ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 2018

367 NLRB No. 55 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

367 NLRB No. 55
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Alaris Health at Rochelle Park and 1199, SEIU Unit-
ed Healthcare Workers East. Cases
22−CA−124968, 22−CA−125889, and
22−CA−140560
December 21, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND KAPLAN
On February 25, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Mi-
chael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel and the Charging Party each filed an
answering brief, and the Respondent filed a combined
reply brief to the answering briefs.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,3 and conclusions4

1 This case is one of four related cases involving unfair labor prac-
tice strikers at facilities affiliated with Alaris Health. See, in addition to
this case, Alaris Health at Castle Hill, 367 NLRB No. 52 (2018); Alaris
Health at Harborview, 367 NLRB No. 54 (2018); and Alaris Health at
Boulevard East, 367 NLRB No. 53 (2018). The judge heard these
cases consecutively and issued four separate decisions. The Respond-
ent and the Charging Party each submitted consolidated briefs address-
ing all four cases, while the General Counsel submitted a separate brief
in each case.
2 Member Emanuel is recused and took no part in the consideration
of this case. Additionally, former Member Hirozawa and Ellen
Dichner, former Member Pearce’s chief counsel, took no part in the
consideration of this case. Therefore, we deny as moot the Respond-
ent’s Motion to Disqualify Board Member Kent Y. Hirozawa and Chief
Counsel Ellen Dichner.
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s findings that the
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by (1) refusing to bargain in
good faith with the Union’s chosen bargaining committee, (2) unrea-
sonably delaying in providing the Union with requested information
that was relevant and necessary for bargaining, (3) refusing to provide
the Union with requested information concerning health insurance and
daily work schedules, and (4) denying union agent Christina Ozual
access to the facility without giving the Union an opportunity to bar-
gain over that change.
Also in the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s findings that
the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by (1) threatening employees with
job loss, loss of work hours, and other changes in their terms and condi-
and to adopt the judge’s recommended Order as modified
and set forth in full below.5
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent vi-
olated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to immediately
reinstate 10 unfair labor practice strikers to their former
jobs after they submitted their unconditional offer to re-
turn to work on September 20, 2014,6 we note that there

tions of employment if they went on strike; and (2) interrogating em-
ployees about whether they were going to participate in the strike.
Lastly, in the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s finding
that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) by reducing the work
hours of Jean Fritz, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, and Jamir
Gaston and by denying Deloris Alston the opportunity to work over-
time. Although the Respondent filed an exception to the judge’s factual
finding that Dominguez, Hormaza, Gaston, and Alston were “Locked-
Out on September 20,” the Respondent did not except to the judge’s
finding that it unlawfully changed their terms and conditions of em-
ployment. In any event, the Respondent did not present any argument
or evidence in support of this exception. Accordingly, we find, pursu-
ant to Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(ii) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, that
this bare exception should be disregarded. See, e.g., Charter Commu-
nications, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 46, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2018) (citing
New Concept Solutions, LLC, 349 NLRB 1136, 1136 fn. 2 (2007)).
In affirming the judge’s findings, we do not rely on his citation to
Alcan Rolled Products, 358 NLRB 37 (2012), which was issued by a
panel subsequently found invalid by the Supreme Court in NLRB v.
Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014). Although Wayneview Care
Center, 352 NLRB 1089 (2008), a two-member decision cited by the
judge, was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia Circuit following issuance of the Supreme Court’s
decision in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), we
rely on it here because a three-member panel of the Board incorporated
the decision by reference in a subsequent decision, and that decision
was enforced. See 2010 WL 5173270 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (order vacating
and remanding to the Board), 356 NLRB 154 (2010), enfd. 664 F.3d
341 (D.C. Cir. 2011). We note that Atlas Refinery, Inc., 354 NLRB
1056 (2010), another two-member decision cited by the judge, was also
reaffirmed and incorporated by reference in a subsequent decision by a
three-member panel. 357 NLRB 1798 (2011), enfd. 620 Fed. Appx. 99
(3rd Cir. 2015).
4 In his Conclusion of Law 5(c), the judge concluded that the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by denying Ozual access to the facility
without giving the Union an opportunity to bargain; in his decision,
however, the judge found that this conduct violated Sec. 8(a)(5). We
have amended the conclusions of law to correct this inadvertent error.
5 We have amended the judge’s recommended remedy. We have al-
so modified the judge’s recommended Order consistent with the viola-
tions found, the amended remedy, and the Board’s standard remedial
language. We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as
modified.
6 Those 10 strikers are CNAs Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Eve-
lyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane, and Deloris Alston,
housekeeping employees Julieta Dominguez and Jacinta Hormaza, and
dietary aide employees Jamir Gaston and Rodley Lewis. Abellard,
Padda, Meronvil, Vilceus, and Youmane were ultimately returned to
work between September 28 and October 18. Dominguez, Hormaza,
Alston, and Gaston were returned between September 22 and Septem-
ber 24, but their hours were reduced. Alston’s hours were restored on
October 5, but she still has not received her former overtime opportuni-
ties. Dominguez, Hormaza, and Gaston still have not been offered their
former hours. Lewis was never offered reinstatement.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
is no exception to the judge’s finding that the 3-day
strike was an unfair labor practice strike. Because the
strike was an unfair labor practice strike, we reject the
Respondent’s argument that its contracts with staffing
agencies that supplied temporary replacements during the
strike and its status as a health care facility justified its
failure to immediately reinstate the strikers after their
unconditional offer to return to work. See Alaris Health
at Castle Hill, 367 NLRB No. 52 (2018) (holding that an
employer’s contractual obligation to retain temporary
strike replacements for a minimum period of time does
not constitute a legitimate and substantial business justi-
fication for denying immediate reinstatement to unfair
labor practice strikers). In addition, while employers
generally have a 5-day administrative grace period to
reinstate unfair labor practice strikers under Drug Pack-
age Co., 228 NLRB 108, 113–114 & fn. 28 (1977), enf.
denied in part on other grounds 570 F.2d 1340 (8th Cir.
1978), the Respondent disavowed any claim that its mul-
ti-week delay in reinstating the unfair labor practice
strikers was justified by the grace period described in
Drug Package Co., and we find that the Respondent was
not entitled to this grace period. See, e.g., Teamsters
Local 574, 259 NLRB 344, 344 fn. 2 (1981) (citing In-
terstate Paper Supply Co., 251 NLRB 1423 (1980))
(Where “an employer has rejected, attached an unlawful
condition to, or ignored an unconditional offer to return
to work, the 5-day grace period serves no useful purpose
and backpay will commence as of the unconditional offer
to return to work.”).
Even assuming arguendo that a delay beyond 5 days in
reinstating unfair labor practice strikers could ever be
justified by an employer’s contractual obligation to retain
temporary strike replacements for a minimum period of
time, the Respondent would have failed to demonstrate
that its agency contracts justified denying immediate
reinstatement to the ten strikers. See Alaris Health at
Castle Hill, above, slip op. at 5. Preliminarily, the con-
tracts could not have justified the Respondent’s failure to
immediately reinstate housekeeping employees Julieta
Dominguez and Jacinta Hormaza and dietary aide em-
ployees Jamir Gaston and Rodley Lewis because the
staffing agencies supplied Rochelle Park with CNAs
only, and there is no evidence that any agency-supplied
employee performed any housekeeping or dietary aide
work. See Sutter Roseville Medical Center, 348 NLRB
637, 637 fn. 7, 645−647 (2006) (finding employer’s con-

To the extent the Respondent’s bare exception to the judge’s finding
that the 10 strikers were “Locked-Out on September 20” is intended as
an exception to the judge’s finding that they were denied immediate
reinstatement to their former jobs, we find that it should be disregarded.
See fn. 3, supra.
tracts with temporary staffing agencies did not justify its
delay in reinstating economic strikers not replaced by
agency-supplied employees).
As to the six CNAs denied immediate reinstatement,
although the Respondent’s contract with Tristate Rehab
Staffing required the Respondent to retain two Tristate
employees for 4 weeks, and the Respondent’s contract
with Towne Nursing Staff required the Respondent to
retain nine Towne employees for 4 weeks, there is no
credited evidence in the record regarding the parties’
negotiations that resulted in those contract terms. In ad-
dition, only five agency-supplied employees (one from
Tristate and four from Towne) actually worked at Ro-
chelle Park after the strike ended, and the Respondent
has not provided any evidence that it had to compensate
Tristate or Towne for replacements who were guaranteed
employment after the strike but did not work. As a re-
sult, there is no basis upon which to find either that the
staffing agencies required the lengthy minimum terms as
a condition of supplying the temporary strike replace-
ments or that the Respondent was financially liable for
any agency employees it did not use after the strike end-
ed. Moreover, even if the Respondent’s contractual obli-
gations could have justified denying immediate rein-
statement to some of the CNA strikers, the contracts
could not justify the Respondent’s refusal to immediately
reinstate at least one of the six, since only five agency-
supplied employees worked at Rochelle Park after the
strike ended. Alaris Health at Castle Hill, above, slip op.
at 5.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we adopt the judge’s
finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by failing to immediately reinstate ten un-
fair labor practice strikers on their unconditional offer to
return to work.7
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. Add the following to Conclusion of Law 4:
“(d) unilaterally changing employees’ terms and con-
ditions of employment without giving the Union notice
and opportunity to bargain over such change when it
denied Christina Ozual access to meet with employees in
the facility in August 2014.”
2. Delete Conclusion of Law 5(c).

7 Backpay for this violation shall commence as of September 20,
when the strikers, through their union, unconditionally offered to return
to work. See Teamsters Local 574, 259 NLRB 344, 344 fn. 2 (1981)
(citing Interstate Paper Supply Co., 251 NLRB 1423 (1980) (“[I]f an
employer has rejected, attached an unlawful condition to, or ignored an
unconditional offer to return to work, the 5-day period serves no useful
purpose and backpay will commence as of the unconditional offer to
return to work.”)).
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 3
AMENDED REMEDY
We amend the judge’s remedy as follows.8 First, the
judge ordered the Respondent to recall the 10 strikers
denied immediate reinstatement on September 20. How-
ever, the judge found, and no party disputes, that five of
the strikers have been reinstated to their former jobs. We
shall not order the Respondent to offer reinstatement to
those strikers. As to the remaining five strikers, four—
Deloris Alston, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, and
Jamir Gaston—have also been reinstated, but they were
not granted full reinstatement to their former jobs be-
cause Alston has been unlawfully denied her former
overtime opportunities, and Dominguez, Hormaza, and
Gaston have had their hours unlawfully reduced. The
fifth, Rodley Lewis, has not been reinstated. In addition,
an 11th striker, Jean Fritz, was reinstated immediately,
but his hours were unlawfully reduced. Accordingly, we
shall order the Respondent to offer Alston, Dominguez,
Hormaza, Gaston, Lewis, and Fritz full reinstatement to
their former jobs, including their former hours and over-
time opportunities.
Second, we shall order the Respondent to make Al-
ston, Dominguez, Hormaza, Gaston, and Fritz whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a re-
sult of the changes to their terms and conditions of em-
ployment (denial of overtime opportunities; reduction in
hours) in accordance with Ogle Protection Service, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971),
with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
Third, in accordance with our decision in King Soop-
ers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), enfd. in pertinent
part 859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017), we shall order the
Respondent to compensate affected employees for their
search-for-work and interim employment expenses re-
gardless of whether those expenses exceed interim earn-
ings. Search-for-work and interim employment expenses
shall be calculated separately from taxable net backpay,
with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, su-
pra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, supra.
Finally, the Respondent shall be required to compen-
sate affected employees for the adverse tax consequenc-

8 As noted above, supra fn. 3, the Respondent has not excepted to
the judge’s finding that it unlawfully refused to bargain with the Un-
ion’s chosen bargaining committee. Nor does it argue that the judge’s
recommended affirmative bargaining order is improper. We therefore
find it unnecessary to provide a specific justification for the affirmative
bargaining order. See Lily Transportation Corp., 363 NLRB No. 15,
slip op. at 3 fn. 5 (2015), enfd. 853 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2017); Heritage
Container, Inc., 334 NLRB 455, 455 fn. 4 (2001); see also Scepter Inc.
v. NLRB, 280 F.3d 1053, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
es, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and to
file with the Regional Director for Region 22, within 21
days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by
agreement or Board order, a report allocating the back-
pay awards to the appropriate calendar years for each
employee. AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No.
143 (2016).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Alaris Health at Rochelle Park, Rochelle
Park, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with 1199, SEIU United
Healthcare Workers East (the Union) because of the
composition of the Union’s bargaining committee.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by
refusing to provide and unreasonably delaying in provid-
ing it with requested information that is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as
the collective-bargaining representative of the Respond-
ent’s unit employees, including health insurance and dai-
ly work schedule information.
(c) Refusing to permit the Union’s representative to
meet at reasonable times with employees in the facility’s
employee break room.
(d) Threatening employees with job loss, loss of work
hours, or other changes in their terms or conditions of
employment if they go on strike.
(e) Coercively interrogating employees about their un-
ion activities and/or support.
(f) Failing and refusing to immediately reinstate em-
ployees who engage in an unfair labor practice strike to
their former jobs or to substantially equivalent positions
upon their unconditional offer to return to work.
(g) Changing the terms or conditions of employment
of employees because they have engaged in an unfair
labor practice strike.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit concerning terms
and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agree-
ment:
[A]ll CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides,
LPNs, and all other employees excluding professional
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
employees, registered nurses, cooks, confidential [em-
ployees], office clerical employees, supervisors,
watchmen and guards.
(b) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the in-
formation it requested concerning health insurance and
daily work schedules.
(c) On request, permit the Union’s representative to
meet at reasonable times with employees in the facility’s
employee break room.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Deloris Alston, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza,
Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis, and Jean Fritz full rein-
statement to their former jobs, including their former
hours and overtime opportunities, or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or priv-
ileges previously enjoyed.
(e) Make Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn
Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane, Deloris Al-
ston, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston,
and Rodley Lewis whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of its unlawful failure
to immediately reinstate them upon their unconditional
offer to return to work in the manner set forth in the rem-
edy section of the judge’s decision as amended in this
decision, plus reasonable search-for-work and interim
employment expenses.
(f) Make Deloris Alston, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta
Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, and Jean Fritz whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
its unlawful changes to their terms or conditions of em-
ployment in the manner set forth in the remedy section of
the judge’s decision as amended in this decision.
(g) Compensate affected employees for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region
22, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
years for each employee.
(h) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful failure to im-
mediately reinstate Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Eve-
lyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane, Deloris
Alston, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gas-
ton, and Rodley Lewis upon their unconditional offer to
return to work, and within 3 days thereafter notify them
in writing that this has been done and that the failure to
immediately reinstate them will not be used against them
in any way.
(i) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due under
the terms of this Order.
(j) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Rochelle Park, New Jersey, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix”9 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 consec-
utive days in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post-
ing on an intranet or 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 notic-
es are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. If the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since March 27, 2014.
(k) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 22 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 21, 2018
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member

9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 5
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with 1199, SEIU Unit-
ed Healthcare Workers East (the Union) because of the
composition of its bargaining committee.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union by refusing to provide or unreasonably delaying in
providing it with requested information that is relevant
and necessary to the Union’s performance of its func-
tions as the collective-bargaining representative of our
unit employees, including health insurance and daily
work schedule information.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with job loss, loss of hours,
or other changes to your terms or conditions of employ-
ment if you go on strike.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you about your
union activities and/or support.
WE WILL NOT refuse to permit the Union’s representa-
tive to meet with you at reasonable times in the facility’s
employee break room.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to immediately reinstate
employees who engage in an unfair labor practice strike
upon their unconditional offer to return to work.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of
employment because you have engaged in an unfair labor
practice strike.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit concerning
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement:
[A]ll CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides,
LPNs, and all other employees excluding professional
employees, registered nurses, cooks, confidential [em-
ployees], office clerical employees, supervisors,
watchmen and guards.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information it requested concerning health insurance and
daily work schedules.
WE WILL, on request, permit the Union’s representative
to meet with you at reasonable times in the facility’s em-
ployee break room.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Deloris Alston, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta
Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis, and Jean Fritz
full reinstatement to their former jobs, including their
former work hours and overtime opportunities, or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any oth-
er rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Eve-
lyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane, Deloris
Alston, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gas-
ton, and Rodley Lewis whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of our unlawful
failure to immediately reinstate them upon their uncondi-
tional offer to return to work, less any net interim earn-
ings, plus interest, plus reasonable search-for-work and
interim employment expenses.
WE WILL make Deloris Alston, Julieta Dominguez,
Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, and Jean Fritz whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a re-
sult of our unlawful changes to their terms and condi-
tions of employment, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 22, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to our unlaw-
ful failure to immediately reinstate Jean Abellard,
Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gab-
by Youmane, Deloris Alston, Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta
Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, and Rodley Lewis upon their
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
unconditional offer to return to work, and WE WILL, with-
in 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has
been done and that the failure to immediately reinstate
them will not be used against them in any way.
ALARIS HEALTHAT ROCHELLE PARK
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-124968 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.
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 pro-
ceeding was the last of four cases tried ad seriatim involving
Alaris Health’s New Jersey nursing homes and their unionized
employees. Heard in Newark, New Jersey, on September 11
and October 6−7, 2015, the case addressed complaint allega-
tions that Alaris Health at Rochelle Park (Rochelle Park, Bristol
Manor, or Respondent), committed numerous unfair labor prac-
tices relating to 20141 bargaining for a new contract: (1) violat-
ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act)2 by refusing to meet with the Union’s chosen bargain-
ing committee and then delaying and refusing to provide infor-
mation requested by the Union which was relevant to bargain-
ing; (2) violated Section 8(a)(1) by attempting to stifle employ-
ee participation in a likely strike through coercive interrogation,
threats of job loss or other changes to terms and conditions of
employment, and removing a union representative from its
facility; and (3) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to
reinstate 1 employee striker after he unconditionally offered to
return to work, delaying the reinstatement of 9 other employ-
ees, and changing the terms and conditions of employment of 5

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 2014.
2 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
employees after they returned to work after the strike.3
Rochelle Park 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” Rochelle Park
for unfair labor practice charges, which it denies, and then used
those charges to mask an economic strike at Rochelle Park and
the other three Alaris facilities as an unfair labor practice strike.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel, the Union, and Rochelle Park,4 I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Rochelle Park, a corporation, operates a nursing home and
rehabilitation center providing in-patient medical care at its
facility in Rochelle Park, New Jersey, where it annually derives
gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchases and re-
ceives goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from points
outside the State of New Jersey. Rochelle Park admits, and I
find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, as well as a
health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of
the Act, and the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Parties
At the relevant times in this complaint, Rochelle Park’s su-
pervisors and agents included: Kristine Giles, the administrator;
Dexter Caldona, the director of nursing; Arlene Concepcion,
the dietary director; Peter German, housekeeping director; Su-
san Posluzny, a quality assurance nurse; and Moses Adu, staff-
ing coordinator. David Jasinski, Esq., has served as Rochelle
Park’s labor counsel and chief negotiator during collective
bargaining, accompanied by Mendy Gold, an Alaris principal.
Regina Figueroa is a vice president of Alaris Health.5
Rochelle Park and its predecessors have recognized the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
approximately 110 employees in successive collective-
bargaining agreements (CBA), the most recent of which was
effective from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2014:

3 The complaint was amended to modify complaint pars. 17, 20, 22,
25−26, 33−35, and 48. Par. 29 was withdrawn and par. 36(c) was add-
ed. (GC Exh. 301(y).)
4 Notwithstanding my instruction that counsel submit one “omni-
bus” 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. Rochelle
Park declined the option.
5 Rochelle Park admitted only that Jasinski was a 2(13) supervisor.
However, the undisputed facts established that Giles, Caldona, German,
and Concepcion were supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(11),
while Figueroa, Adu, and Posluzny acted as statutory agents.
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 7
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs,
and all other employees excluding professional employees,
registered nurses, cooks, confidential [employees], office cler-
ical employees, supervisors, watchmen and guards.6
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 Rochelle Park
employees as members of the bargaining committee: Max Pre-
destin, Deloris Alston, Marie Moise, Wanieta Davis, Jean Fritz
Pierre, Jamir Gaston, and Adeline Deriphone.8
Notwithstanding an employee strike in 2009 during negotia-
tions over the 2010−2014 agreement, the parties enjoy a rela-
tionship that both describe as respectful. The parties began
meeting shortly before the 2010 contracts expired for Rochelle
Park, Alaris at Boulevard East, Alaris at Castle Hill, and Alaris
at Harborview. However, controversy soon erupted over the
composition of the Union’s bargaining committee and infor-
mation requested by the Union.
B. The Union’s Information Requests
1. The December 27, 2013 request
Saint Hilaire initiated the process for a new contract in a let-
ter, dated December 27, 2013. He requested that Rochelle Park
engage in bargaining and offered alternative dates in February.
He also requested that Rochelle Park furnish the Union with the
following information by January 24: detailed job descriptions
and performance evaluations describing job duties for bargain-
ing 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 employ-
ees 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 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 commence collective bargaining. He
apprised them several times that he would be engaged in a

6 GC Exh. 302.
7 Sec. 17(c) of the agreement, entitled “Negotiations,” stated that the
“Union negotiating committee, not to exceed six (6) Employees, shall
be paid for up to three (3) negotiating sessions, by the Employer, at
straight time rates, for all lost time from work.”
8 Notwithstanding the CBA’s limit of 6 employees on the bargain-
ing committee, there is no evidence that Rochelle Park objected to the
Union’s designation of 7 employees.
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. 303.
lengthy trial in Atlantic City, New Jersey, during portions of
January and February. The trial eventually started on February
9 and lasted until March 22. Rebecca Winklestein, Esq., Jasin-
ski’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 re-
quest.11 Neither Massey nor McCalla accepted that offer.
McCalla did, however, express the Union’s preference to bun-
dle 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 ei-
ther March 27 or 31.12
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 offi-
cials to open with their remarks:
In our discussions concerning bargaining dates you said you
have possible availability on March 27 and definite availabil-
ity 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 Ala-
ris Health at Rochelle Park. If we need to move the bargaining
session for a different facility tentatively scheduled for the
31st, so be it. As you know the four Alaris contracts expire on
the March 31, 2014 and we’ve yet to receive any response to
information requests sent to the facilities on December 27,
2013. We believe it’s important to start bargaining before the
contracts expire as it’s our desire to reach contract settlements
in these facilities as quickly as possible.
While we understand the employer’s position on separate
bargaining tables for each facility and our agreement to hold
four separate meetings on the first day of bargaining we be-
lieve it would be advisable to add a fifth initial session with all

11 There is no dispute regarding Jasinski’s assertion as to his past
practice of responding 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
is also undisputed. However, in light of Massey’s March 13 email
demanding a response, it is clear that the Union never consented to
delayed document production until March 27. (Tr. 1994-−995; GC
Exh.7; R. Exh. 104.) Jasinski, an experienced labor litigator who de-
fended against the Union’s unfair labor practice charges resulting from
previous contract negotiations, would have mentioned such an agree-
ment in subsequent written communications. (Tr. 1550−1552.)
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.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
facilities and bargaining committees present to give our union
leader Milly Silva and counsel Bill Massey an opportunity to
address the proceedings before we break into separate ses-
sions. This would obviously be an opportunity for manage-
ment representatives to speak directly with the employees and
Union officials.
Please let us know which of these dates would be your prefer-
ence.13
In a letter, dated February 26, Jasinski confirmed the pro-
posed bargaining dates and agreed to the proposal to have Silva
and Massey open with remarks, but insisted they make them at
the beginning of each bargaining session for each of the facili-
ties. He also renewed his request for a 90-day contract exten-
sion, but made no mention of the December 27 information
request:
We are in receipt of your letter identifying a number of facili-
ties whose contracts expire on March 31, 2014. A brief re-
sponse is warranted.
Each identified facility is a separate and independent opera-
tion with its own collective bargaining agreement covering
employees for that particular facility. They maintain separa-
tion operations, including all necessary staff. Each facility is
unique and the bargaining history at each facility recognizes
its independence.
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 po-
sitions for each facility at each bargaining session and, quite
candidly, we welcome their attendance.
We are available and confirm the March 27 and 31 dates for
each facility. Please notify me of the times to commence ne-
gotiations for each facility. In scheduling for these sessions,
we request notification of the members of the bargaining
committee who will be attending. We request these names at
least two (2) weeks in advance to avoid any disruption in our
staffing. Bargaining sessions, as in our prior negotiations, will
take place at the Union's offices in Edison.
Finally, in a spirit of good faith and cooperation, as discussed,
we will agree to the extension of each collective bargaining
agreement for an additional ninety (90) days. This additional
time will afford all parties the opportunity to formulate its
bargaining positions and engage in give-and-take at the bar-
gaining 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 re-
view each proposal. Thank you.14

13 Jasinski’s testimony regarding assurances by McCalla about nego-
tiating the contracts separately is consistent with McCalla’s document-
ed 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 Rochelle Park’s bar-
gaining committee. (GC Exh. 5; Tr. 869, 1426−1427.)
14 GC Exh. 6.
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 infor-
mation requests:
This is to follow up on Ron’s correspondence below concern-
ing 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 re-
quests on the four Alaris facilities, copies of which are at-
tached hereto for your convenience. Clauvice requested that
the sought after documents be produced to the Union by Jan-
uary 24, 2014. We are now in March, only a couple of weeks
away from sitting down to start negotiations, and I understand
that none of the four facilities has produced even a single
document to the Union. Similarly, I am advised that the facili-
ties have not requested an extension of time nor an explana-
tion for the delay in producing these documents, which are
relevant and necessary for bargaining. Please have the four
facilities produce the requested information as soon as possi-
ble, but no later than March 18, 2014. Please advise your cli-
ents 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 14 information request
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 addi-
tion, Massey made a supplemental request for the most current
payroll roster, daily schedules from January to December 2013
(to the extent not already covered by the previous request),
actuarial plan values, and specific health insurance plan docu-
ments. 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 fi-
nancial impact related information.16
3. The March 27 bargaining session
On March 27, Jasinski arrived at 11 a.m. for the first bar-
gaining 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 were set aside for bargain-

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 con-
tract 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 bar-
gaining session. (Tr. 926, 929−930, 1416−1418; GC Exh. 7.)
16 This request refined the previous request for monthly work sched-
ules from one that sought daily work schedules. (GC Exh. 8.)
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 9
ing. 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
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
negotiations, but noted each contract was different and the par-
ties 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 bar-
gaining team. At that point, Jasinski provided a packet of in-
formation 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
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 facil-
ities during Castle Hill bargaining sessions.
The parties then discussed future dates for bargaining and
Jasinski provided Massey with packets responsive to the De-
cember 27 information requests by Harborview, Boulevard
East, and Rochelle Park. The cover letter in each packet con-
veyed Jasinski’s view that the Union 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 posi-
tion of the Union and available to the Union via its members.
We are glad to provide you with another copy. Should you have
any additional questions or require additional information,
please advise.18
Before Jasinski and Gold left, the Union did not submit a
proposal.19 Silva did, however, ask about rumors that Boule-
vard East would be demolished to make way for apartment
building development. Jasinski replied that the Boulevard East
question did not apply to the Castle Hill negotiation, while
Gold said that there was nothing to report. Jasinski said he

17 I credit Jasinski’s undisputed testimony that some delegates in at-
tendances made side remarks, sneered, and laughed, but not his conclu-
sion 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. 304.
19 Rochelle Park notes the discrepancy in testimony between Massey
and Saint Hilaire as to whether the Union was prepared with proposals
if the bargaining sessions had gone forward. (Tr. 938, 1059.)
would get back to them about Boulevard East. Shortly thereaf-
ter, Jasinski and Gold left and did not return in order to com-
mence bargaining over Harborview, Boulevard East and Ro-
chelle Park.
In a letter, dated April 1, Jasinski proposed dates for the re-
sumption of bargaining for the Rochelle Park 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 upcoming religious holi-
days, 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 piggy-
back any other negotiations for the designated dates. The em-
ployees deserve our undivided attention. Unfortunately, de-
spite our admitted avai1ability, the Union has 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 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 cur-
rent collective bargaining agreement for an additional period
of time to afford the parties the opportunity to continue nego-
tiations 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 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 pro-
posed 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:
As discussed on March 27, we reiterate that your clients' re-
fusal 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 re-
considered on this issue, the Union confirms our agreement
from last week to bargain on April 28 and April 29, we accept
your offer to bargain, on May 1, and we offer May 2 for a
fourth session. We propose the following sequence: . . .21
4. The Union’s follow-up request
In a letter to Jasinski, dated April 9, Massey expressed con-
cern over the facilities’ failures to provide the Union with the
information described in items 10, 11, and 12 of the December

20 GC Exh. 305.
21 GC Exh. 11.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
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 out-
standing information to be provided by April 15.22
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 bargain-
ing unit work. Item 12 was noted to be voluminous and Jasinski
proposed that the Union “accept a representative sample of
work schedule[s] for a limited period of time.” As to items 14
and 15, 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 bur-
densome and unnecessary. Jasinski requested the Union to re-
fine it to one not as overbroad.24
5. The May 1 bargaining session
The parties subsequently agreed to resume the Rochelle Park
contract negotiations on May 1. Prior to that session, the Union
undertook a propaganda blitz in a flier distributed to the em-
ployees 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 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
At the May 1 bargaining session, Jasinski and Gold met with
Massey, McCalla, Silva, Saint Hilaire the bargaining committee
members from Boulevard East. This time, there was no contro-
versy regarding the composition of the Union’s bargaining
team. Massey reminded Jasinski that the Union was still wait-
ing for the CNA daily work schedules and health insurance
related information. In response to Jasinski’s letter asserting the
12-month request was burdensome, Massey previously agreed
during the April 28 Castle Hill negotiations to accept 3 months
of daily work schedules. Jasinski told Massey at the time that
he would get back to the Union regarding the requests. At this
meeting, however, Jasinski changed the subject to information
he requested from the Union’s national pension fund. Massey
had no information about that issue. The Union then provided
Rochelle Park with its initial written proposals.26

22 GC Exh. 21.
23 GC Exh. 306.
24 GC Exh. 307.
25 GC Exh. 44.
26 The Union does not dispute that, notwithstanding Rochelle Park’s
failure or refusal to provide necessary information requested on De-
6. The employee schedules
In a letter, dated May 14, Jasinski furnished Massey with the
monthly staffing schedules at Rochelle Park for each floor for
all shifts from February to April. The monthly schedules re-
flected projected CNAs’ work schedules and floor assign-
ments.27 On May 21, Jasinski responded to Massey’s additional
information request:
In response to your additional information request, we have
provided you with all relevant information. Most recently, we
supplemented our initial response with schedules for this Fa-
cility. 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 vio-
lation of 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, disingenu-
ous, to make these requests.
We are prepared to continue to negotiate a collective bargain-
ing 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
The parties met again for bargaining on June 12. Massey
again opened with a statement that the information provided in
response to the Union’s request was not satisfactory because it
lacked the requested health insurance information and consisted
of projected monthly schedules instead of work schedules re-
flecting actual work performed by CNAs.30 Jasinski did not
reject the request for additional health insurance information,
but suggested it would be unnecessary if the Union accepted
Rochelle Park’s proposal. As for the work schedules, he insist-
ed that the insisted that the monthly reports were sufficient.
Massey explained the relevance of the daily work schedules,
which reflect the days and shifts actually worked. After engag-
ing in bargaining, Jasinski provided and explained Rochelle
Park’s counterproposals.31
7. The July 16 bargaining session
McCalla filled in for Massey as the Union’s chief negotiator
at the next bargaining session on July 16. The session opened,
as usual, with the Union’s request for daily work schedules and

cember 27 and March 14, it was still able to submit a fairly comprehen-
sive proposal. (GC Exh. 326 at 5−9; R. Exh. 302; Tr. 1943, 3137−3138,
3146, 3274.)
27 GC Exh. 308.
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 Safe-
ty Committee whose purpose “shall be to identify and recommend
preventative measures where appropriate”).
29 GC Exh. 309.
30 Saint Hilaire and Ozual credibly testified that Rochelle Park em-
ployees complained to them about short-staffing and health insurance
issues prior to bargaining. (Tr. 1008−1009, 1054, 1208−1210.)
31 GC Exh. 326 at 10−15.
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 11
health insurance information needed for bargaining. Once
again, Jasinski disagreed, insisting the Union already had the
information and did not need anything further. McCalla reiter-
ated the request for the additional information, stressing that it
would be unable to enter into a new agreement without it. Dur-
ing the bargaining that ensued, Jasinski dismissed the Union’s
staffing proposals based on the CBA’s management-rights
clause reserving it unilateral control over staffing. The parties
then engaged in bargaining, with Jasinski providing Rochelle
Park’s latest contract proposals.32
On July 30, Jasinski replied to the Union’s continuing re-
quest for health plan information and employees’ daily sched-
ules:
We want to be clear and avoid any misunderstanding regard-
ing 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 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 in-
tended to facilitate contract negotiations.
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 nei-
ther waive nor modify its rights as set forth in the Manage-
ments Rights clause of the collective bargaining agreement.
Staffing has historically been a right reserved to this admin-
istration, 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 con-
cerning staffing levels on the units and the way we staff this
Facility. That is our final position 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 to continue to negotiate.33
8. The August 27 bargaining session
The parties’ final bargaining session was on August 27.
Massey reiterated the Union’s need for the outstanding daily
work schedules and health insurance information for bargain-
ing. Jasinski did not respond to that inquiry and the parties
engaged in bargaining.34

32 GC Exh. 326 at 16−19; R. Exh. 306 at 5−6.
33 GC Exh. 310.
34 GC Exh. 326 at 20−25.
C. Employees Prepare for a Possible Strike
Article 5(A) of the CBA provides for access by union offi-
cials to employees at Rochelle Park under certain conditions. It
states, in pertinent part:
The Union’s Business Representatives or the Union’s design-
ees, shall have admission to the facility covered by this
Agreement to discharge their duties as representatives of the
Union, provided such privilege is not abused. . . The Union
shall be permitted to conduct Union meetings on the Employ-
er’s premises, provided the same are conducted at reasonable
times and places, are of reasonable duration, and do not inter-
fere with the normal operations of the Employer.”35
Beginning in March, Ozual or Saint Hilaire met periodically
with employees in the Rochelle Park employee break room.
They provided contract education, bargaining updates, and
listened to their 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 Rochelle Park’s refusal to meet
with the Union’s bargaining committee on March 27 and its
refusal to provide requested information.36
By May, the Union recommended that employees step up the
pressure on the four Alaris facilities. Sometime in June, about
10 employees engaged in informational picketing outside Ro-
chelle Park. During that event, employees carried placards ad-
vocating the issues that had arisen during the bargaining pro-
cess with Rochelle Park.37
Thereafter, the Union gradually increased the public pres-
sure. In July, the Union’s New Jersey communications coordi-
nator, Bryn Loyd-Bollard, created “Alarisk.com,” a website
devoted to the Union’s bargaining campaign against the four
Alaris facilities. The website’s 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.
Don't put your health at alarisk.
Stand up for quality care and goodjobs 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.
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.

35 GC 302 at 4.
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.
1003−1011, 1012−1013, 1158−1187, 1206−1207.)
37 Only two partial photographs were provided from this event on an
unspecified date. (GC Exh. 315(a)-(b); Tr. 2934−2936.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
Our communities depend on skilled caregivers to provide
for our loved ones in their times of need. They deserve bet-
ter. We deserve better.38
On July 23, Silva convened a press conference in Jersey City
near Alaris’ corporate headquarters. There were elected offi-
cials and approximately 10 employees from Alaris facilities 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 based here in Journal Square, is
showing a callous disregard for the wellbeing of the commu-
nities 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 one of their
long-term care facilities without being forthright to the nurs-
ing home’s residents or caregivers about their plans. We are
here to demand that Alaris start acting responsibly.
The women and men standing beside me play a critical role as
caregivers to some of the most vulnerable people in our
communities. It is essential that their rights and dignity as
workers be upheld, because there is a connection between the
quality of life of caregivers and the quality of care for patients.
It is of grave concern to us that Alaris has committed numer-
ous unfair labor practices and continues to act in the same dis-
respectful and illegal manner as they did five years back,
when they operated under the name Omni Health Systems.
We do not want a repeat of 2009, when hundreds of nursing
home workers had no choice but to go on strike in order to
protect standards for good jobs and quality patient care. Omni
may have changed their name to Alaris, but it seems that they
haven't changed their ways.
After nearly four months and 16 bargaining sessions, 450
caregivers at four Alaris Health nursing homes are still work-
ing under expired contracts. All they are asking for are the ba-
sics to make ends meet—something that must be insisted up-
on for every healthcare worker who, as a fundamental re-
quirement 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 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 seek-
ing will only make the situation worse.
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.

38 GC Exh. 48.
It is disgraceful that Avery Eisenreich, the principal owner of
Alaris, which receives literally hundreds of millions of dollars
in Medicaid and Medicare funding each year to provide care
to the elderly and vulnerable, decides to pocket millions for
himself before making sure that the caregivers who work di-
rectly with patients have what they need to get by.
Avery has also failed to address persistent staffing shortages
at these four facilities, each of which have certified nursing
assistant staffing levels below both state and national averag-
es. Our union has proposed a framework for addressing staff-
ing shortages, but management has for months failed to pro-
vide the union with requested information on staffing and has
refused to negotiate over this critically important issue.
And in Guttenberg, where Avery Eisenreich owns a facility
on Boulevard East that is home to 100 elderly and frail resi-
dents, 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 as a patient or as an employee.
In many ways, Alaris is acting in complete disregard for the
community. We are here today to say that enough is enough.
We do not want to strike. Our members would rather be doing
the job they love and caring for their residents instead of
walking the picket line. But they are ready to strike if they
have to, to protect quality care and good jobs.
I’d like to introduce you to a few members of 1199, who work
at Alaris nursing homes in Hudson and Bergen counties. They
have been working very hard these past months to win a con-
tract that respects their dignity as caregivers and as providers
for their own families.39
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
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 partici-
pated by telephone. Maxsuze Predestin, Deloris Alston, Jean
Fritz, and Jamir Gaston were the delegates from Rochelle Park.
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 by the Board in
September. He also provided an explanation of the difference
between an economic strike and a strike premised on unfair
labor practices.
Massey then proposed a resolution setting forth the reasons

39 GC Exh. 57.
40 Jasinski conceded that Alaris officials were provided with the de-
tails. (Tr. 1536−1538.)
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 13
for going out on strike. At the conclusion, the employee dele-
gates present voted to deliver 10-day notices to engage in a 3-
day strike. The group discussed and decided who would deliver
the notices along with McCalla. The delegates were also in-
structed to tell the membership that the strike was authorized
and it was motivated by economic and unlawful practice rea-
sons.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 Isel-
in, NJ on August 27, 2014, upon the recommendation of Ex-
ecutive 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 Hill
Health Care Center, Harborview Healthcare Center and Pali-
sades Nursing Center, all affiliates of Alaris Health (collec-
tively, "the Employer"); and
WHEREAS the Union has bargained in good faith with the
Employer to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has Violated our rights by com-
mitting Unfair Labor Practices, specifically by failing and re-
fusing to provide information requested by the Union that is
needed for bargaining (especially health insurance and staff-
ing information), unduly delaying in providing other infor-
mation, and unlawfully interfering with the composition of
the Union's bargaining committee and
WHEREAS, Region 22 of the National Labor Relations
Board has informed the Union
that a Complaint against the Employer alleging multiple Un-
fair Labor Practices in connection with this unlawful conduct
is forthcoming; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has continued to make unreasona-
ble bargaining demands of the Union and its members; and
WHEREAS the Employer has continued to commit additional
Unfair Labor Practices, including by unlawfully polling and
coercively interrogating Union members, and threatening Un-
ion members with adverse employment consequences for en-
gaging in protected Union activity; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the Union
and its members hereby determine to serve the Employer with
the legally required ten-day notice of intent to engage in a ral-

41 Art. IV, sec. 7 of the Union’s Constitution gives delegates the “re-
sponsibility of involving their members in all affairs of the Union. Art.
V, Sec. 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 As-
sembly 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.)
ly and vigil at Castle Hill Healthcare Center on or about Sep-
tember 10, 2014, in response to the Employer's ongoing Un-
fair Labor Practices and unreasonable bargaining position;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the Union and its
members hereby determine to serve the Employer with a sub-
sequent legally required ten-day notice of intent to engage in a
strike, for three days at each facility, in response to the Em-
ployer's ongoing Unfair Labor Practices and unreasonable
bargaining position.42
In a letter, dated August 29, Jasinski decried the Union’s jus-
tification in moving towards a strike, noting that it had been
approximately 2 months since the parties’ last bargaining ses-
sion. He referred to his request at the conclusion of their last
session for future bargaining dates, but the Union never pro-
posed any. At this point, Jasinski suggested the parties resume
negotiations during the weeks of either September 8 or 15. He
concluded by attributing the standoff to the Union’s continuing
request for ‘irrelevant and unnecessary” information, and the
Union’s attempts to resurrect staffing proposals that were pre-
viously resolved.43
On September 6, Predestin, accompanied by approximately
15 coworkers, delivered to Giles the contractually required 10-
day notice of bargaining unit employees’ intention to go out on
strike for 3 days:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to section 8(g) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act, that 1199 SEIU United Healthcare
Workers East, New Jersey Region and the employees it repre-
sents intend to conduct a strike and picketing at Rochelle Park
(Bristol Manor) located at 96 Parkway, Rochelle Park, NJ
07662. The strike and informational picket are to protest the
Employer's ongoing Unfair labor Practices and the Employ-
er's unreasonable bargaining demands. The strike will com-
mence at 7:00 AM on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 and
end at 6:59 AM on Saturday, September 20, 2014.44
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, delegates Predestin, Gaston and Marie Moise commu-
nicated that determination to coworkers and explained that the
strike was precipitated by Rochelle Park’s bargaining posture
and unfair labor practices.46
On the same day, Jasinski emailed Massey, questioning the
Union’s motives and cancelling proposed bargaining dates in

42 It is undisputed that the strike resolution was not disseminated tothe
entire union membership for a vote as required by the Union's consti-
tution. (GC Exh. 15.)
43 GC Exh. 311.
44 GC Exh. 312.
45 Rochelle Park correctly notes that a membership strike vote was
not conducted in accordance with the Union’s constitution. However,
the vote of the delegates was subsequently ratified by the membership’s
actions in going on strike and Rochelle Park 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 pro-
cedural objection. (R. Exh. 106 at 5−7.)
46 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Predestin and
Gaston. (Tr. 2937, 2958, 3080−3081, 3091−3092.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
September in order for his clients to dedicate their “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.”47
E. The Union Mobilizes Employees
Around the same time, the Union began mobilizing employ-
ees for the strike. Saint Hilaire and/or Ozual met with Rochelle
Park employees 2−3 times a week in the break room to answer
employees’ questions and rally support for the strike. In doing
so, they distributed informational flyers and addressed concerns
regarding Rochelle Park’s alleged unfair labor practices, in-
cluding the failure to provide requested information.48 They
also explained that the strike was motivated by the desire to
pressure Rochelle Park to agree to their contract proposals and
put a stop to its unfair labor practices.49
In some instances, Ozual encountered employees reluctant or
disinclined to participate in a strike. An aggressive organizer
committed to the execution of the Union’s strike strategy, Ozu-
al was not one to take no for an answer. As a result, several
employees complained to Giles about their treatment by Ozual.
She was accused of yelling, using foul language and straying
from the break room and harassing employees whom were
reluctant to participate in the strike. In one instance, Giles heard
Ozual engaged in heated argument with employees in the lob-
by. She was loud, angry, and confrontational. In response,
Jasinski sent a letter to McCalla, dated August 29, detailing the
aforementioned disruptive conduct. He referred to previous
communication relaying Rochelle Park’s concern to the Union
and the latter’s assurance that the conduct would be corrected.
Notwithstanding the warnings to Ozual, her disruptive conduct
continued. As a result, Jasinski concluded:
We cannot and will not allow this behavior to continue. Ms.
Ozual has, by her actions, forfeited the right to enter the Alaris
at Rochelle Park Facility. She will no longer be allowed to en-
ter this Facility. If any other Union representatives engage in
similar behavior, we will likewise exercise any and all rights
and remove that individual who exhibits no respect for the
Facility and the care we provide to our residents. While we
recognize and respect the Union’s right to represent its mem-
bers, we expect nothing less than the same respect, recogniz-
ing the rights of the Facility and care for our Residents.50
Sometime in late August, after Jasinski’s August 29 letter,
Ozual went to meet with Rochelle Park employees. She signed
in and went to the break room to meet workers on break. With-
in minutes, an unidentified individual came in and said Ozual
needed to leave. She refused and Giles and German came short-
ly thereafter and ordered her to leave. Ozual insisted she was
entitled under the contract to meet there with employees. A
short while later, the police came, ordered Ozual to leave and

47 R. Exh. 8.
48 GC Exhs. 44(c), (e) and (f); R. Exh. 4−5.
49 This finding is based on the credible and undisputed testimony of
Ozual and Saint Hilaire. (Tr. 1013−1029, 1176−1186, 1190−1192,
1206−1212, 1216−1219, 1276−1286, 1315−1306.)
50 R. Exh. 304.
she complied.51
F. Supervisors Statements Prior To The Strike
Rochelle Park’s management did not stand idly by as the Un-
ion mobilized employees. In August, Dietary Director Arlene
Concepcion called employees into her office for individual
meetings during work time and asked if they were going to go
on strike. Pot washer Rodley Lewis said he was undecided.
When asked, however, dietary employee Gaston said that he
was going to go on strike. Concepcion replied that the last
strike did not result in the dietary department delegate getting
the same benefits as everyone else. She also warned that Gaston
risked being replaced and losing his full-time position. In Sep-
tember, Concepcion followed up the individual meetings by
convening dietary staff in the kitchen and asked again if they
were going to go on strike. No one responded.52
Concepcion subjected dietary staff to another group meeting
in the kitchen in September, but this time along with house-
keeping director Peter German. German asked the employees if
they were going to strike and noted the risk of job loss if they
did. Concepcion expressed hope that employees would not lose
their jobs, but it was their choice.53
German made similar statements to housekeeping employees
during a group meeting that he convened in late August or early
September. He warned staff that the strike would not end well
for striking employees and they would be replaced. German
reinforced those remarks in a conversation with dietary em-
ployee Julieta Dominguez a few days before the strike. He ap-
proached her at work and asked if she intended to strike.
Dominguez replied that she would go out on strike. German
said okay and walked away.54
Several days before the strike, supervisors summoned em-
ployees to Giles’ office, where they lined up outside. One by
one, employees entered and were asked by Giles if they
planned to go out on strike. Dominguez replied that she was
going to go on strike, whereby Giles tersely concluded the con-
versation: “that’s it.” After the interrogation procession, Giles
followed up by confronting approximately 50 individual em-
ployees as they worked, asking Dominguez, Gaston, and others

51 Although I credited Ozual’s corroborated testimony regarding oth-
er union activity at Rochelle Park, I did not credit her denial that she
engaged in disruptive behavior within the facility. (Tr. 3081−3083,
3177−3180, 3194−3199, 3310−3314.) I based that assessment on my
observation—which I stated on the record—of Ozual violating my
instruction not to speak with other witnesses during breaks outside the
hearing room. That defiance strongly suggests an aggressive intoler-
ance towards the opposing views of others. (Tr. 2580.) As such, I cred-
ited Giles’ testimony, corroborated by Jasinski’s letter, regarding sever-
al altercations between Ozual and employees during the month prior to
the strike. (Tr. 3207−3208, 3213−3218, 3230−3233.)
52 The credible testimony of Lewis and Gaston was undisputed. Nei-
ther Concepcion nor German, still employed at Rochelle Park, testified.
(Tr. 2899−2902, 2928−2930, 2932−2934.)
53 Again, Gaston’s credible testimony was undisputed. German did
not testify. (Tr. 2932−2934.)
54 This finding is based on the credible and undisputed testimony of
housekeeping employees Dominguez and Jacinta Hormaza. (Tr.
3010−3012, 3014−3015, 3045−3047.)
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 15
how much the Union would pay them during the strike.55
Lastly, Giles distributed a flyer to Rochelle Park employees
explaining their rights and the ramifications of going out on
strike, and responding to the distortions and misrepresentations
of “The Truth” by the Union. It stated, in pertinent part:
A strike does not unite people and hurts all involved, includ-
ing those who chose to walk away from their jobs. A strike
will not get us a collective bargaining agreement nor will it
change terms of the contract. it will only result in the possibil-
ity of lost wages and benefits for those who choose to volun-
tarily participate . . . History at our facility has proven that a
strike will not impact the fair negotiations for a contract and
only results in the possibility of lost wages and benefits for
those [sic] choose to voluntarily participate.
The Union claims “All members who go out on strike – in-
cluding all part-timer and per-diem workers – are eligible for
strike benefits . . . Strike benefits, should you receive any,
may not cover your lost wages and benefits. Employees who
went on strike in 2009 were not paid and never recovered
what they lost while out on strike.
The Union claims that “In the history of our union, 1199
SEIU, no healthcare employer has hired permanent replace-
ment workers when workers have gone on a short strike . . .
Once a strike is over, you may not be able to immediately re-
turn to your job. That is a fact. Moreover, the Union does not
tell that . . . several times SEIU called a strike at non-Alaris
facilities where the employees trusted SEIU and its officials.
However, as was their right, these Employers sometimes
permanently replaced those employees.56
G. Alaris Supervisors Observe Employees During Prayer Vigil
On September 10, employees from all four facilities partici-
pated in a prayer vigil and rally with Silva and their local State
Assemblyman in front of Castle Hill.57 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.58 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 a problem to do what he had to do next.59 The Union
photographed the rally/vigil and depicted it in a flyer distribut-
ed on September 15.60
H. Alaris Prepares for the Strike
In anticipation of its staffing needs prior to the strike, Ro-

55 Giles did not dispute the credible testimony of Dominguez and
Gaston. (Tr. 2931, 3012−3014, 3047−3048, 3221, 3236−3228.)
56 GC Exh. 319.
57 GC Exh. 35.
58 GC Exh. 44(f).
59 I base the finding regarding the observation of employees on Cas-
tle 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.)
60 GC Exh. 44(b).
chelle Park entered into contracts with two temporary staffing
companies. Included in the agreements with Tristate Rehab
Staffing and Towne Nursing were requirements that that Ro-
chelle Park retain their employees for minimum terms of four
weeks. This was a peculiar development in light of the Union’s
prior notice of a 3-day strike.61
I. The Strike
Massey did not speak with Jasinski about the strike before-
hand, but sent him an email and voice mail on September 15.
On the same day, Jasinski called McCalla and requested he
alert employees not to walk off early because it could leave the
facilities understaffed and compromise their licenses.62
On September 17, approximately 15−20 Rochelle Park em-
ployees/unit members ceased work and engaged in a strike. The
strikers included CNAs Deloris Alston, Jean Abellard,
Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, SantiaVilceus, and Gabby
Youmane, housekeeping employees Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta
Hormaza, and Jean Fritz, and dietary employees Jamir Gaston
and Rodley Lewis. Fritz, the union delegate, also participated
and spoke in a prayer vigil and rally outside Castle Hill that
day.63
Over the next 3 days, the striking employees picketed out-
side the facility. The picketers’ signs demanded Rochelle Park
engage in good-faith bargaining and cease committing unfair
labor practices.64
During the 3-day strike, Rochelle Park covered the shifts of
the striking CNAs with 7 temporary employees from the two
staffing agencies.65
J. Employees Attempt to Return to Work
On September 18, the second day of the strike, Jasinski in-
formed Massey that some strikers would not be allowed to
return to work the next day because of the contractual commit-
ments with the staffing agencies. Massey questioned why the
facilities would make such a commitment if employees gave
notice of a 3-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 time. Mas-
sey disagreed, noting that the Union’s history belied such a
concern. In an email sent later that day, Massey, on behalf of all
Rochelle Park employees/unit members who engaged in the
strike, made an unconditional offer to return to their former or
substantially equivalent positions of employment.66
On or after September 20, employees who participated in the
strike reported to work at Rochelle Park. In accordance with the

61 I credit Jasinski’s testimony that he “reviewed” the agency con-
tracts, but not his vague assertion regarding alleged negotiations by
unidentified persons which resulted in Rochelle Park agreeing to 4-
week terms. (Tr. 2767, 2803, 3282−3283; R. Exh. 11, 305.) 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.)
62 GC Exh. 28.
63 Fritz did not testify but I based this finding on Silva’s credible tes-
timony as to who participated in that rally. (Tr. 998−999.)
64 GC Exh. 19.
65 GC Exhs. 336-337.
66 GC Exh. 28.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
procedure previously agreed to between Jasinski and Massey,
Rochelle Park provided the Union with a list of those who
would be reinstated. Ten employees were not reinstated when
they returned to work: housekeeping employees Dominguez
and Hormaza; dietary employees Gaston and Lewis; and CNAs
Alston, Abellard, Padda, Meronvil, Vilceus, and Youmane.67
K. Employees Locked-Out on September 20
1. Rodley Lewis
Prior to the strike, Lewis was employed as a part-time die-
tary aide on the 7 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. He worked 6 days a week
with Wednesdays off. Lewis participated in all 3 days of the
strike. He attempted to return to work on September 20, but
Giles instructed him, through Saint Hilaire, to return on Sep-
tember 22. Upon returning on September 22, however, Giles
met him outside the facility and told him that Concepcion had
no work for him, but would call him when there was work
available. Rochelle Park has never called Lewis to return to
work.68
2. Deloris Alston
Alston, a CNA at Rochelle Park for 26 years, worked full
time on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift and regularly worked over-
time two Saturdays each month. She was a shop steward for 23
years, attended the 2014 bargaining sessions, participated in the
August 27 strike vote session, and served Giles with the Un-
ion’s 10-day strike notice. Alston participated in all 3 days of
the strike and had been on the schedule to work on September
20.
Rochelle Park notified the Union that Alston was to return to
work on September 22. She was unable to work that day but
returned on September 24, her next regularly scheduled work
day.69 Thereafter, Alston did not work again until September 29
and October 5. On the latter date, she inquired of nursing direc-
tor Caldona as to her hours. Caldona then met with Moses Adu,
the staffing coordinator. A short while later, Adu told Alston
that her full-time hours would be restored, but that there would
be no overtime for anyone who participated in the strike. Since
returning to work, Alston has not received overtime work op-
portunities.70
3. Julieta Dominguez
Dominguez, a full-time housekeeping employee who partici-
pated in the strike, worked 5 days per week on the 7 a.m. to 3
p.m. shift, with Tuesdays and Saturdays off. She returned from
the strike on September 20, but was not reinstated until Sep-
tember 23. On that date, although her former full-time position
continued to exist, she was reassigned to a part-time position
working an average of 3 days per week.71

67 GC Exh. 323(a).
68 Lewis’ credible version of his strike activity and Rochelle Park’s
refusal to reinstate him is undisputed. (Tr. 2895−2896, 2904−2908; GC
Exh. 313(b).)
69 Alston was unable to resume on September 22 because the Union
did not tell her until the same day. (GC Exh. 318 at 24, 35.)
70 Alston’s credible testimony was undisputed. (Tr. 2991−2992,
2998−2999.)
71 Dominguez’ testimony was confirmed by the payroll records. (Tr.
3025; GC Exh. 323.)
4. Jacinta Hormaza
Hormaza, also a full-time housekeeping employee who par-
ticipated in the strike, worked 5 days per week on the 7 a.m. to
3 p.m. shift. She returned from the strike on September 20, but
was not reinstated until September 23. On that date, although
her former full-time position continued to exist, she was reas-
signed to a part-time position working an average of 3 days per
week. She asked German why she had been reassigned to a
part-time work and he told her that she had been warned that
there would be consequences if she went on strike. Hormaza
recorded the conversation.72
5. Jean Abellard
Abellard, a CNA at Rochelle Park since 2007, worked full-
time prior to the strike. He participated in picketing during the
1st and 3rd days of the strike. After the strike, Abellard at-
tempted to return to work on September 20, but was locked out.
He was not reinstated to his pre-strike position until October
18.73
6. Rajvinder Padda
Padda, a full-time CNA who went on strike for the 3 days,
attempted to return to work on September 20. She was told that
there were no hours available for her. She was reinstated to her
shift on September 28.74
7. Evelyn Meronvil
Meronvil, a full-time CNA, also participated in the strike.
She attempted to return to work, but was also told that there
was no work for her. She was reinstated on October 4.75
8. Santia Vilceus
Vilceus, a full-time CNA, participated in the strike. When
she returned to work after the strike, she was told there was no
work for her. She was reinstated on October 15.76
9. Gabby Youmane
Youmane, a full-time CNA, participated in the strike. After
the strike concluded, she was informed by Rochelle Park that
there was no work for her. Youmane was locked out until she
was reinstated on September 29.77
10. Jamir Gaston
Gaston, a full-time dietary aide, served as a union delegate,
attended the 2014 bargaining sessions and participated in all 3
days of the strike. He returned to work after the strike on Sep-
tember 20, but was instructed by Giles to call on September 22.
Gaston called on September 22 and was instructed by Concep-
cion to return to work on September 24. She added, however,
that he would no longer work a full-time schedule.
Before the strike, Gaston worked 75 hours per pay period
with regular days off. Although his position continued to exist

72 Hormaza’s credible testimony was undisputed. (Tr. 3042−3043,
3059−3067; GC Exh. 322−323.)
73 Interim offers of employment to Abellard to work at other Alaris
facilities are left for compliance. (Tr. 3035−3036.)
74 GC Exhs. 324(c); GC Exh. 318 at 28.
75 GC Exhs. 318 at 34, 324(d), 325(a), and (e), and 328.
76 GC Exhs. 318 at 45, 323(a), 324(g), and 329.
77 GC Exhs. 318 at 30, 323, 324(d) and 325.
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 17
after returning to work from the strike, Gaston’s hours were
significantly reduced. Over the course of the 9 months follow-
ing the strike, with the exception of 4 weeks, Gaston’s work
was limited to, at most, 4 days per week.78
L. Fritz’s Hours Are Reduced
Jean Fritz, a full-time housekeeping employee, served as a
union delegate and participated in the 3-day strike. He played a
prominent role in the preparations for the strike and during the
strike. Fritz also represented Rochelle Park at the August 27
strike authorization meeting and spoke at the Union rally on
September 17 in front of Castle Hill.
Prior to the strike, Fritz worked 5 days per week. He was re-
instated upon returning to work after the strike. Although his
full-time position continued to exist, Fritz’ hours were reduced
and he worked, at most, 4 days per week after returning from
the strike.79
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. ROCHELLE PARK’S OBJECTION TO THE UNION’S
BARGAINING COMMITTEE
The complaint alleges that Rochelle Park 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. Rochelle Park contends that
its insistence that the Union’s bargaining committee be restrict-
ed solely to Rochelle Park employees was consistent with past
practice. Additionally, Rochelle Park contends that the parties'
collective-bargaining agreement limited the Union's bargaining
committee to 6 members (or 7, given Rochelle Park’s acquies-
cence to the designated individuals).
Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees and employers
the right to “to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing” and the Supreme Court has recognized this
right as fundamental to the statutory scheme. NLRB v. Jones &
Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 33 (1937). Generally, both
parties have a right to choose whomever they wish to represent
them in negotiations, and neither party can control the other
party's selection of representatives. General Electric Co., 173
NLRB 253, 255 (1968), enfd. 412 F.2d 512, 516−517 (2d Cir.
1969); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 415 F.2d 174,
177−178 (8th Cir. 1969) (affirming Board determination that
“so long as it confines negotiations to terms and conditions of
employment within the bargaining unit, it has free rein . . . in its
choice of negotiators.”)
The right to choose one’s bargaining representatives, howev-
er, 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 impracti-
cal. See, e.g., NLRB v. ILGWU, 274 F.2d 376, 379 (3d Cir.
1960) (ex-union official added to employer committee to “put

78 Notwithstanding evidence of replacement workers hired after the
strike, the relevant fact is that Gaston’s full-time position continued to
exist. (GC Exh. 317.)
79 Rochelle Park’s records were incomplete and unreliable, but the
available information confirms that Fritz incurred a reduction in work
hours of one or more days per week. (GC Exh. 323; Tr. 3074−3076,
3225.)
one over on the union”); Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 108
NLRB 1555 (1954) (union established company in direct com-
petition with employer); NLRB v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 182
F.2d 810 (6th Cir. 1950) (union negotiator expressed great per-
sonal animosity towards employer). But cf. NLRB v. Signal
Mfg. Co., 351 F.2d 471 (1st Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. de-
nied 382 U.S. 985 (1966) (similar claim of animosity rejected).
On the other hand, where the employer simply asserts that there
was ill will and a conflict of interest relative to the proposed
union representatives, the Board is unlikely to grant an excep-
tion 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 representa-
tive] was 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 locals); General Electric Co. v. NLRB,
412 F.2d at 517–520 (2d Cir. 1969) (other international un-
ions); 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., 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 Rochelle Park into multiemployer bargaining through the
presence of bargaining unit members from the other three fa-
cilities. The only hint of a union strategy affecting all four facil-
ities was its desire to have Silva and Massey make opening
statements out the outset of bargaining. See International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 46, AFL–
CIO, 302 NLRB 271, 273−274 (1991) (union not justified in
refusing to negotiate with employer group’s chosen committee
of members and nonmembers at the outset of separate bargain-
ing sessions in accordance with a longstanding practice of in-
cluding all both group members and nonmembers under a sin-
gle 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 em-
ployees 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 Interna-
tional 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
negate the possibility of good-faith bargaining”).
Jasinski’s additional concern at hearing that the presence of
employees from other facilities would violate the confidentiali-
ty of employees at the other facilities does not pass muster. See
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
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.
Rochelle Park cites CBS, Inc., 226 NLRB 537, 539 (1976),
as support for the proposition that the Union’s bargaining rep-
resentatives presented “a clear and present danger to the bar-
gaining process or would create such ill will as to make bar-
gaining impossible or futile.” That case, however, involved a
conflict of interest regarding the composition of a bargaining
committee because one committee member was part of a labor
organization that did not represent CBS's members, but rather,
two key competitors. That is hardly the scenario here. Rochelle
Park 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 en-
gaged in an unprovoked physical attack on the company's per-
sonnel director. Id. That scenario was also inapplicable.
Given the absence of evidence of exceptional circumstances
indicating bad faith on the part of the Union, Rochelle Park was
obligated to bargain with the Union’s bargaining committee on
March 27 even though employee-members from the other three
facilities were present. General Electric, 412 F.2d at 520. By
walking out of the negotiations under those circumstances,
Rochelle Park 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 negoti-
ate with union bargaining committee, which added temporary
representatives from affiliated bargaining units in order to im-
prove communication between them); NLRB v. Indiana &
Michigan Electric Co., supra, (employer unlawfully refused to
bargain with union negotiating committee because the union
was coordinating the various bargaining efforts).
II. ROCHELLE PARK’S DELAY IN PROVIDING INFORMATION
The complaint alleges that Rochelle Park also violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) when it unreasonably delayed in providing
the Union with information requested in order to prepare for
bargaining. Rochelle Park contends that it responded in a man-
ner reasonably consistent with past practice and that union offi-
cials sanctioned the delay because of counsel’s other commit-
ments.
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 Clin-
ic, 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, 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, ac-
companied by a timely explanation.” In Re W. Penn Power Co.,
supra at 597 (citing FMC Corp., 290 NLRB 483, 489 (1988)).
Even a relatively short delay of 2 or 3 weeks may be held un-
reasonable. See, e.g., Capitol Steel & Iron Co., 317 NLRB 809,
813 (1995), enfd. 89 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1996) (2 week delay
unreasonable under the circumstances because the information
sought was simple, close at hand, and easily assem-
bled); Aeolian Corp., 247 NLRB 1231, 1244 (1980) (3 week
delay unreasonable under the circumstances).
Rochelle Park received the Union’s initial information re-
quest 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 pro-
pose, on several occasions, to extend the term of the expiring
contract, but the Union never agreed. At no time, however,
during his written and verbal communications with the Union
did he request an extension of time to respond to the infor-
mation 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. 1990), cited by Rochelle Park, 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 infor-
mation. The employer feared that competitors might gain an
advantage if they acquired information about tariff rates con-
tained in certain business contracts. In this case, however, Ro-
chelle Park never asserted confidentiality concerns as an excuse
for the delay at any time prior to March 27.
The passage of nearly 3 months in responding to the Union’s
initial information request and 5 weeks responding to the sup-
plemental request was unreasonable. Rochelle Park was entire-
ly mum on the subject notwithstanding follow-up reminders by
the Union to provide the information prior to the March 27
bargaining session. Instead, Jasinski simply delivered the in-
formation 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 ses-
sion. The fact that Rochelle Park previously delayed in produc-
ing 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 SCHEDULES AND HEALTH INSURANCE
INFORMATION
The General Counsel also contends that Rochelle Park vio-
lated 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 infor-
mation, both of which were relevant and necessary to the per-
formance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive. Rochelle Park refused to provide such further work sched-
ule information, insisting that the Union should be satisfied
with monthly master schedules. With respect to the health in-
surance information, Rochelle Park claimed it was prohibited
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 19
from releasing such information under the privacy provisions of
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996.80
An employer has a duty to furnish relevant information nec-
essary 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 Industrial Co., 385
U.S. 432, 435−436 (1967); A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356
NLRB 499, 500 (2011). Information requests regarding bar-
gaining 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).
The standard for establishing relevancy is the liberal, “dis-
covery-type standard.” Alcan Rolled Products, 358 NLRB 37,
40 (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 be-
half of employee-members. See Wayneview Care Center,
352NLRB 1089, 1115 (2008) (work schedules relating to unit
employees, are presumptively relevant, including information
on current schedules for each department). Accordingly, 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 En-
terprises, Inc., 324 NLRB 221, 223−224 (1997) (employer
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 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, Rochelle Park was obligated to furnish the re-
quested health insurance information necessary for the Union to
formulate its own proposal. One Stop Kosher Supermarket,
Inc., 355 NLRB 1237 (2010) (union was entitled to health in-
surance plan information). The Union was entitled to the re-
quested information concerning the costs of health insurance to
Rochelle Park and covered employees in order to analyze them
within the context of the Affordable Care Act. This was signifi-
cant information, given the Union’s bargaining objective to
increase dependent health insurance coverage and its interest in
exploring alternative 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

80 45 CFR §§ 160 and 164.
had the information. That was incorrect. The Union had only
been provided with partial information relating to gross payroll
benefits, monthly health plan costs, and a summary description
of the plan. After the Union persisted, he agreed to inquire fur-
ther. 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 2 months
after the information request. Exxon Co. USA, 321 NLRB 896,
898 (1996) (confidentiality objection must 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 medical
information of any employees. Lastly, Jasinski refused Mas-
sey’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 con-
fidentiality concern unavailing as an excuse to refuse infor-
mation request).
Under the circumstances, Rochelle Park’s refusal to provide
daily work schedule information on May 21 and health insur-
ance related information on July 30 as requested by the Union
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THREATS REGARDING STRIKE ACTIVITY
A. Threats to Employees of Job Loss or Other Reprisals
The complaint alleges that Rochelle Park engaged in various
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The standard in deter-
mining whether employer conduct violates that section of the
Act is based on whether statements made to employees reason-
ably 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 un-
lawfully coercive, the test is whether the employee would rea-
sonably 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, 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).
Dietary Director Concepcion issued threats to employees in
August and September 2014. First, Concepcion summoned
Lewis to her office where she asked him if he planned on strik-
ing. Lewis did not explicitly answer. Second, Concepcion ques-
tioned Gaston about whether he would strike. Gaston answered
that he would strike. In response, Concepcion told Gaston that
by striking he risked losing his job and an hour reduction. Fi-
nally, a week before the strike, Concepcion questioned several
employees about their intention to strike. The employees did
not answer and Concepcion threatened termination if the em-
ployees participated in the strike.
Like Concepcion, Housekeeping Director German told em-
ployees they could be fired for striking on three occasions.
First, German threatened a group of employees that they could
be fired if they went on strike. At this meeting, housekeeping
employees Hormaza and Dominguez were called to the base-
ment by German. German told the employees that if the Union
went on strike things were going to get ugly and employees
would be replaced. Following the group meeting, German ques-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
tioned each employee individually about who was planning to
strike. Second, German again questioned Dominguez about
whether she planned on striking. Dominguez answered affirma-
tively and German responded by saying okay and walking
away. Third, prior to the strike, both Concepcion and German
jointly questioned a group of employees whether they planned
on striking. At this meeting, German told the employees that
they could lose their jobs if they went on strike.
The aforementioned supervisory statements sent clear mes-
sages that engaging in Section 7 activity was harmful to Ro-
chelle Park and striking would result in changes of working
conditions and hours. 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 ascertain-
ing the employee's prospective union activities). In addition, the
threats that a strike will lead to job loss were unlawful because
they incorrectly conveyed to employees that their employment
will be terminated as a result of a strike, whereas the law is
clear that economic strikers retain certain reinstatement rights.
Baddour, Inc., 303 NLRB 275 (1991) (mere statement without
further explanation that employee “could end up losing your
job by being replaced with a new permanent worker” was un-
lawful).
Under the circumstances, the threats by Concepcion and
German, coupled with interrogation, that employees could be
replaced and lose their jobs if they participated in a strike vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. Interrogation of Employees Regarding Strike Activity
In assessing the lawfulness of an interrogation, the Board
applies the totality of circumstances test adopted in Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. sub nom. Hotel Employ-
ees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). The
Board has additionally determined that in employing the
Rossmore House test, it is appropriate to consider the factors set
forth in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964):
whether there was a history of employer hostility or discrimina-
tion; the nature of the information sought (whether the interro-
gator was seeking information to base taking action against
individual employees); the position of the questioner in the
company hierarchy; the place and method of interrogation, and;
the truthfulness of the reply. In applying the Bourne factors, the
Board seeks to determine whether under all of the circumstanc-
es the questioning at issue would reasonably tend to coerce the
employee at whom it was directed so that he or she would feel
restrained from exercising rights protected by Section 7 of the
Act. Westwood Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 935, 941
(2000).
During the aforementioned meeting with dietary employees,
German questioned employees about whether they planned to
strike and that a strike could cause employees to lose their jobs.
German did not assure the employees that no reprisals would be
taken against them as a result of their responses. Such assur-
ances were necessary given that German was canvassing the
facility threatening employees, including the same employees,
with termination if they participated in the strike. Under the
circumstances, German’s remarks were coercive in nature and
violated Section 8(a)(1). Reno Hilton Resorts, 320 NLRB 197,
207 (1995).
Rochelle Park administrator Kristine Giles also interrogated
employees regarding participation in the upcoming strike. She
approached Gaston and asked if he was going to strike. When
Gaston replied that he was planning to participate in the strike,
Giles responded that the strike was futile and asked how much
the union would pay him for striking. When Dominguez an-
swered that question affirmatively, Giles responded by also
asking how much the union would pay her for striking. A few
days before the strike, Giles systematically questioned approx-
imately 50 employees individually about their intention to
strike. She did not, however, assure employees during such
questioning that no reprisals would be taken against them as a
result of their responses. Under the circumstances, Giles’ re-
marks were coercive in nature and violated Section 8(a)(1).
Reno Hilton Resorts, supra at 207.
Under the circumstances, the questioning by German and
Giles was coercive in nature and violated Section 8(a)(1). Roo-
sevelt Memorial Medical Center, 348 NLRB 1016 (2006).
V. OZUAL IS REMOVED FROM ROCHELLE PARK
The complaint alleges that Rochelle Park violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to bargain over its decision to deny
Union Organizer Ozual access to its facility in order to meet
with bargaining unit members as provided under the CBA.
Rochelle Park contends that Ozual violated the CBA provision
requiring the Union’s representative to behave reasonably while
meeting with employees at Rochelle Park.
The law is well settled that an employer may not change the
terms and conditions of employment of represented employees
without providing their representative with prior notice and an
opportunity to bargain over such changes. See NLRB v. Katz,
369 U.S. 736, 747 (1962). A union access provision in a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement is a term and condition of employ-
ment that survives the agreement's expiration. See, e.g., T.L.C.
St. Petersburg, Inc., 307 NLRB 605, 610 (1992), enfd. mem.
985 F.2d 579 (11th Cir. 1993). “[A] unilateral change in an
employer's policy permitting access by union representatives to
its premises is a unilateral change in the employees' terms and
conditions of employment and is, ordinarily, unlawful.” Turtle
Bay Resorts, 355 NLRB 1272, 1272 (2010). In addition, a uni-
lateral change in the past practice of permitting union access is
a material change about which an employer is obligated to bar-
gain. Ernst Home Centers, 308 NLRB 848, 849 (1992).
The credible evidence revealed that Ozual’s ejection was
preceded by several episodes during August in which she yelled
loudly, used foul language, confronted, and harassed employees
reluctant to participate in the strike. The incidents occurred
outside the break room and Rochelle Park reasonably consid-
ered them disruptive enough that Jasinski wrote to McCalla on
August 29 to inform him that Ozual was banned from the facili-
ty. He premised the decision on past discussions with the Un-
ion, but there was no evidence that those discussions amounted
to bargaining over the issue.
The Board has held that where an employer unilaterally de-
nies or reduces the union's ability to access unit employees for
purposes of representation the unilateral action or change is
material in nature. Turtle Bay Resorts, 355 NLRB 1272,
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 21
1272−1273 (2010); Frontier Hotel & Casino, 323 NLRB 815,
817−818 (1997), enfd. in pertinent part 118 F.3d 795 (D.C. Cir.
1997); Ernst Home Centers, Inc., 308 NLRB 848, 848−849
(1992); American Commercial Lines, 291 NLRB 1066, 1072
(1988). More to the point, even when an employer accuses a
union agent of misconduct, the employer is required to give the
union notice and an opportunity to bargain before changing
rules regarding the agent's access so that the parties can work
together to arrive at a solution to the problem. Frontier Hotel &
Casino, 323 NLRB at 817. Here, Ozual was excluded from the
facility because of her disruptive conduct. However, Rochelle
Park merely informed the Union as a fait accompli. As a result,
the Union had no opportunity to bargain over Rochelle Park’s
decision to unilaterally deny Union member’s access to their
representative at a critical juncture in the bargaining and strike
preparation process.
Under the circumstances, Rochelle Park violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to afford the Union an opportunity to
bargain over its decision in late August to deny Ozual access to
its facility.
VI. REFUSAL TO REINSTATE STRIKING EMPLOYEES
The complaint further alleges that the Rochelle Park violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to reinstate ten
employees when they returned to work the day after the strike
ended: Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston,
Rodley Lewis, Deloris Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda,
Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, and Gabby Youmane. Ro-
chelle Park disagrees, insisting that the ten employees were not
reinstated 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 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 consequenc-
es. 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 are entitled, upon their unconditional offers to return to
work, to reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions, if no permanent replacements have been hired to
replace them and the positions remain open. NLRB v. Fleet-
wood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 378–379 (1967).
In the case of an unfair labor practice strike, employees are
entitled to immediate reinstatement to their former positions
upon their unconditional offers to return to work, even if 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 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
to the employees' motivations for striking, considering both
objective and subjective evidence. See Gen. Indus. Emps. Un-
ion, 951 F.2d at 1312; Spurlino Materials, 357 NLRB 1510,
1524−1525 (2011); Executive Management Services, 355
NLRB 185, 194−196 (2010); Chicago Beef Co. v. Local 26,
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, 298 NLRB 1039
(1990). A strike wholly driven by the desire of employees to
obtain favorable employment terms is an economic strike.
When employees strike as a result of an employer's unfair labor
practices, the strike is an unfair labor practice strike. See Inter-
national Van Lines, 409 U.S. at 50–51; Gen. Indus. Emps. Un-
ion, 951 F.2d at 1311.
In this case, there is little testimony by employees as to their
reasons for participating in the strike. There is objective proof
of motivation for the strike, however, in the statements by Un-
ion officials and signs carried employees during informational
and strike picketing. Through public statements, media publica-
tions and its website, the Union conveyed the mixed message
that it sought redress for Rochelle Park’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 224, 235 (3d Cir. 2001)
(facts supported finding that Board’s decision to issue a com-
plaint “galvanized bargaining unit members' belief that an un-
fair labor practice had been committed and served as the flash-
point for discussion about calling a strike”).
It is evident that meaningful collective bargaining was ham-
strung at the outset by Rochelle Park’s failure to provide re-
sponsive information prior to March 27 and then refusing to
commence bargaining with Rochelle Park’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 rag-
ged path of trickling information and resistance in providing
relevant work schedule and health insurance related infor-
mation.
Under Board law, the dual motivation of Rochelle Park’s
employees to strike in order to improve their bargaining posi-
tion and assail Rochelle Park’s unfair labor practices means that
the strike must be characterized as an unfair labor practice
strike. See Executive Management Services, supra at 193; Dom-
sey Trading Corp., 310 NLRB 777, 791 (1993); General Driv-
ers & 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 Corp., 458 F.2d
398, 407 (3d Cir.1972).
The Union, on behalf of the striking workers, gave Rochelle
Park a 10-day notice prior to the strike that employees would
strike on September 17, 18, and 19. On September 18, the Un-
ion notified Rochelle Park that the striking employees would
return to work on September 20. Under the circumstances, Ro-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD22
chelle Park’s refusal to reinstate Dominguez, Hormaza, Gaston,
Lewis, Alston, Abellard, Padda, Meronvil, Vilceus, and
Youmane upon their return to work on or after September 20
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
VII. CHANGES TO WORK HOURS AND OTHER TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
The complaint also alleges that Rochelle Park committed
various violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by dis-
criminatorily reducing the work hours of Fritz, Dominguez,
Hormaza, Gaston, and Alston when they returned to work after
the strike. Rochelle Park contends that these employees were
temporarily or permanently replaced by temporary agency em-
ployees or new employees, and provided with the work that
was available when they returned.
In determining whether adverse employment action is at-
tributable to unlawful discrimination, the Board applies the
analysis set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
The Wright Line framework requires proof that an employee's
union or other protected activity was a motivating factor in the
employer's action against the employee. 251 NLRB at 1089.
The elements required to support such a showing are union or
protected concerted activity, employer knowledge of that ac-
tivity, and union animus on the part of the employer. Amglo
Kemlite Laboratories, 360 NLRB No. 51, slip op. at 7
(2014); Consolidated Bus Transit, 350 NLRB 1064, 1065
(2007), enfd. 577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009). Proof of animus and
discriminatory motivation may be based on direct evidence or
inferred from circumstantial evidence. Robert Orr/Sysco Food
Services, 343 NLRB 1183, 1184 (2004); Purolator Armored,
Inc. v. NLRB, 764 F.2d 1423, 1428−1429 (11th Cir. 1985).
Factors which may support an inference of antiunion motiva-
tion include employer hostility toward unionization, other un-
fair labor practices committed by the employer contemporane-
ous with the adverse action, the timing of the adverse action in
relation to union activity, the employer's reliance on pretextual
reasons to justify the adverse action, disparate treatment of
employees based on union affiliation, and an employer's devia-
tion from past practice. 764 F.2d at 1429.
All five employees engaged in protected concerted activity,
to wit, the 3-day strike. Rochelle Park’s administrator and sev-
eral supervisors expressed repeatedly their animus towards a
strike and predicted adverse consequences for those employees
who participated. Some of those communications by Giles,
Concepcion, and Caldona constituted unlawful threats and in-
terrogation. In addition, Giles distributed a memorandum short-
ly before the strike accusing the Union of distorting “The
Truth” as to the cause of the impending strike. The only differ-
ences were in the nature of the significant adverse action suf-
fered by each employee.
Fritz served played a prominent role as a union delegate in
speaking out against Rochelle Park during rallies and partici-
pated in the strike. He incurred adverse action after the strike in
the form of a reduction from a full-time position to a reduced 4-
day work week.
Alston was a longtime shop steward and delegate. She at-
tended all of the bargaining sessions, participated in the August
27 strike vote, served Giles with the Union’s 10-day strike no-
tice, and participated in all 3 days of the strike. She was rein-
stated on September 22, but was off the schedule for all but 2
days over the next 2 weeks. On October 5, her full-time sched-
ule was restored but she has been deprived of overtime work
opportunities since then. That adverse action was admittedly
attributable to her participation in the strike.
Gaston also served a prominent role as a union delegate. He
attended the bargaining sessions and participated in all 3 days
of the strike. After the strike, he incurred a significant reduction
in work hours and his work was limited to, at most, 4 days per
week.
Unlike the previous three employees, Dominguez and Hor-
maza did not play prominent roles in the strike planning and
execution. They did, however, participate in all 3 days of the
strike and, upon returning to work on September 23, were re-
warded with a demotion to part-time work. German, their su-
pervisor, admitted that the adverse action was, as he predicted
beforehand, a consequence of their choice to participate in the
strike.
The General Counsel having established a prima facie case,
the burden shifted to Rochelle Park to prove that union activity
was not a motivating factor in the changes to the terms and
condition of employment of Fritz, Dominguez, Hormaza, Gas-
ton, and Alston. Wright Line, supra; approved in NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). That
burden is impossible to meet here where the adverse action
flowed from Rochelle Park’s unfair labor practices in refusing
to reinstate them after the strike and their former positions con-
tinued to exist after they were reinstated.
Under the circumstances, after reinstating Fritz, Dominguez,
Hormaza, Gaston, and Alston, Rochelle Park discriminatorily
changed their terms and conditions of employment by reducing
their work hours in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). Wright
Line, supra; Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12 (1996).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rochelle Park 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.
3. At all relevant times, Kristine Giles, Dexter Caldona, Ar-
lene Concepcion, and Peter German, were supervisors of Ro-
chelle Park within the meaning of Section 2(11) the Act, and
David Jasinski, Esq., Regina Figueroa, Moses Adu, and Susan
Posluzny were agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of
the Act.
4. Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by:
(a) Refusing on March 27, 2014, to bargain in good faith
with the Union’s chosen bargaining committee.
(b) Delaying for 3 months before producing information re-
quested by the Union which was relevant and necessary to its
role as unit employees’ labor representative prior to the com-
mencement of collective bargaining between the parties on
March 27, 2014.
(c) Refusing to provide daily work schedule information re-
quested by the Union on May 21, 2014, and health insurance
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 23
information requested on July 30, 2014, all of which was rele-
vant and necessary to the Union’s role as unit employees’ rep-
resentative.
5. Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the
following manner:
(a) Concepcion and German threatened employees during
individual and group meetings in August and September 2014
with loss of their jobs, loss of work hours or other changes in
their terms and conditions of employment if they went on
strike.
(b) Giles, Concepcion, and German coercively interrogated
individual employees in August and September 2014 as to
whether they were going to participate in the strike.
(c) Rochelle Park unilaterally changed employees’ terms and
conditions of employment without giving the opportunity to
bargain over such change when it denied Christina Ozual ac-
cess to meet with employees in the facility in August 2014.
6. By failing and refusing, on or after September 20, to im-
mediately reinstate ten employees who engaged in protected
concerted activity and made an unconditional offer to return to
work, Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. Rochelle Park discriminatorily changed employees’ terms
and conditions of employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by reducing the work hours of Fritz, Dominguez, Hor-
maza, and Gaston, and denying Alston the opportunity to work
overtime, because they participated in and supported the strike.
8. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Rochelle Park has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On re-
quest, Rochelle Park shall bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees concerning terms and
conditions of employment, timely provide the Union with rele-
vant information it has requested and, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
Rochelle Park shall also, within 14 days of the Board’s Order,
offer the ten employees who engaged in an unfair labor practice
strike in September 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 posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed. I shall also order Rochelle Park
to make whole the unfair labor practice strikers who were de-
nied reinstatement for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. Backpay
shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New
Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre-
scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
In addition, I shall order Rochelle Park to expunge from its files
any reference to the failure to reinstate the strikers, and to noti-
fy them in writing that this has been done. Finally, I shall order
Rochelle Park to post a notice to all employees in accordance
with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
Rochelle Park shall file a report with the Social Security
Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar
quarters. Rochelle Park shall also compensate the discrimi-
natee(s) for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving
one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer
than 1 year. Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB 518 (2012).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended81
ORDER
The Respondent, Alaris Health at Rochelle Park, Rochelle
Park, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any em-
ployee for supporting 1199, SEIU United Healthcare Workers
East or any other union.
(b) Coercively threatening any employee with job loss or
loss of work hours if they go on strike or engage in other union
activities.
(c) Coercively interrogating any employee as to whether he
or she intends to participate in a strike or engage in other union
activities.
(d) Refusing to bargain with the Union’s chosen bargaining
committee.
(e) Refusing to provide or delaying in providing necessary
and relevant information to the Union.
(f) Refusing to permit the Union’s representative to meet at
reasonable times with employees in the facility’s employee
break room.
(g) 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the following appropriate unit
concerning terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody 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 cler-
ical employees, 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.
(c) On request, permit the Union’s representative to meet at
reasonable times with employees in the facility’s employee
break room.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer
Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley

81 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD24
Lewis, Deloris Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn
Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane, and Jean Fritz 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 en-
joyed.
(e) Make Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gas-
ton, Rodley Lewis, Deloris Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder
Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane, and
Jean Fritz 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.
(f) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, ex-
punge 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.
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, 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.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Rochelle Park, New Jersey, copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix”82 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 main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees 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 Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employ-
ees employed by the Respondent at any time since March 27,
2014.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 25, 2016

82 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
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 bene-
fit 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 or loss of
work hours if you go on strike or engage in any other union
activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you as to whether or not
you intend to participate in a strike or engage in other union
activities.
WE WILL NOT prohibit the Union’s representative from meet-
ing at reasonable times with employees in the facility’s em-
ployee break room.
WE WILL NOT refuse to timely provide the Union with neces-
sary and relevant information.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, 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 cler-
ical employees, supervisors, watchmen and guards.
WE WILL, on request, permit the Union’s representative to
meet at reasonable times with employees in the facility’s em-
ployee break room.
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
Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley
Lewis, Deloris Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn
Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane, and Jean Fritz full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK 25
exists, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
WE WILL make Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir
Gaston, Rodley Lewis, Deloris Alston, Jean Abellard,
Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby
Youmane, and Jean Fritz 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 Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza,
Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis, Deloris Alston, Jean Abellard,
Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby
Youmane, and Jean Fritz for the adverse tax consequences, if
any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards cover-
ing periods longer than one year.
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK
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.