Alternative Community Living, Inc. d/b/a New Passages Behavioral Health and Rehabilitation Services

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 29, 2016

07-CA-158059 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

JD–97–16
Pontiac, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
WASHINGTON, DC
ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY LIVING, INC.
d/b/a NEW PASSAGES BEHAVIORIAL
HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES

and Case: 07–CA–158059
LOCAL 517M, SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION (SEIU)

Eric Cockrell, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Gregory J. Bator, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CHRISTINE E. DIBBLE, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit,
Michigan, on June 16, 2016. Local 517M, SEIU (Charging Union) filed the charge on August
14, 2015,1 and the General Counsel issued the complaint and notice of hearing on February 25,
2016. Alternative Community Living, Inc. d/b/a New Passages Behavioral Health and
Rehabilitation Services (Respondent) filed a timely answer denying all material allegations. (GC
Exhs. 1(a) to 1(j).)2
The complaint alleges that Respondent failed to give the Charging Union prior notice and
did not afford the Charging Union an opportunity to bargain with Respondent over its failure to
pay the third and final installment of a bonus to bargaining unit employees in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA/the Act).3

1 All dates are 2015 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for transcript; “GC Exh.” for General
Counsel’s exhibit; “R. Exh.” for Respondent’s exhibit; “CU Exh.” for Charging Union’s exhibit; “ALJ
Exh.” for administrative law judge’s exhibit; “Jt. Exh.” for joint exhibit; “GC Br.” for General Counsel’s
brief; “R. Br.” for Respondent’s brief; and “CP Br.” for Charging Union’s brief. My findings and
conclusions are based on my review and consideration of the entire record.
3 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
JD–97–16
On the entire stipulated record, and after considering the briefs filed by the General
Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
5
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation, provides services and housing for people with mental and, or
physical disabilities and the elderly at its facility in Michigan, where it annually exceeds
$100,000 in gross revenue. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in 10
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES15
Based on the parties’ stipulations, I find as follows
I. The record in this case consists of the Formal Documents GC 1(a-j);
General Counsel Exhibit 2; Joint Exhibits J1-J2; and the Stipulation of Facts. 20
A. GC Exhibit 2 (GC-2)
Alternative Community Living, Inc. d/b/a New Passages Behavioral Health and
Rehabilitation Services, 362 NLRB No. 55 (March 31, 2015). 25
B. Joint Exhibits
1. The executed "New Passages/SEUI RA's Contract 2009- 2011" between the
Charging Party and Respondent. (J-1) 30
2. The unilaterally-implemented collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) "NEW
PASSAGES BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & REHABILITATION SERVICES," dated
MAY 5, 2013 TO NOVEMBER 30, 2016. (J-2)
35
C. The Stipulation of Facts:4
1. Since 2006, the Charging Party has represented about 315 employees in the unit set
forth below at Respondent’s about 30 group homes located within the State of
Michigan. 40

4 This stipulation is made without prejudice to any objection that any party may have as to
the relevancy of any facts stated herein.
JD–97–16
3
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regularly scheduled part-time direct care workers and case managers
employed by the Respondent in its various group homes located in Bay, Saginaw,
Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Jackson, Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb, Lapeer, Livingston, 5
and Sanilac counties in the State of Michigan but excluding all line managers,
targeted case managers, directors, human resource personnel, nurses, administration
assistants, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees.
2. The parties’ executed 2009–2011 collective –bargaining agreement (CBA) between 10
Respondent and the Charging Party as provided on page 10 (J-1, p. TO) provided:
ARTICLE
ONE TIME MONETARY PAYMENT 15
Upon ratification all bargaining unit employees will receive a one time monetary
payment no later than two pay periods after the ratification of the contract.
The one time monetary payment schedule shall be as follows: Employees with 5
years of service or less counting backward from the date of ratification[:] $150.00
Employees with +5 years of service counting backward from the date of20
ratification: $200.00
3. Per the above 2009–2 0 1 1 CBA article (J-1, p 10), in about early 2010, Respondent
paid one-time ratification Monetary Payment to unit employees upon ratification of the
2009–2011 CBA (J-1). 25
4. On May 5, 2013, Respondent declared impasse and implemented its last, best, and
final offer in the form of a 2013–2016 CBA with effective dates of May 5, 2013 to
November 30, 2016 (J-2), which implementation became the subject of Case 07–CA–
099976. 30
5. On March 31, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order
in Alternative Community Living, Inc. d/b/a New Passages Behavioral Health and
Rehabilitation Services, 362 NLRB No. 55 (2015) (Case 07–CA–099976) (GC-2)
finding that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act 35
(the Act) by unilaterally implementing its final offer (J-2) at a time when the parties had not
reached a valid impasse.
Paragraph 2(b) of the Board Decision and Order (GC-2) provides, in its entirety:
40
Restore to the unit employees the terms and conditions of employment that were
applicable prior to May 5, 2013, and continue them in effect until the parties reach either
an agreement or a valid impasse in bargaining. Nothing herein shall require the rescission
of any ratification bonus or other benefits granted after May 5, 2013.
45
6. Respondent’s unilaterally implemented 2013–2016 CBA on pages 12–13 (J-2)
provided as follows:
JD–97–16
4
ARTICLE __ __5 - MONETARY PAYMENTS
Upon ratification all bargaining unit employees will receive a monetary payment no later
than two pay periods after the ratification of the contract. These payments will be paid in 5
a separate paycheck.
The monetary payment schedule shall be as follows after ratification:
First Payment: 10
Employees with 5 years of service or less counting backward from
the date of ratification: $100.00
Employees with 5 years of service of more counting backward from 15
the date of ratification: $110.00
Second Payment:
Employees will have the following monetary payment no later than two pay periods after 20
the following date[:] July 1, 2014:
Employees with 5 years of service or less counting backward from July 1, 2014, will
receive the following amount[:] $105.00
25
Employees with 5 years of service or more counting backward from July 1, 2014, will
receive the following amount[:] $120.00
Third Payment:
30
Employees will have the following monetary payment no later than two pay periods after
the following date[:] July 1, 2015:
Employees with 5 years of service or less counting backward from July 1, 2015, will
receive the following amount[:] $110.00 35
Employees with 5 years of service o[r] more counting backward From July 1, 2015, will
receive the following amount[:] $125.00
7. On or about July 1, 2013, Respondent paid unit employees pursuant to the unilaterally 40
implemented 2013-2016 CBA, ARTICLE MONETARY PAYMENTS (J-2, pp. 12-13) as
follows:
First Payment:
45

5 The unilaterally implemented 2013–2016 CBA (J-2) does not have article numbers.
JD–97–16
5
Employees with 5 years of service or less counting backward from the date of
ratification: $100.00
Employees with 5 years of service or more counting backward from the date of
ratification: $110.00 5
8. On or about July 1, 2014, Respondent paid unit employees pursuant to the unilaterally
implemented 2013–2016 CBA, ARTICLE MONETARY PAYMENTS (J-2, pp. 12–13)
as follows:
10
Second payment:
Employees with 5' years of service or less counting backward from July 2014: $105.00
Employees with 5 years of service or more counting backward from July 1, 2014: 15
$120.00
9. On about July 1, 2015, Respondent did not pay unit employees pursuant to the
unilaterally implemented 2013–2016 CBA, ARTICLE_MONETARY PAYMENTS (J-2,
pp. 12–13), as follows. 20
Third Payment:
Employees with 5 years of service or less counting backward from July 1,2015, will
receive the following amount[:] $110.00 25
Employees with 5 years of service o[r] more counting backward From July 1, 2015, will
receive the following amount[:] $125.00
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS30
The General Counsel contends that Respondent’s failure to pay the July 1, 2015
installment of its bonus constitutes a unilateral change in violation of the Act. Respondent
counters that this matter does not “fall under the prohibition on unilateral changes in terms and
conditions during bargaining after expiration of a contract under NLRB v. Katz, 369 US 736 35
(1962) because New Passages did not unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the
restored 2009-2011 Contract.” (R. Br. 3.)
The good-faith standard is used by the courts and the Board to determine if the parties
have met their obligation to bargain under the Act. The Board takes a case-by-case approach in
assessing whether parties have met, conferred, and negotiated in good faith. National Licorice 40
Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350 (1940) (the Court adopted the “good-faith” standard for an
employer’s conduct); St. George Warehouse, Inc., 349 NLRB 870 (2007) (the Board reviews the
totality of the employer’s conduct in deciding if the employer has satisfied its obligation to
confer in good faith). The duty to bargain, however, only arises if the changes are “material,
substantial and significant.” Alamo Cement Co., 281 NLRB 737, 738 (1986); Flambeau Airmold 45
JD–97–16
6
Corp., 334 NLRB 165, 171 (2001). The General Counsel bears the burden of establishing this
element of the prima facie case. North Star Steel Co., 347 NLRB 1364, 1367 (2006).
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 5
over such changes. See NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 747 (1962). In order to find that an
employer made unilateral changes to an employee benefit in violation of the Act, it must be
shown that (1) material changes were made to the employees’ terms and conditions of
employment; (2) the changes involved mandatory subjects of bargaining; (3) the employer failed
to notify the union of the proposed changes; and (4) the union did not have an opportunity to 10
bargain with respect to the changes. San Juan Teachers Assn., 355 NLRB 172, 175 (2010).
Alamo Cement Co., supra; Flambeau Airmold Corp., supra.
The General Counsel alleges that Board law supports a finding that Respondent’s action
in denying employees the third and final installment of a bonus payment constitutes an unlawful 15
unilateral change in employees’ terms and conditions of employment in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The General Counsel also argues that the case at issue is similar to
Mining Specialist (Mining Specialists III), 335 NLRB 1275 (2001), enfd. 326 F.3d 602 (4th Cir.
2003)6, where the Board found a violation because “during the pendency of the initial litigation,
the respondent established a production bonus plan, but unilaterally discontinued it a few months20
later after the Board ordered the respondent to comply with the parties’ agreement and make the
employees whole for its failure to apply the contractual terms and conditions.” (GC Br. 7.)
Moreover, the Board held that under the terms of its original order, the employer was obligated
to make the employees whole for the employer’s decision to discontinue the bonus. Mining
Specialists III, 335 NLRB at 1277. According to the General Counsel, although not a part of the 25
2009–2011 CBA, the third bonus became a benefit Respondent could not unilaterally refuse to
pay because the employees would have reasonably assumed it was a benefit granted on or about
May 5, 2013, when Respondent announced it was implementing its best and final offer in the
form of a 2013–2016 CBA, which included the third bonus payment.
30
Respondent rejects the reasoning that its action is a unilateral change in terms and
conditions “during bargaining after expiration of a contract”, and therefore, governed by Katz.
(R. Br. 3.) Respondent contends under “the NLRB’s Order, the parties were operating under the
extended 2009–2011 Contract on that date. The extended 2009–2011 Contract did not provide
for any monetary payment to employees on that date.” Id. Payment of the third and final 35
installment of the bonus to bargaining unit employees would have been, according to
Respondent, a unilateral increase in benefits to bargaining unit employees in violation of the Act.
NLRB v. Fitzgerald Mills Co., 313 F.2d 260, 267 (2d Cir. 1963). Respondent argues that as a
result of the NLRB Order, it followed the explicit language of the restored 2009–2011 contract
by not rescinding the two bonus payments already paid, while also recognizing that the third and 40
final payment was not a part of the NLRB’s Order. Respondent emphasized that “[u]pon the
NLRB’s order to restore the 2009–-2011 Contract, there was no further obligation on the part of
New Passages to grant the Third Payment under the 2013–2016 CBA.” (R. Br. 5.)

6 The Board’s Decision and Order in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding in the case is
reported at 314 NLRB 268 (1994) (Mining Specialist I). The Board’s initial Supplemental Decision and
Order in the compliance proceeding is reported at 330 NLRB 99 (1999) (Mining Specialist II).
JD–97–16
7
Based on the evidence, I find that the Respondent’s failure to pay the final bonus was an
unlawful unilateral action; and Respondent failed to afford the Charging Union with an
opportunity to bargain with Respondent over the conduct and the effects of that conduct.
5
The General Counsel correctly notes that the Board has consistently held that a unilateral
change is unlawful from the time it is announced even if the change has not yet been
implemented. ABC Automotive Products Corp., 307 NLRB 248, 249–250 (1992); Century Wine
& Spirits, 304 NLRB 338, 347 (1991); CJC Holdings, 320 NLRB 1041, 1047 (1996).
Consequently, in the matter at hand, the change to the bonus structure would have been 10
considered implemented on about May 5, 2013, when Respondent announced to the Charging
Union that it was unilaterally implementing its best and final offer in the form of the 2013–2016
CBA. This CBA notably included the third and final installment for payment of a bonus to
bargaining unit employees. Moreover, Respondent’s payment of the first installment in July
2013 and the second installment in July 2014 would have conveyed to the employees that the 15
new bonus structure had been implemented, and therefore, it was not unreasonable for them to
expect to receive the third and final installment under the newly implemented CBA. Irrespective
of the Board’s March 31, 2015 Order, Board law is clear that “to the extent that a respondent’s
unlawful failure to apply the terms of the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement may have
led to improved terms and conditions of employment for unit employees, the Board’s Order shall 20
not be construed as requiring or permitting the Respondent to rescind any such improvements
unless requested to do so by the union.” Mining Specialist III, supra at 1283. There is no
evidence that the Charging Union made such a request.
Therefore, the question becomes whether the bonus is a mandatory subject of bargaining. 25
In Axelson, Inc., 234 NLRB 414, 415 (1978), the Board defined mandatory subjects of
bargaining as,7
those comprised in the phrase “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment” as set forth in Section 8(d) of the Act. While the language is broad, 30
parameters have been established, although not quantified. The touchstone is whether or
not the proposed clause sets a term or condition of employment or regulates the relation
between the employer and its employees.
Wages and benefits are considered mandatory subjects of bargaining. 29 U.S.C. § 158(d); See35
Also NLRB v. Frontier Homes Corp., 371 F.2d 974, 978 (8th Cir. 1967). Wages have been
defined broadly by the courts and the Board. Waxie Sanitary Supply, 337 NLRB 303, 304 (2001)
(holding that a holiday bonus is a mandatory bargaining subject if employer’s conduct raises the
employees’ reasonable expectation that the bonus will be paid); Laurel Bay Health &
Rehabilitation Center, 353 NLRB 232 (2008) (merit increase is a mandatory subject of 40
bargaining); Mining Specialist III, at 1283 (“bonus was a mandatory subject of bargaining since
it was compensation for services rendered and not a gift”); NLRB v. Katz, supra at 746 (merit
wage increase is a mandatory subject of bargaining). It is apparent that Respondent’s failure to
pay the third and final installment of a bonus involves wages and, therefore, is included in the
definition of mandatory subjects of bargaining. Therefore, a unilateral change to the payment of 45

7 Operating Engineers Local 12 (Assn. General Contractors)), 187 NLRB 430, 432 (1970).
JD–97–16
8
the bonus without affording the employees’ representative an opportunity to bargain of the
change is a violation of the Act.
Moreover, Respondent’s implementation of the elimination of the third and final bonus
payment significantly impacts the union’s ability to represent its unit employees in disputes that 5
are “those most essential of employee concerns—rates of pay, wages, hours, and conditions of
employment.” Arizona Portland Cement Co., 302 NLRB 36, 44 (1991). In implementing the
unilateral change at issue, the bargaining unit employees lost a portion of their wages. I therefore
find that the changes are material, substantial and significant. Unless a valid impasse has been
reached, an employer cannot make unilateral changes to the terms and conditions of 10
employment. Newcor Bay City Division, 345 NLRB 1229, 1237 (2005) (defining a bargaining
impasse as the “situation where ‘good-faith negotiations have exhausted the prospects of
concluding an agreement).
Next, I turn to the question of whether the Union was provided with a reasonable 15
opportunity to bargain. It is undisputed that Respondent did not provide the Charging Union any
opportunity to bargain over the elimination of the third and final bonus payment because
Respondent decided the NLRB’ Order negated any further obligation it had to pay the third
installment under the 2013–2016 CBA. Consequently, the stipulated record is devoid of evidence
that the parties have engaged in good-faith negotiations and exhausted the prospects of an 20
agreement over the third bonus payment.
Accordingly, Respondent wrongfully concluded that the Board’s decision and order
entitled it to unilaterally eliminate the third and final bonus payment to unit employees.
Therefore, Respondent’s refusal to pay it constituted a unilateral change to employees’ terms and 25
conditions of employment without affording the Charging Union an opportunity to bargain in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
30
1. Respondent, Alternative Community Living, Inc. d/b/a New Passages Behavioral
Health and Rehabilitation Services, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Service Employee International Union is a labor organization within the meaning 35
of Section 2(5) of the Act and serves as the labor representative of Respondent’s employees in
the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regularly scheduled part-time direct care workers and case
managers employed by the Respondent in its various group homes located in Bay, 40
Saginaw, Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Jackson, Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb,
Lapeer, Livingston, and Sanilac counties in the State of Michigan but excluding
all line managers, targeted case managers, directors, human resource personnel,
nurses, administration assistants, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
and all other employees. 45
JD–97–16
9
3. By failing and refusing to make bonus payments to employees on July 1, 2015,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally changing employees’
terms and conditions of employment without affording the Union a good-faith opportunity to
bargain.
5
4. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
10
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order
it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The Respondent, having discriminatorily eliminated the third and final bonus payment 15
must reinstate the payment to unit employees and make them whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits they suffered as a result of the discrimination against them from the date of the
discrimination to the date remedy is effectuated. Backpay, because of the unlawful unilateral act
of eliminating the third and final bonus payment, shall be computed in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as provided in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 20
1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6
(2010).
Respondent shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay,
if applicable, to the appropriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also compensate the 25
employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay
awards covering periods longer than 1 year, Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361
NLRB No. 10 (2014).
The Respondent must also bargain in good faith with the Union over the aforementioned 30
mandatory subject of bargaining.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended8
35
ORDER
Respondent, Alternative Community Living, Inc. d/b/a New Passages Behavioral Health
and Rehabilitation Services, Pontiac, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
40
1. Cease and desist from

8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–97–16
10
(a) Eliminating the third and final bonus payment or making other changes to the terms
and conditions of employment of unit employees as previously defined, without first
notifying the Union and giving the Union the opportunity to bargain:
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in 5
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) Within 14 days of request by the Union, make employees in the bargaining unit, as 10
previously defined, whole by paying them the third and final bonus that should have been paid
on July 1, 2015, with interest, to the extent the Respondent has not already done so.
(b) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit, as previously defined, concerning terms and conditions of employment 15
and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regularly scheduled part-time direct care workers and case
managers employed by the Respondent in its various group homes located in Bay,
Saginaw, Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Jackson, Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb, 20
Lapeer, Livingston, and Sanilac counties in the State of Michigan but excluding
all line managers, targeted case managers, directors, human resource personnel,
nurses, administration assistants, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
and all other employees.
25
(c) File a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the
appropriate calendar quarters.
(d) Make whole all unit employees whose bonuses were withheld on about July 1, 2015,
with interest computed in accordance with Board policy.30
(e) On request, bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement reached
on terms and conditions of employment for employees in the bargaining unit.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Michigan, copies of 35
the attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such 40
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

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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered
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 expe
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since July 1, 2015.5
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible offi
the Respondent has taken to comply.
10
Dated: Washington, D.C. September 29

15

11
, defaced, or covered by
nse, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
cial on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
, 2016
Christine E. Dibble
Administrative Law Judge
JD–97–16
(CED)
JD–97–16
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMLOYEES
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union;
Choose a representative to bargain with us on your behalf;
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection;
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the above rights.
WE WILL NOT fail to pay you the third and final installment of a bonus.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with Local
517M, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit at our
Michigan facilities:
All full-time and regularly scheduled part-time direct care workers
and case managers employed by the Respondent in its various group
homes located in Bay, Saginaw, Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Jackson,
Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb, Lapeer, Livingston, and Sanilac
counties in the State of Michigan but excluding all line managers,
targeted case managers, directors, human resource personnel,
nurses, administration assistants, and guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act and all other employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with your rights under Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner fail and refuse to bargain collectively and
in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our
employees in the unit at our Michigan facilities.
WE WILL make whole all unit employees whose bonuses were withheld on about July
1, 2015, with interest computed in accordance with Board policy.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the unit at our
Michigan facilities.
JD–97–16
Alternative Community Living, Inc., d/b/a New
Passages Behavioral Health and Rehabilitation
Services
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
National Labor Relations Board
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building
477 Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
Detroit, Michigan 48226-2543
Telephone: (313) 226-3200
Fax: (313) 226-2090
TTY: (800) 877-0996
Hours of Operation: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. ET
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-158059 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National
Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE
OFFICER.