strike at Harborview and the
other three Alaris facilities as an unfair labor practice strike.5
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and Harborview,4 I make the
following
10
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Harborview, a corporation, operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center providing in-15
patient medical care at its facility in Jersey City, New Jersey, where it annually derives gross
revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly
from points outside the State of New Jersey. Harborview 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 20
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Parties25
At the relevant times in this complaint, Harborview’s supervisors and agents included:
Kevin Woodard, the administrator; Gerry Mijares, the director of nursing; Mariae Lapus, the
assistant director of nursing; and Julian Duran, the food service director. David Jasinski, Esq.,
has served as Castle Hill’s labor counsel and chief negotiator during collective bargaining, 30
accompanied by Mendy Gold, an Alaris principal.5
Harborview and its predecessors have recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of approximately 110 employees in successive collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which was effective from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2014: 35

4 Notwithstanding my instruction that counsel submit one “omnibus” brief addressing all four cases,
the General Counsel submitted separate briefs for each case. All four Respondents moved to strike the
General Counsel’s briefs. I decided against such an extreme measure but, in order to ensure that there was
no prejudice to Respondents, I permitted them to submit supplemental briefs in each case. Harborview
declined the option.
5 Harborview admitted only that Woodard was a Section 2(11) supervisor. However, the undisputed
facts established that Mijares and Lapus were also statutory supervisors, while Jasinski acted as an agent
within the meaning of Section 2(13).
JD–12–16
3
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs, and all other employees
excluding professional employees, registered nurses, confidential [employees], office
clerical employees, cooks, supervisors, watchmen and guards.6
5
The Union’s leadership includes: Milly Silva, the executive vice president; Clauvice
Saint Hilaire, the vice president; and Ron McCalla and Christina Ozual, union organizers. During
collective bargaining, the Union’s chief negotiator was William Massey, Esq., assisted by
McCalla. Pursuant to the expiring agreement,7 the Union designated the following six
Harborview employees as members of the bargaining committee: Denise Bowden, Gwyneth 10
Russell, Cassandra Willis, Ella Moton, Romeo Rodriguez and Renee Jordan.8
Notwithstanding an employee strike in 2009 during negotiations over the 2010-2014
agreement, the parties enjoy a relationship that both describe as respectful. The parties began
meeting shortly before the 2010 contracts expired for Harborview, Alaris at Castle Hill, Alaris at 15
Rochelle Park and Alaris at Boulevard East. However, controversy soon erupted over the
composition of the Union’s bargaining committee and information requested by the Union.
B. The Union’s Information Requests
20
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 Harborview engage in bargaining and offered alternative dates in February. He
also requested that Harborview furnish the Union with the following information by January 24: 25
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;9 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 30
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.10
Jasinski had several conversations with McCalla and Massey in January about dates to 35
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 January and February. The trial

6 GC Exh. 108.
7 Section 17 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 R. Exh. 104.
9 McCalla knew that none of the Alaris facilities maintained 401(k) plans 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. 155.)
10 GC Exh. 109.
JD–12–16
4
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.
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 5
request.11 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
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 31.1210
In a letter, dated February 21, McCalla responded to Jasinski by agreeing to meet on
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:15
In our discussions concerning bargaining dates you said you have possible availability on
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 20
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
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.25
While we understand the employer’s position on separate bargaining tables for each
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 30
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.

11 There is no dispute regarding Jasinski’s assertion regarding his past practice of providing a
response to the Union’s information requests on the first day of negotiations. (Tr. 2152-2154.) 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 13th email demanding a response to the information request, it is clear that the Union
never consented to delayed document production until March 27. (Tr. 1994-1995; GC Exh.7; R. Exh.
104.) 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 written communications.
12 Massey conceded that it was Jasinski’s longstanding position to negotiate each contract separately,
but noted that there were 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–12–16
5
Please let us know which of these dates would be your preference.13
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 5
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:
We are in receipt of your letter identifying a number of facilities whose contracts expire
on March 31, 2014. A brief response is warranted.10
Each identified facility is a separate and independent operation with its own collective
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 recognizes its independence.15
In light of these undisputed facts, we will adhere to our prior practice and not agree to
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.20
We are available and confirm the March 27 and 31 dates for each facility. Please notify
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 25
disruption in our staffing. Bargaining sessions, as in our prior negotiations, will take
place at the Union's offices in Edison.
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 30
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
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.1435
On March 13, McCalla emailed Jasinski to inform him that each of the four Alaris
facilities would receive releases for bargaining committee members that day by fax and certified
mail. Massey followed up with an email later that day regarding the commencement of
bargaining and the outstanding information requests:40

13 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 Harborview’s bargaining committee. (GC Exh. 5; Tr. 869, 1426-1427.)
14 GC Exh. 6.
JD–12–16
6
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,
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 5
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
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 10
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
the information requested. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards.15
2. The March 14th information request15
In a letter, dated March 14, Massey followed up on his email to Jasinski from the day
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 20
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
coverage, census data reflecting plans selected by employees, actuarial and utilization plan
values, and requests for proposals and financial impact related information.16
25
3. The March 27 bargaining session
On March 27, Jasinski arrived at 11 a.m. for the first bargaining session at the Union’s
offices in Iselin, New Jersey. Massey, McCalla, Saint Hilaire, Silva and Ozual were present,
accompanied by approximately 20-25 employee delegates from the four facilities. Two days 30
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.
After waiting about an hour for Gold to arrive, Jasinski agreed to start the Castle Hill
negotiations. Milly Silva and Massey opened with brief opening remarks. After reviewing the 35
sign-in sheet, Jasinski protested the presence of employee-members from Harborview, Boulevard
East and Rochelle Park. He proclaimed Castle Hill’s readiness to commence Castle Hill

15 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, while corresponding
during that time over the logistics and dates for bargaining, 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.)
16 This request refined the previous request for monthly work schedules from one that sought daily
work schedules. (GC Exh. 8.)
JD–12–16
7
negotiations, but noted each contract was different and the parties had not previously engaged in
joint bargaining. Massey replied that the Union was entitled to bargain with a team of its
choosing. Jasinski 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 bargaining team. At that point, Jasinski 5
provided a packet of information relating to Castle Hill’s December 27 information request and
retreated to a caucusing room.17
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 10
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
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 the other Alaris facilities during Castle Hill bargaining 15
sessions.
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 20
previously requested the information:
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 25
questions or require additional information, please advise.18
Before Jasinski and Gold left, the Union did not submit a proposal.19 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 30
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
to commence bargaining over Harborview, Boulevard East and Rochelle Park.
In a letter, dated April 1, Jasinski proposed dates for the resumption of bargaining for the 35
Harborview contract:
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 40

17 I credit Jasinski’s undisputed testimony that some delegates in attendances made side remarks,
sneered, and laughed, but not his conclusion 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.)
18 GC Exh. 110.
19 Harborview notes the discrepancy in testimony between Massey and Saint Hilaire as to whether the
Union was prepared to issue its proposals if the bargaining sessions had gone forward. (Tr. 938, 1059.)
JD–12–16
8
upcoming religious holidays, we confirmed that we are available on April 28th and 29th,
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 5
not confirmed any of those dates at this time.
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 10
session, it will give us the ability to review it and prepare a response and to continue good
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 15
continue negotiations in good faith, and seek to reach an amicable resolution that
balances the needs of your members with the facility and the care for our residents.
Thank you.20
In his reply later that day, McCalla documented the parties’ March 27 meeting, disagreed 20
with the four facilities’ “refusal to hold bargaining sessions for more than one facility per day “
as “unreasonable and a poor use of the time and resources of all parties.” Notwithstanding
Jasinski’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
Harborview on May 2:25
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 30
29, we accept your offer to bargain, on May 1, and we offer May 2 for a fourth session.
We propose the following sequence:21
4. The Union’s follow-up request
35
In a letter to Jasinski, dated April 9, Massey expressed concern over Harborview’s failure
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
March 14 request were incomplete. He asked for the outstanding information to be provided by 40
April 15.22

20 GC Exh. 111.
21 GC Exh. 11.
22 GC Exh. 21.
JD–12–16
9
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
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 5
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.23 In a separate letter dated the same day,
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.2410
5. The May 7 bargaining session
The parties subsequently agreed to resume the Harborview contract negotiations on May
7. Prior to that session, the Union undertook a propaganda blitz in a flier distributed to the 15
employees at the four facilities:
At our first bargaining session on Thursday, March 27th, we came prepared to bargain
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 20
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
stand strong and speak with one voice!25
25
At the May 7 bargaining session, Jasinski and Gold met with Massey, McCalla, Silva,
Saint Hilaire the six bargaining committee members from Harborview. This time, there was no
controversy regarding the composition of the Union’s bargaining team. Massey gave Jasinski the
Union’s written proposals, but reminded him that the Union was still waiting for the CNA work
schedules and health insurance related information. In response to Jasinski’s letter asserting the 30
12-month request was burdensome, Massey agreed to accept three months of daily work
schedules. With respect to health insurance, Jasinski said he would get back to the Union.26
6. The employee schedules
35
In a letter, dated May 14, Jasinski furnished Massey with the monthly staffing schedules
at Harborview for each floor for all shifts from January 26 to May 17. The monthly schedules
reflected projected CNAs’ work schedules and floor assignments.27 On May 21, Jasinski
responded to Massey’s additional information request:
40

23 GC Exh. 112.
24 GC Exh. 113.
25 GC Exh. 44.
26 The Union does not dispute that, notwithstanding Harborview’s failure or refusal to provide
necessary information requested on December 27 and March 14, it was still able to submit a proposal.
(GC Exh. 131; Tr. 2098-2099, 2107-2108, 2115-2116.)
27 GC Exh. 114.
JD–12–16
10
In response to your additional information request, we have provided you with all
relevant information. Most recently, we supplemented our initial response with schedules
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 5
HIPAA.28
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.10
We are prepared to continue to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that balances
the interests of our employees and your members with those of the Facility. Should you
have any other questions, please advise.29
15
The parties met again for bargaining on June 2. Massey again opened with a statement
that the information provided in response to the Union’s request was not satisfactory because it
lacked requested health insurance information and consisted of projected monthly schedules
instead of work schedules reflecting actual work performed by CNAs. Jasinski insisted that the
monthly schedules were sufficient and Massey explained the relevance of the more accurate 20
daily work schedules, which reflect the days and shifts actually worked.30 After engaging in
bargaining, Jasinski provided and explained Harborview’s counterproposals.31
7. The July 9 bargaining session
25
At the July 9 bargaining session, McCalla served as the Union’s chief spokesperson, as
Massey was unable to attend. The session opened, as usual, with the Union’s request for daily
work schedules and health insurance information needed for bargaining. Once again, Jasinski
disagreed, insisting the Union already had the information and did not need anything further.
During the bargaining that ensued, Jasinski dismissed the Union’s staffing proposals because 30
Harborview was in compliance with State guidelines. McCalla took issue with that view,
asserting that State guidelines took several factors into account.32 The parties then engaged in
bargaining, with Jasinski providing Harborview’s latest contract proposals.33
On July 30, Jasinski replied to the Union’s continuing request for health plan information 35
and employees’ daily schedules:

28 During the hearing, Jasinski 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. 115.
30 GC Exh. 105-106.
31 GC Exh. 131.
32 It is undisputed that Harborview is subject to New Jersey State requirements for minimum staffing
and resident ratios. (R. Exh. 13.)
33 R. Exh. 105(b).
JD–12–16
11
We want to be clear and avoid any misunderstanding regarding your multiple information
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 5
happen. At the negotiations, we informed you that the Employer is not in possession of
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.
10
In addition, the Union requested information concerning work schedules at this facility.
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 15
rights as set forth in the Managements Rights clause of the collective bargaining
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 20
and we will not deviate from it.
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 25
to continue to negotiate.34
8. The August 25 Bargaining Session
The parties next met for bargaining on August 25. Massey reiterated the Union’s need for 30
the outstanding daily work schedules and health insurance information for bargaining. Jasinski
did not respond to that inquiry and the parties engaged in bargaining.35
C. Employees Prepare for a Possible Strike
35
Beginning in March, Ozual or Saint Hilaire met periodically with employees in the first-
floor break room. 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, and the rumored
demolition of Boulevard East. Ozual and Saint Hilaire also informed employees about 40
Harborview’s refusal to meet with the Union’s bargaining committee on March 27 and its refusal
to provide requested information.36

34 GC Exh. 116.
35 GC Exh. 131 at 22.
36 It is undisputed that Ozual, accompanied occasionally by Saint Hilaire, followed a similar practice
of updating employees, as well as receiving their complaints, at each of the four Alaris facilities. (Tr.
1158-1187, 1206-1207.)
JD–12–16
12
By May, the Union recommended that employees step up the pressure on the four Alaris
facilities. In late May and June, several Harborview employees participated in informational
picketing. Some signs contained messages which read “1199 Stop Unfair Labor Practices!”
Other signs mentioned the need for affordable healthcare insurance, pension and wage increases 5
and a fair contract.37
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 the four Alaris facilities. The website’s 10
home page included a news alert providing the economic motives behind a potential strike:
NEWS ALERT: HUNDREDS OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS
STRIKE AFTER CONTRACT TALKS SOUR.
15
Don't put your health at alarisk.
Stand up for quality care and good jobs in nursing home.
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.20
Despite making $41 million in profit in 2012, many Alaris nursing
homes suffer from substandard staffing levels while hardworking
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.25
Our communities depend on skilled caregivers to provide for our loved
ones in their times of need. They deserve better. We deserve better.38
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 30
in attendance. In prepared remarks that followed, Silva excoriated Alaris 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 35
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 40
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.

37 GC Exhs. 19.
38 GC Exh. 48.
JD–12–16
13
The women and men standing beside me play a critical role as caregivers to some of the
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.
5
It is of grave concern to us that Alaris has committed numerous unfair labor practices and
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 10
name to Alaris, but it seems that they haven't changed their ways.
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 15
worker who, as a fundamental requirement of her job, needs to remain physically and
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 20
pay even more for health insurance and to reduce critical benefits including sick leave.
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.
25
We will not let vital healthcare jobs suffer so that Alaris, which makes $40 million in
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 30
provide care to the elderly and vulnerable, decides to pocket millions for himself before
making sure that the caregivers who work directly with patients have what they need to
get by.
Avery has also failed to address persistent staffing shortages at these four facilities, each 35
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.
40
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
dark. This is incredibly disrespectful to everyone who depends on Boulevard East, either 45
as a patient or as an employee.
JD–12–16
14
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
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.
5
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
win a contract that respects their dignity as caregivers and as providers for their own
families.39
10
Jasinski knew about the Union’s July 23 press conference and discussed that event with
Alaris corporate officials.40
D. Unit Employees Decide to Strike
15
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 Harborview, Boulevard East and
Rochelle Park. Another six employees from Castle Hill participated by telephone. Denise
Bowden, Cassandra Willis and Rene Jordan were the delegates from Harborview.
20
The union officials met with the employees for about 1-1/2 hours. 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 facilities and the complaints that he expected to be filed. He also
provided an explanation of the difference between an economic strike and a strike premised on 25
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 deliver ten-day notices to engage in a three-
day strike. The group discussed and decided who would deliver the notices along with McCalla. 30
The delegates were also instructed to tell the membership that the strike was authorized and it
was motivated by economic and unlawful practice reasons.41 The employees present signed the
resolution and the six employees participating by telephone from Castle Hill voiced approval:
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, 35
upon the recommendation of Executive Vice President Milly Silva, the following
resolution was considered and adopted by the undersigned Committee members:
WHEREAS, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East is the collective bargaining
representative of bargaining unit employees of Bristol Manor Health Care Center, Castle 40

39 GC Exh. 57.
40 Jasinski conceded that Alaris officials were provided with the details. (Tr. 1536-1538.)
41 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–12–16
15
Hill Health Care Center, Harborview Healthcare Center and Palisades Nursing Center, all
affiliates of Alaris Health (collectively, "the Employer"); and
WHEREAS the Union has bargained in good faith with the Employer to negotiate a
collective bargaining agreement; and5
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
needed for bargaining (especially health insurance and staffing information), unduly
delaying in providing other information, and unlawfully interfering with the composition 10
of the Union's bargaining committee and
WHEREAS, Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board has informed the Union
that a Complaint against the Employer alleging multiple Unfair Labor Practices in
connection with this unlawful conduct is forthcoming; and15
WHEREAS, the Employer has continued to make unreasonable bargaining demands of
the Union and its members; and
WHEREAS the Employer has continued to commit additional Unfair Labor Practices, 20
including by unlawfully polling and coercively interrogating Union members, and
threatening Union members with adverse employment consequences for engaging in
protected Union activity; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the Union and its members hereby 25
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
bargaining position; and
30
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
Labor Practices and unreasonable bargaining position.42
35
In a letter, dated August 29, Jasinski decried the Union’s justification in moving towards
a strike, noting that it had been approximately two months since the parties’ last 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 40
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.43

42 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.)
43 GC Exh. 117.
JD–12–16
16
On September 5, the Union delivered to Woodard the contractually required ten-day
notice of bargaining unit employees’ intention to go out on strike for three days:
Notice is 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 5
represents intend to conduct a strike and picketing at Harborview located at 178-198
Ogden Ave., Jersey City, NJ 07 306. The strike and informational picket are to protest the
Employer's ongoing Unfair labor Practices and the Employer's unreasonable bargaining
demands. The strike will commence at 6:00 AM on Tuesday September 16, 2014 and end
at 6:59 AM on Friday September 19, 2014.4410
Such action had been submitted to the membership for a vote in past years, as required by
the Union’s constitution.45 In this instance, unit members were informed of the scheduled strike
and provided with reasons attributing the strike action to Harborview’s bargaining posture and
unfair labor practices.46 15
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,
effort and our resources to ensuring the strike contingency plan at each Facility that received a
strike notice is in place and fully operational.”4720
E. Management/Supervisors Statements Prior To The Strike
By early September, the Union began mobilizing employees for the strike. Saint Hilaire
and/or Ozual met with Harborview employees 2-3 times a week in the break room to rally 25
support and participation in the strike. Ozual was especially forceful with employees who were
reluctant or undecided about participating in the strike, insisting that the action was necessary in
order to get raises and better benefits.48

44 GC Exh. 118.
45 Harborview 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 Harborview 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.)
46 There was no testimony by striking Harborview employees as to whether their participation was
motivated by economic considerations or Harborview’s alleged unfair labor practices. Kyria Miller did
testify, however, that she decided to strike after being instructed to do so by her mother. (Tr. 1843.)
Williams did not testify as to her motivation for participating in the strike, but confirmed her prior
statement in a Board affidavit that Ozual informed employees that the strike was attributable to the
employer’s refusal to bargain in good faith for a new contract. (Tr.1831.)
47 R. Exh. 8.
48 Harborview called two witnesses who neither attended pre-strike meetings nor participated in the
strike. Kisha Pearson, a recreational aide, vaguely testified that Ozual talked about “wages and stuff like
that” (Tr. 2220.), while Verna Jeffries, a CNA, testified that Ozual told her she needed “to fight for the
contract.” (Tr. 2232.) I found their testimony vague, selective and ineffective in refuting evidence of the
Union’s standard message to unit members that the strike was caused by both economic considerations
and the employer’s unfair labor practices.
JD–12–16
17
Around this time, employees were handed leaflets by Woodard and found them included
with their paychecks. The leaflet was represented as the “truth” to refute “the Union’s most
recent lies.” It posited the question of whether an employee could be replaced if he/she went out
on strike. The answer stated that “Under Federal Law, we have the right to, and will, hire
replacements to fill any vacancies in our staffing schedules. In fact, to meet our responsibilities 5
to provide uninterrupted resident care, we have begun to take steps to ensure we will have
replacement for all employees who choose to go out on strike and walk away from their jobs. We
do this because of our commitment to our residents and our Facility. Once a strike is over, you
may not be able to immediately return to your job. That is a fact.49
10
Around the same time, Harborview CNAs were called into the break room for meetings
with Mijares, the nursing director, and Lapus, the assistant nursing director. After distributing a
document, Mijares told the CNAs that they would be neglecting Harborview’s residents if they
went on strike. She also warned that employees could lose their jobs if they went on strike.
Miller voiced her disagreement, noting that Rene Jordan, a housekeeper, participated in the 2009 15
strike and was still employed. Lapus responded by reaffirming Mijares’ warning.50
F. Supervisors Observe Employees During Prayer Vigil
On September 10, employees from all four facilities also participated in a prayer vigil and 20
rally with Silva and their local State Assemblyman in front of Castle Hill.51 Flyers distributed to
employees at the four facilities prior to the vigil referred to the upcoming strike relating to the
facilities unfair labor practices and undermining of job standards.52 During the event, Castle Hill
administrator Maurice Duran stood 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 25
a problem to do what he had to do next.53 The Union photographed the rally/vigil and depicted it
in a flyer distributed on September 15.54
30
G. Alaris Prepares for the Strike
In anticipation of its staffing needs prior to the strike, Harborview entered into contracts
with four temporary staffing companies. Addenda were attached to the form agreements with
Tristate Rehab Staffing and Towne Nursing requiring that Harborview retain their employees for 35
minimum terms of four and six weeks, respectively. This was a peculiar development in light of
the Union’s prior notice of a three-day strike. There was, however, no written agreement with

49 GC Exh. 107.
50 This finding is based on Miller’s credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 1844-1848.)
51 GC Exh. 35.
52 GC Exh. 44(f).
53 I base the finding regarding the observation of employees on Castle Hill CNA Leanne Crawford’s
credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 489-492.) Although his employment role was limited to Castle
Hill, Duran conceded that he is engaged to Alaris official Ann Taylor. (Tr. 1584-1585.)
54 GC Exh. 44(g).
JD–12–16
18
Staff Blue, while the agreement with Medistar Personnel, Inc. made no mention of a contract
term.55
H. The Strike
5
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
understaffed and compromise their licenses.56
10
On September 16, approximately 25 Harborview employees/unit members ceased work
and engaged in a strike. Over the next three days, the striking employees picketed outside the
facility.57 Their signs demanded Harborview engage in good-faith bargaining and protested
unfair labor practices.
15
During the three-day strike, Harborview covered the shifts of the striking CNAs with 22
temporary employees from the four staffing agencies.58
I. Employees Attempt to Return to Work
20
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 the facilities would make such a commitment
if employees gave notice of a three-day strike. Jasinski explained that the facilities needed to be
cautious in case the employees changed their minds and remained on strike for a longer period of 25
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 Harborview employees/unit members who engaged in the
strike, made an unconditional offer to return to their former or substantially equivalent positions
of employment.59
30
On September 19, employees who participated in the strike reported to work at
Harborview. Miller and other employees who arrived to work the morning shift were directed to
the dining room. When they arrived, Woodard proceeded to read the names of employees who
were not reinstated and needed to leave. He read the names of Miller and Williams. Miller left
the facility and reported the development to Ozual and shop steward Romeo Rodriguez, who 35
were standing outside. At Ozual’s direction, Rodriguez entered the facility and asked Woodard
why Miller and Williams were locked out. Woodard merely said that it was for the good of the
facility.60

55 I did not credit Jasinski’s vague testimony regarding alleged negotiations by unidentified persons
which resulted in Harborview agreeing to four and six week terms. (Tr. 2168-2169; R. Exhs. 11, 107-
108.) 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.)
56 GC Exh. 28.
57 GC Exh. 19.
58 GC Exhs. 133-136.
59 GC Exh. 28.
60 I found Rodriguez very credible. (Tr. 1877-1878.)
JD–12–16
19
Williams was not present at that time since she was scheduled to work until 3 p.m.
However, upon learning she was locked out by a coworker, Williams went to Harborview and
spoke with Woodard. He confirmed Williams had been replaced, but would let her know if a
position opened up.615
Although locked out, Williams still participated in a rally in Union City on September 30
to protest the lock-out of employees at the four Alaris facilities. Williams played a prominent
role in the rally, opening the event with a ten-minute prayer. The event was covered by local
print and television media.6210

Jasinski sent a letter, dated October 10, informing Massey that Miller and Williams were
reinstated as of October 15. Woodard, however, was not on the same page and turned them away
when they reported to work on October 15. The snafu was partially ironed out and Miller was
reinstated on October 10.63 Williams, however, was not reinstated until May 19, 2015. Upon her 15
return, she was reassigned from the fourth floor, where she had worked the previous 23 years.64
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. HARBORVIEW’S OBJECTION TO THE UNION’S BARGAINING COMMITTEE20
The complaint alleges that Harborview violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to bargain with the Union on March 27, 2014 because employee
representatives from the other three facilities were present. Harborview contends that its
insistence that the Union’s bargaining committee be restricted solely to Harborview 25
employees was consistent with past practice. Additionally, Harborview contends that the
parties' collective-bargaining agreement limited the Union's bargaining committee to six
members.
Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees and employers the right to “to bargain 30
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
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 35
(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
long as it confines negotiations to terms and conditions of employment within the
bargaining unit, it has free rein . . . in its choice of negotiators.”)

61 Williams’ credible testimony was not disputed by Woodard. (Tr. 1804-1806.)
62 GC Exh. 102.
63 Miller resigned 13 days later. (GC Exh. 106, 119(a)-(c); R. Exh. 103.)
64 Harborview’s hearsay testimony about letters purportedly sent to Williams prior to a March 16,
2015 certified letter offering her the opportunity to reapply for a CNA position was completely unreliable.
(Tr. 2279-2283, 2291; R. 109.) It is undisputed that Jasinski worked out an arrangement whereby any
reinstatement offers were to be communicated by him to Massey. (Tr. 1976-1979.) In Williams’ case, that
did not happen. (GC Exh. 119(e).)
JD–12–16
20
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
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 5
“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
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 10
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.
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 15
part of the bargaining committee”).
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 at 177-178 (other 20
locals); General Electric Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d at 517-520 (2d Cir. 1969) (other international
unions); Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d 40, 44 (6th Cir. 1963) (other locals). Furthermore,
a claim that a union's use of outsiders was an unlawful attempt to compel companywide or
multiplant bargaining is also insufficient, unless the employer can demonstrate that the union
actually attempted to bargain outside unit boundaries NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 25
599 F.2d at 191; Minnesota Mining, 415 F.2d at 178; General Electric, 412 F.2d at 519-520.
In this case, there was no evidence that the Union sought to force Harborview into
multiemployer bargaining through the presence of bargaining unit members from the
other three facilities. The only hint of a Union strategy affecting all four facilities was its 30
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
bargaining sessions in accordance with a longstanding practice of including all both 35
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
an issue on March 27 and it was hardly an indication that the participation of employees 40
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
chosen representatives were “so tainted with conflict or so patently obnoxious as to 45
negate the possibility of good-faith bargaining”).
JD–12–16
21
Jasinski’s additional concern at hearing that the presence of employees from other
facilities would violate the confidentiality of employees at the other facilities does not pass
muster. See 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. No such concern was expressed on March 27.5
Harborview 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
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 10
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. Harborview
also cites Fitzsimons Mfg. Co., 251 NLRB 375, 379-380 (1980), for a similar proposition. In
Fitzsimons, however, an employer lawfully excluded a union representative who engaged in an
unprovoked physical attack on the company's personnel director. Id. That scenario was also 15
inapplicable.
Given the absence of evidence of exceptional circumstances indicating bad faith on the
part of the Union, Harborview was obligated to bargain with the Union’s bargaining committee
on March 27 even though employee-members from the other three facilities were present. 20
General Electric, 412 F.2d at 520. By walking out of the negotiations under those circumstances,
Harborview 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 order to improve communication between them); NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric 25
Co., supra, (employer unlawfully refused to bargain with union negotiating committee because
the union was coordinating the various bargaining efforts).
II. HARBORVIEW’S DELAY IN PROVIDING INFORMATION
30
The complaint alleges that Harborview also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it
unreasonably delayed in providing the Union with information requested in order to prepare for
bargaining. Harborview 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.
35
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
employer's response, the Board considers the complexity and extent of the information sought, 40
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
time, or, if not provided, accompanied by a timely explanation.” In Re W. Penn Power Co., supra 45
at 597(citing FMC Corp., 290 NLRB 483, 489 (1988)). Even a relatively short delay of two or
three weeks may be held unreasonable. See, e.g., Capitol Steel & Iron Co., 317 NLRB 809, 813
JD–12–16
22
(1995), enfd. 89 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1996) (two week delay unreasonable under the
circumstances because the information sought was simple, close at hand, and easily
assembled); Aeolian Corp., 247 NLRB 1231, 1244 (1980) (three week delay unreasonable under
the circumstances).
5
Harborview 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. The trial
eventually took place between early February and the third week in March. Jasinski did propose,
on several occasions, to extend the term of the expiring contract, but the Union never agreed. At 10
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.
Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Co., 291 NLRB 980(1988), enfd, 909 F.2d 1484 (6th Cir. 15
1990), cited by Harborview, is inapplicable. In that case, the Board found a delay in 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, Harborview never asserted confidentiality concerns as an excuse for the 20
delay at any time prior to March 27.
The passage of nearly three months in responding to the Union’s initial information
request and five weeks responding to the supplemental request was unreasonable. Harborview
was entirely mum on the subject notwithstanding follow-up reminders by the Union to provide 25
the information prior to the March 27 bargaining session. Instead, Jasinski simply delivered the
information at the conclusion of the March 27 session, just before he and Gold walked out. The
tactic was clearly calculated to prolong bargaining by ensuring that the Union would have
insufficient time to analyze the information provided and, thus, be unable to commence
meaningful bargaining at the first session. The fact that Harborview previously delayed in 30
producing requested information until the first bargaining session does not rescue it from a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
III. REFUSAL TO PROVIDE DAILY SCHEDULES AND HEALTH INSURANCE
INFORMATION35
The General Counsel also contends that Harborview violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act on May 21, when it refused to provide daily work schedule information, and July 30,
when it refused to provide health insurance related information, both of which were relevant and
necessary to the performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representative. Harborview 40
refused to provide such further work schedule information, insisting that the Union should be
satisfied with monthly master schedules. With respect to the health insurance information,
Harborview claimed it was prohibited from releasing such information under the privacy
provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.65

65
45 CFR §§ 160 and 164.
JD–12–16
23
An employer has a duty to furnish relevant information necessary to union
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 5
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
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).10
The standard for establishing relevancy is the liberal, “discovery-type standard.” Alcan
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 15
Wayneview Care Center, 352NLRB 1089, 1115 (2008) (work schedules relating to unit
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 20
unlawfully refused to provide additional payroll records on the grounds that it already provided
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 25
financial information provided by the employer); McQuire Steel Erection, Inc., 324 NLRB 221
(summaries of payroll records deemed not sufficient to meet a respondent's statutory obligation).
Similarly, Harborview was obligated to furnish the requested health insurance
information necessary for the Union to formulate its own proposal. One Stop Kosher 30
Supermarket, Inc., 355 NLRB 1237 (2010) (union was entitled to health insurance plan
information). The Union was entitled to the requested information concerning the costs of health
insurance to Harborview 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 35
proposals to offset the costs.
On May 21, Jasinski formally denied the union’s request for the daily work schedules.
With respect to the health insurance information request, Jasinski initially insisted the Union
already had the information. That was incorrect. The Union had only been provided with partial 40
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. On July 30,
Jasinski closed the door regarding any further health insurance related information. He based that
objection on spurious confidentiality concerns that came more than two months after the
information request. Exxon Co. USA, 321 NLRB 896, 898 (1996) (confidentiality objection must 45
be timely raised). Moreover, the documentary evidence and Jasinski’s vague testimony failed to
identify how any of the requested health insurance related documents involved the confidential
JD–12–16
24
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 1156, 1183-1184 (2010) (generalized confidentiality concern
unavailing as an excuse to refuse information request);
5
Under the circumstances, Harborview’s refusal to provide daily work schedule
information on May 21 and health insurance related information on July 30 as requested by the
Union violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THREATS REGARDING STRIKE ACTIVITY10
A. Threats to Employees of Job Loss or Other Reprisals
The complaint alleges that Harborview engaged in various violations of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. The standard in determining whether employer conduct violates that section of the 15
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
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 NLRB 46, 60-61
(2004) (test for coercion under Sec. 8(a)(1) is “whether the employer engaged in conduct which, 20
it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the
Act”) (emphasis in original), enfd. 437 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2006).
Harborview CNAs were called into the break room for meetings with Mijares, the
nursing director, and Lapus, the assistant nursing director, and warned that employees could lose 25
their jobs if they went on strike. Miller voiced her disagreement, noting that Rene Jordan, a
housekeeper, participated in the 2009 strike and was still employed. Lapus responded by
reaffirming Mijares’ warning.
The aforementioned supervisory statements sent clear messages that engaging in Section 30
7 activity was harmful to Harborview. See Hoffman Fuel Co., 309 NLRB 327, 327
(1992) (employer's questioning coupled with a veiled threat unlawful where there was no
legitimate purpose for ascertaining the employee's prospective union activities). Under the
circumstances, these implied threats of job loss by Mijares and Lapus violated Section 8(a)(1).
35
B. Memo to Employees About Job Loss or Other Reprisals
In early September, employees were handed leaflets by Woodard and found them
included with their paychecks. The handouts posited the question of whether an employee could
be replaced if he/she went out on strike. The answer stated that “Under Federal Law, we have the 40
right to, and will, hire replacements to fill any vacancies in our staffing schedules. In fact, to
meet our responsibilities to provide uninterrupted resident care, we have begun to take steps to
ensure we will have replacement for all employees who choose to go out on strike and walk
away from their jobs. We do this because of our commitment to our residents and our Facility.
Once a strike is over, you may not be able to immediately return to your job. That is a fact.”45
JD–12–16
25
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 a result of a strike. To the
contrary, the law is clear that economic strikers retain certain reinstatement rights. Baddour, Inc.,
303 NLRB 275 (1991) (without explanation the employer stating “you could end up losing your
job by being replaced with a new permanent worker” was unlawful). 5
Larson Tool & Stamping Co., 296 NLRB 895, 895-896(1989) (employees could lose their jobs
to permanent replacements). Woodard made no differentiation between economic and unfair
labor practice strikes. As the Board has stated, “employers cannot tell employees without
explanation that they would lose their jobs as a consequence of a strike or permanent
replacement.” Baddour, 303 NLRB at 275. Accordingly, Woodard’s memo violated Section 10
8(a)(1) of the Act.
V. REFUSAL TO REINSTATE STRIKING EMPLOYEES
The complaint further alleges that the Harborview violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the 15
Act by refusing to reinstate Ingrid Williams and Kyria Miller when they returned to work the day
after the strike ended. Harborview disagrees, insisting that Miller and Williams 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 20
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 (1972); Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311. In such instances, economic strikers 25
are entitled, upon their unconditional offers to return to work, to reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, if no permanent replacements have been hired to replace them
and the positions remain open. NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 378–379 (1967).
In the case of an unfair labor practice strike, employees are entitled to immediate 30
reinstatement to their former positions upon their unconditional offers to return to work, even if
the employer has hired replacements. See International Van Lines, 409 U.S. at 50–51,
93; Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 278 (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 such strikers once they have made an 35
unconditional offer to return to work. See Alwin Mfg. Co. v. 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 40
to the employees' motivations for striking, considering both objective and subjective
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 45
terms is an economic strike. When employees strike as a result of an employer's unfair labor
JD–12–16
26
practices, the strike is an unfair labor practice strike. See International Van Lines, 409 U.S. at
50–51; Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311.
In this case, there is a dearth of self-serving testimony by employees as to their reasons
for participating in the strike. There is objective proof of motivation for the strike, however, in 5
the statements by Union officials. Through public statements, media publications and its website,
the Union conveyed the mixed message that it sought redress for Harborview’s unfair labor
practices and economic reasons (e.g., better wages, health insurance coverage and pension plan).
The Union followed up on these actions by filing unfair labor practice charges and informing
employees that Board complaints would issue. See Citizens Publishing & Printing Co., 263 F.3d 10
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”).
It is evident that meaningful collective bargaining was hamstrung at the outset by 15
Harborview’s failure to provide responsive information prior to March 27 and then refusing to
commence bargaining with Harborview’s chosen bargaining committee. While certainly not
dispositive of the reasons for an eventual strike nearly six months later, it set the tone for a
ragged path of trickling information and resistance in providing relevant work schedule and
health insurance related information.20
Under Board law, the dual motivation of Harborview’s employees to strike in order to
improve their bargaining position and assail Harborview’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 & 25
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 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 30
Corp., 458 F.2d 398, 407 (3d Cir.1972).
The Union, on behalf of the striking workers, gave Harborview a 10-day notice prior to
the strike that employees would strike on September 16, 17, and 18. On September 18, the Union
notified Harborview that the striking employees would return to work the next day. Under the 35
circumstances, Harborview’s refusal to reinstate the Ingrid Williams and Kyria Miller on
September 19 violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
40
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
JD–12–16
27
1. Harborview was an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
5
3. At all relevant times, Kevin Woodard, Gerry Mijares, Mariae Lapus and Julian Duran
were supervisors of Harborview within the meaning of Section 2(11) the Act, and David
Jasinski, Esq. was an agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
4. Harborview violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by: 10
(a) Refusing on March 27, 2014 to bargain in good faith with the Union’s chosen
bargaining committee.
(b) Delaying for 3 months before producing information requested by the Union which 15
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.
(c) Refusing to provide daily work schedule information requested by the Union on May
21, 2014 and health insurance information requested on July 30, 2014, all of which was relevant 20
and necessary to the Union’s role as unit employees’ representative.
5. Harborview violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the following manner during early
September:
25
(a) By distributing leaflets to employees warning that they could be replaced and lose
their jobs if they went out on strike.
(b) By warning employees at a group meeting in early September that they would be
neglecting Harborview’s residents and could lose their jobs if they went on strike. 30
6. By failing and refusing, on September 19, 2014, to immediately reinstate Ingrid
Williams and Kyria Miller, two employees who engaged in an unfair labor practice strike
and had made an unconditional offer to return to work, Harborview violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.35
7. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY40
Having found that Harborview 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,
Harborview 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 45
understanding in a signed agreement. Harborview shall also, within 14 days of the Board’s
Order, offer the two employees who engaged in an unfair labor practice strike in September
JD–12–16
28
2014, and were not immediately reinstated on request, recalled to their former positions,
terminating, if 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. I shall also order Harborview to make whole the unfair
labor practice strikers who were denied reinstatement for any loss of earnings and other benefits 5
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 Harborview to expunge from its files
any reference to the failure to reinstate the strikers, and to notify them in writing that this has 10
been done. Finally, I shall order Harborview to post a notice to all employees in accordance with
J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010).
Harborview shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay
to the appropriate calendar quarters. Harborview shall also compensate the discriminatee(s) for 15
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
following recommended6620
ORDER
The Respondent, Alaris Health at Harborview, Jersey City, New Jersey, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall25
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting 1199,
SEIU United Healthcare Workers East or any other union.30
(b) Coercively threatening any employee with job loss if they go on strike or engage in
other union activities.
(c) Refusing to provide or delaying in providing necessary and relevant information to 35
the Union.
(d) 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.
40
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.

66 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–12–16
29
(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:
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs, and all other 5
employees excluding professional employees, registered nurses, confidential
[employees], office clerical employees, cooks, supervisors, watchmen and guards.
(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, 2014.10
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order offer Ingrid Williams and Kyria
Miller 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 enjoyed.15
(d) Make Ingrid Williams and Kyria Miller 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.
20
(e) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, expunge from its files any
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 25
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
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
30
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Jersey City, New
Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”67 in both English and Spanish. Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees 35
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
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
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 40
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to

67 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 Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
all current employees and former employees employed by t
March 27, 2014.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that 5
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February
10

15
30
he Respondent at any time since
11, 2016
______________________________
Michael A Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
JD–12–16
__
JD–12–16
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 threaten you with job loss if you go on strike or engage in any other
union 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 Ingrid Williams and Kyria Miller
full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exists, to substantially
JD–12–16
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Ingrid Williams and Kyria Miller whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from 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 Ingrid Williams and Kyria Miller 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 HARBORVIEW
(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-125023 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.
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.