Alondra Nursing Home & Convalescent Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 595 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

ALONDRA NURSING HOME AND CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL
Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a Alondra Nursing
Home and Convalescent Hospital and Hospital and
Service Employees Local 399, Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-8314
May 29, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On February 14, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Timothy D. Nelson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Gardena Buena Ventura,
Inc., d/b/a Alondra Nursing Home and Convales-
cent Hospital, Gardena, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, except that
the attached notice is substituted for that of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge.
I In its exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Respon-
dent, inter alia, seeks modification of par. 2(b) of the recommended Order
which states, "Upon the Union's request, cancel any unilateral changes
made on or after its July 1. 1978, assumption of operations .... " Respondent
requests a modification of the Order to include cancellation of only so much
of the wage increases as was in excess of that required by state law. Our
Order herein is not to be construed permitting the Union to demand
cancellation of any portion of the increase in wages which is compelled by
state minimum wage requirements. Nor is our Order to be construed as
requiring Respondent to cancel any wage increase without a request from
the Union.
In affirming the Administrative Law Judge, Chairman Fanning also relies
on the views expressed in his opinion in Spruce Up Corporation, 209 NLRB
194 (1974).
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing during which all parties had the op-
portunity to present their evidence and arguments, it
has been found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act and must remedy that violation. In ac-
cordance with the Board's Order, we hereby notify
our employees as follows:
The National Labor Relations Act gives employ-
ees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representa-
tive they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any of the above activities
except to the extent that the employees' bar-
gaining representative and their employer
have a bargaining agreement which has a law-
ful requirement that employees become union
members.
In recognition of these rights, we hereby further
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
collectively with Hospital and Service Employ-
ees Local 399, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO (herein the Union), as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the following unit:
Included: All dietary employees, maids, jani-
tors, storekeepers, maintenance employees,
grounds keepers, orderlies, nurses aides, li-
censed vocational nurses, and laboratory help-
ers employed at Alondra Nursing Home and
Convalescent Hospital in Gardena, California.
Excluded: All professional employees, includ-
ing physicians and registered nurses, all office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discontinue or change terms and
conditions of employment of employees in the
above-described unit without first giving notice
to and affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain about discontinuing or changing those
terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights, as set forth above,
242 NLRB No. 85
595
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guaranteed by the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WII.L. immediately recognize and, upon re-
quest, bargain collectively in good faith with the
Union as your exclusive representative respect-
ing rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other
terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding or agreement is reached, upon re-
quest, embody the terms of such understanding
or agreement in a signed, written document.
WE WILL., upon the Union's request, cancel
any changes which we made after taking over
operations of Alondra Nursing Home and Con-
valescent Hospital respecting rates of pay, wages,
hours of work, or other terms and conditions of
employment in the unit and reinstate such rates
and terms and conditions as existed when we
took over such operations, and WE WILL make
whole any employees in the unit for any losses
sustained as a result of any such changes, with
interest.
GARDENA BUENA VENTURA, INC., D/B/A
ALONDRA NURSING HOME AND CONVALES-
CENT HOSPITAL
DECISION
STATEMENT OF HE CASE
TIMOTHY D. NELSON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Los Angeles, California, on January 9,
1979, based on original charges filed on August 24, 1978,'
by Hospital and Service Employees Local 399,2 Service Em-
ployees International Union, AFL-CIO (herein called the
Union) and a complaint dated October 16 by the Regional
Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations
Board (herein called the Board). The complaint alleged, in
substance, that Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a Alon-
dra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital (herein
called Respondent), Gardena, California, violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
after it took over operation of Alondra Nursing Home and
Convalescent Hospital (the Hospital) on July , under cir-
cumstances where the Union had been the representative of
an essentially "wall-to-wall" unit of nonprofessional and
nonsupervisory employees when Respondent's predecessor
had operated the Hospital.
Upon the entire record,' and consideration of post-hear-
ing briefs timely filed by all parties, I make the following:
i All dates are in 1978, unless otherwise noted.
Name amended at hearing to correct typographical error appearing in
earlier pleadings and formal papers which referred to Local "300."
3In addition to the briefs and formal papers, the record herein consists
solely of a written stipulation of facts, with appended exhibits, received in
evidence as Jr. Exh. I, together with certain supplemental and clarifying
factual stipulations entered into orally at the hearing by counsel for the
respective parties. No witnesses testified.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is subject to the Board's jurisdiction and is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, it having been stipulated by
the parties that Respondent's operations involve, on a pro-
jected basis, annual receipts in excess of $100,000 from its
operation of the Hospital, together with monthly receipts of
Medicare payments in excess of $50,000. The Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act. as the parties have also stipulated.
A. Events and Circumstances Associated with Respondent's
Assumption of Operations
General Background
The "Hospital," as used herein, consists of a building and
medical equipment on Rosecrans Avenue in Gardena, Cali-
fornia, owned by an entity known as Paramount Medical
Enterprises (Paramount). Before July I, Paramount had
leased the Hospital for a term of 10 years to Gardena
Health Services, Inc. (Gardena). Effective July I, Gardena
terminated its leasehold interest in the Hospital and Re-
spondent acquired the same under a negotiated arrange-
ment with Paramount providing for a 5-year lease, with
option to purchase. Both Gardena and Respondent oper-
ated the Hospital under the "Alondra" business name.
Before the takeover, the Union and Gardena had been
parties to a written, 3-year collective-bargaining agreement
with a scheduled expiration date of September 14, covering
a comprehensive unit of employees, which the parties stipu-
lated, and I find, to be an appropriate unit for collective-
bargaining purposes, described in said agreement as fol-
lows:
Included: All dietary employees, maids, janitors,
store-keepers, maintenance employees, grounds
keepers, orderlies, nurses aides, licensed vocational
nurses, and laboratory helpers [employed by Garde-
na at the Hospital].
Excluded: All professional employees, including
physicians and registered nurses, all office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
II. PRE- AND POST-TAKEOVER UNIT COMPLEMENTS
The parties' written stipulation refers to total staff com-
plements at the Hospital at various times before, at, and
after takeover, together with the numbers of persons em-
ployed in various bargaining unit classifications (see gener-
ally, Jt. Exh. 8, par. 8, and clarifying oral stipulations at
transcript pages 8-11). Extrapolating with the aid of said
clarifying stipulations, Gardena's bargaining unit comple-
ment immediately before takeover was 80 employees. Im-
mediately after takeover, for reasons not evident from the
record, while all of the unit employees were former employ-
ees of Gardena (Jt. Exh. 1, par. 8(b)), the unit complement
596
ALONDRA NURSING HOME AND CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL
totalled only 57.' Evidently, about 23 Gardena employees
were either discharged, laid off, or they resigned incidental
to the takeover.
Thereafter, on unspecified dates between July I and Sep-
tember 25, Gardena hired a total of 58 persons in unit clas-
sifications, although the unit complement did not increase
by anything near that number since substantial numbers of
them, totalling 21, were "terminated" at unspecified dates
during the same period. (Jt. Exh. 1, par. 8(d), and see clari-
fying stipulation and discussion at transcript page 10.S)
Notwithstanding this post-takeover hiring (and firing)
spurt, the record reflects that former Gardena employees
continued to constitute the numerical majority of unit em-
ployees during the same period.' Thus, the parties stipu-
lated that, as of September 25, out of a total unit comple-
ment of 87 employees,7 48 had been employed as of July I
and were former employees of Gardena (Jt. Exh. 1, par.
8(e), and see previously cited clarifying stipulations).
Respondent's Post-Takeover Changes
Immediately upon takeover, Respondent's administrator,
Keith Fortune, posted a notice to employees (Jt. Exh. I,
appended "exhibit 2") at the Hospital on stationery bearing
the letterhead, "Alondra Nursing Home & Convalescent
Hospital" containing the following text:
ALL EMPLOYEES
Effective July 1, 1978, Alondra Nursing Home was
taken over by a new company, Gardena Buena Ventu-
ra, Inc. The new company has filed for a new nursing
home license from the California Department of
Health.
All prior contracts, commitments and agreements
entered into by the prior owners were automatically
cancelled as of June 30, 1978.
The new owners have structured pay rates in the
facility differently than what they were prior to July I,
1978. Most of you will see this reflected in your new
paychecks.
4An additional four persons formerly employed by Gardena in non-unit
positions were retained in non-unit jobs after takeover (Ibid.).
' Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected.
'Respondent does not specifically argue otherwise, although its brief con-
tains somewhat cryptic assertions in this regard (e.g., that "... respondent
did not hire a majority of Gardena's employees when compared with the
total employees hired by respondent dunng the period July i, 1978 to and
including September 25, 1978." (Resp. br. p. 4.) Such a comparison is mis-
leading for reasons noted, supra, and is not pertinent to the successorship
questions raised herein (see discussion, infra). Nor is Respondent's defense
based on a claim (itself having no record support) that former Gardens
employees constituted less than a majority of the post-takeover unit comple-
ment (see discussion, infra).
I This figure is presumed to represent the approximate "full" or "normal"
complement under Respondent's operation, absent evidence to the con-
trary-which evidence it would be expected Respondent would have intro-
duced had the eventual "full complement" been any greater than the num-
bers stipulated to exist as of September 25. Moreover, such a presumption is
consonant with the stipulated fact that the pre-takeover complement was
roughly the same size, i.e. 80, and the fact that nothing in this record would
suggest that Respondent had substantially increased the scope of its opera-
tions, thereby requinng a significantly larger complement than that required
by Gardena.
The new management is interested in good patient
care and happy employees. If any of you have ideas on
how to improve either, please let us know.
/s/ Keith Fortune
Mr. Keith Fortune, Administrator
Consistent with that announcement, substantial numbers
of unit employees thereafter received wage increases (Jt.
Exh. I, par. 8(c)). The Union was not notified of, nor con-
sulted about, these increases before their implementation.
Consistent with Respondent's contention herein that it has
no obligation to deal with the Union, it has acted unilater-
ally in all matters affecting unit employees' wages and other
terms and conditions of employment.8 The record does not
show whether any employees suffered losses as a result of
any post-takeover changes.
Other post-takeover changes from Gardena's operation
of the Hospital consisted of the following stipulated facts
and events: Keith Fortune was installed as administrator,
replacing an unnamed Gardena predecessor. Of the six pre-
existing departments, new personnel have been designated
department heads in three of them, and a seventh depart-
ment-social services-has been created by Respondent.
Respondent has also entered into contractual relationships
with new, "outside" consultants in the dietary, medical rec-
ords, physical therapy and occupational therapy depart-
ments at higher rates of pay than those paid by Gardena to
counterpart consultants under the old operation. In addi-
tion, Respondent has entered into new "patient transfer
agreements"9 with various area hospitals with which Garde-
na had also had such agreements, and has also entered into
such agreements with two other hospitals with whom Gar-
dena had not had such agreements. Moreover, as previously
noted, Respondent's leasehold interest in the Hospital is
different from Gardena's in that it is for a 5-year term, with
a purchase-option feature. Finally, Respondent has ex-
pended $35,000 of a total projected expenditure of $60,000
in "refurbishing and furnishing" the offices, lobby and pa-
tients' rooms, including new wallpaper and panelling, fresh
coats of paint, some new floorings, and the acquisition of
$5,000 worth of oil paintings.
111. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Contrary to Respondent's contentions discussed below, I
conclude that, in assuming the operations of the Hospital
on July I under the circumstances outlined above, Respon-
dent assumed the obligations imposed upon a "successor"
employer, as set forth by the Supreme Court in N. LR.B. v.
Burns International Security Services, Inc., 406 U.S. 272
(1972), and that the rights of the Hospital's employees to
collective representation were not curtailed by what
amounted here to ". . . a mere change of employers or of
ownership in the employing industry .... " Burns, supra at
I By letters dated August 2 and August 22. the Union sought recognition
and bargaining with Respondent, the August 22 letter also containing an
offer to submit authorization cards for third-party verification of the Union's
majority support. Respondent ignored those requests.
I Stipulated at the hearing to be bilateral arrangements between a hospital
and a nursing home setting terms for transfer of patients from nursing home
to hospital, or vice versa.
597
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
279. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent was un-
der a legal obligation to recognize and bargain with the
Union in the established unit when it succeeded Gardena as
the operator of the Hospital and the employer of the em-
ployees who worked there.
In seeking a contrary ruling, Respondent places emphasis
in its brief on the fact that, unlike the situation in Burns,
supra, the Union had not been recently "certified" by the
Board as the employees' representatives. Respondent's reli-
ance on this point is misplaced. The cited passage from
Burns plainly did not purport to limit the Board's applica-
tion of the successorship doctrine solely to situations involv-
ing "certified"-let alone "recently certified"-labor or-
ganizations. The Board has so held, with the approval of
reviewing courts, in cases, as here, involving unions whose
representative status derived from prior recognition, rather
than certification. See, e.g., Eklund's Sweden House Inn,
Inc., 203 NLRB 413, 416 (1973); Stockton Door Co., Inc.,
218 NLRB 1053, 1054 (1975), enfd. 547 F.2d 489 (9th Cir.
1976); see also Potter's Drug Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Pot-
ter's Chalet Drug and Potter's Westpark Drug, 233 NLRB
15 (1977), enfd. 584 F.2d 980 (9th Cir. 1978).
While not linked to specific argument or citation to au-
thority, Respondent also emphasizes in its brief the
"changes" which it instituted upon its takeover of the Hos-
pital. Suffice it to say that such "changes" as expenditures
for interior decorating, replacement of some (but not all)
department heads, acquisition of new and higher-paid con-
sultants, and entering into "patient transfer" arrangements
with two more hospitals than Gardena had used, neither
affected the continuing appropriateness of the established
bargaining unit," nor in any other manner materially af-
fected the basic "continuity" of the hospital enterprise
whose operation Respondent assumed. Howard Johnson
Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, 417 U.S.
249 (1974); see also, e.g., Boston-Needham Industrial Clean-
ing Co., Inc., 216 NLRB 26, 27 (1975); C.M.E., Inc., 225
NLRB 514 (1976); Potter's Drug Enterprises, supra at 17, fn.
4. Similarly, the fact of Respondent's unilateral grant of
wage increases to many employees in the bargaining unit
after takeover, absent some showing (never made herein)
that the increases were linked to substantial changes in unit
employees' job duties or functions, or to substantial opera-
tional changes affecting the continuing appropriateness of
the bargaining unit, does not alter the essential continuity
of the employment relationship for purposes of application
of the doctrine of successorship. Foodway of El Paso, a Di-
vision of Kimbell Foods, Inc., 201 NLRB 933, 936-937
(1973).12
i0 Citing language in Burns, supra at 281, in which the Court stated that
there was ". .. little basis for faulting the Board's... ordering the [successor
employer to bargain with the incumbent union [under circumstancesl . . .
where the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of the employ-
ees hired by the new employer are represented by a recently certified bargain-
ing agent .... " (Emphasis supplied.)
Burns, supra at 280), fn. 4.
2 Moreover, inasmuch as it is found hereafter that Respondent's obliga-
tion to bargain with the Union concerning, inter alia, unit employees' pay
rates, had attached immediately upon its assumption of hospital operations
on July I, Respondent may now be heard to say that its illegal, unilateral
grant of pay increases affords a basis for finding that it never was under a
duty to bargain with the Union.
The complaint asserts that Respondent's violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act commenced on July 1, the takeover
date, thereby implicitly suggesting that the bargaining duty
attached on that date.', I agree.
This case involves one of the situations discussed in
Burns in which it was "perfectly clear"" at the point of
takeover that Respondent's complement of employees in a
continuing appropriate unit would be composed, in the
main, of employees of the predecessor. Nor does Respon-
dent argue otherwise. Under such circumstances, Respon-
dent's obligation was to ". . . consult with the employees'
bargaining representative before ... [fixing initial] terms" of
employment,' 5 and that obligation was breached by the uni-
lateral announcement and grant of wage increases immedi-
ately following Respondent's assumption of operations.
Having concluded for the reasons discussed above that
the complaint has been sustained and that Respondent's
asserted defenses are without merit, I hereby render the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a
Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital, Garde-
na, California, is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Hospital and Service Employees Local
399, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The following-described unit of Respondent's employ-
ees is an appropriate one for collective-bargaining pur-
poses:
Included: All dietary employees, maids, janitors,
storekeepers, maintenance employees, grounds keep-
' The date on which such duty attached is of some significance since
Respondent admittedly instituted wage rate changes on a unilateral basis
immediately upon takeover.
"' Burns, supra at 294-295. Problems in interpretation and application of
the cited passage sometimes occur in cases where, unlike here, the post-
takeover complement is initially composed of mostly predecessor employees
due to an unusual and drastic shrinkage from the unit's "normal" size, but
the eventual "full complement" proves to consist of a majority of "new
hires." See and compare, e.g., differing Board and court approaches in Pa-
cific Hide & Fur Depot, Inc., 223 NLRB 1029 (1976), enforcement denied 553
F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1977). No such problem is posed herein where the succes-
sor's eventual unit complement of 87 (as of September 25) was not signifi-
candy greater than the pre-takeover complement of 80, and all of the unit
employees as of July 1, i.e. 57, were carried over from the predecessor opera-
tion. It was, therefore, "perfectly clear" at takeover that any post-takeover
hiring needed to bring the unit back to full strength would not involve the
hire of so many new employees as to undermine the evident "majority"
existing at the point of takeover. Thus, while I would be bound to follow the
Board's approach in any case, nothing in the present analysis would appear
to conflict with the admonition of the Ninth Circuit that these determina-
tions are not to be made ". . . by the application of a mathematical formula
but only by considering the facts of each case in light of the general goal
which is sought-to assure majority rule within the new employer's unit
.... Pacific Hide & Fur, supra at 613. Put another way the temporary
reduction in size of the immediate post-takeover complement herein was so
"slight" as to be ". . . presumed not to affect the majority status of the
representative." Fabsteel Company oLouisiana, 231 NLRB 372, 378 (1977),
enfd. 587 F.2d 689 (5th Cir. 1979).
" Ibid
598
ALONDRA NURSING HOME AND CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL
ers, orderlies, nurses aides, licensed vocational
nurses, and laboratory helpers employed at Alondra
Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital in Garde-
na, California.
Excluded: All professional employees, including
physicians and registered nurses, all office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
4. At all times material, including on and after July 1.,
1978, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the above-described
unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By failing and refusing, on and after July 1, 1978, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of its employees in the
above-described unit, including by its failure to give the
Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain thereon
before implementing changes in the wage rates of said unit
employees from those paid by its predecessor, Gardena
Health Services, Inc., Respondent has, by each of said acts
or defaults, and by their totality, violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (I) of the Act.
6. Those violations of the Act, occurring in connection
with Respondent's operations, have a close, intimate and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic and commerce
among the several states, and tend to lead, and have led, to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act, as follows:
Because Respondent totally disregarded its obligation
upon takeover of the Hospital to recognize and bargain
with the Union as its employees' representative, I shall rec-
ommend that Respondent be ordered to confer such recog-
nition upon the Union and, at the Union's request, to bar-
gain collectively with it concerning all appropriate subjects
affecting employment terms and conditions in the unit. In-
asmuch as Respondent engaged in impermissible unilateral
changes affecting such terms and conditions in derogation
of the Union's status as exclusive representative, I shall fur-
ther recommend that Respondent, at the Union's request,
cancel any changes from terms and conditions of employ-
ment enjoyed by unit employees before the July I takeover,
as established in the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Union and Respondent's predecessor, Gardena,
or as otherwise established,'6 and reinstate said previous
terms and conditions; and make said unit employees whole
for any losses which they may have suffered as a conse-
quence of Respondent's unilateral approach to setting em-
ployment terms and conditions after the July I takeover.
This would include, if need be, retroactive payment of
wages and restoration of benefits lost from the date on
'1 See, e.g., Bellingham Frozen Foods, a Division of San Juan Packers etc,
237 NLRB 1450 (1978).
which such losses or detriment were incurred, together with
interest on any monetary amounts owing, computed in ac-
cordance with the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpora-
tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, generally, Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 139 NLRB 716 (1962), enforcement denied on
other grounds, 322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1963).1?
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER" s
The Respondent, Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a
Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital, Garde-
na, California its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and to bargain col-
lectively with the Union in the unit found appropriate
herein, including by:
(b) Making changes in the wages, hours of work, or other
terms or conditions of employment of said unit employees
from those in existence immediately prior to July 1, 1978, as
established in the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Union and Respondent's predecessor, Gardena Health
Services, Inc., or as otherwise established, without first giv-
ing the Union reasonable advance notice thereof and a rea-
sonable opportunity to bargain thereon.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively in
good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of all employees employed in the
bargaining unit heretofore found appropriate and described
in Conclusion of Law 3, above, respecting rates of pay,
wages, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of em-
ployment and, should any understandings or agreements be
reached, upon request, embody the same in a signed, writ-
ten agreement.
(b) Upon the Union's request, cancel any unilateral
changes made on or after its July 1, 1978, assumption of
operations at Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent
Hospital regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or
other terms and conditions of employment which were in
i' As noted above, the only "change" in this regard appeanng in the rec-
ord was the grant of wage increases to substantial numbers of unit employ-
ees. Accordingly, absent such a "cancellation" request from the Union and
to avoid use of the Board's processes to deprive unit employees of a benefit
already conferred, nothing in the proposed remedy is intended to require
Respondent to rescind such benefits as were granted. Bellingham Frozen
Foods, supra at 36, fn. 30. Whether any actual detriment to unit employees
resulted from any post-takeover changes may be determined, if need be, at
the compliance stage of these proceedings. See, e.g., Allied Mills, Inc., 218
NLRB 281, 290 (1975).
'" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
599
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
effect immediately prior to said July assumption of opera-
tions, and reinstate said prior terms and conditions, all as
set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Make whole any unit employees who suffered losses
or detriment as a consequence of any unilateral changes
affecting rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other terms
and conditions of employment occurring on or after its July
I assumption of operations at Alondra Nursing Home and
Convalescent Hospital, in the manner set forth above in the
Section entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents all payroll and other records necessary to compute
any "make whole" requirements to which it may be bound
as a consequence of this Order, and consistent with the
section above entitled "The Remedy."
(e) Post at Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent
Hospital, Gardena, California, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being
duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply herewith.
19 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
600