Barnwell Nursing Home & Health Facillty, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 450 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Barnwell Nursing Home & Health Facility, Inc. and
Local 200, General Service Employees' Union,
S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-6738
June 24, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
WALTHER
On March 15, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the 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
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Barnwell Nurs-
ing Home and Health Facility, Inc., Valatie, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Although we agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion
that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX3) and (I) by discriminatorily discharg-
ing employee Patricia Coe, Respondent's exceptions necessitate the
following comments:
Respondent correctly notes that the Administrative Law Judge errone-
ously identified an anonymous receptionist as the secretary to Personnel
Consultant Peter Nalen. The error is insignificant in view of credited
testimony that employees Van-Allen and Bergeson contacted the reception-
ist on September 9. 1976. in order to arrange an employee meeting with
Nalen, the receptionist called back to confirm a I p.m. meeting time, and
Nalen routinely convened the meeting as he had done on previous
occasions. The Administrative Law Judge properly found from such
evidence that Respondent's agents authorized the employee meeting,
thereby rebutting the contention that Coe unilaterally and without authority
called her fellow employees to a meeting.
Furthermore, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Peter
Nalen, whether his official title is personnel consultant or manager, acted as
Respondent's agent. was authorized to exercise labor relations powers, and
actively participated in the decision to fire Coe. The result herein would not
differ, however, even if we accepted Respondent's contention that Director
of Nursing Services Lillian Meskie was solely responsible for Coe's
discharge. According to Coe's credited testimony. Meskie evidenced
230 NLRB No. 64
discriminatory animus and knowledge of Coe's union and other concerted
activities when, a few hours prior to the termination of Coe's employment,
she threatened Coe with discharge in violation of Sec. 8(aXI). In the absence
of any credible legitimate grounds for Coe's discharge, evidence of such a
threat and its prompt realization would clearly warrant finding an 8(aX3)
violation.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. RiccI, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
in this proceeding was held at Albany, New York, on
January 13 and 14, 1977, on complaint of the General
Counsel against Barnwell Nursing Home and Health
Facility, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Compa-
ny. The complaint issued on October 29, 1976, on a charge
filed on September 15, 1976, by Local 200, General Service
Employees, S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO, herein called the Union.
The essential issue of the case is whether the Respondent
discharged Patricia Coe because of her concerted and
prounion activities and thereby violated Section 8(aX)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent maintains its principal place of business
in Valatie, New York, where it is engaged in the business of
providing health care and related services to nursing home
patients. During the past year, it received gross revenues in
excess of $100,000, and purchased, transferred, and
delivered to its Valatie facility goods and materials valued
in excess of $100,000. During the same period it purchased
and had delivered to its facility goods and materials valued
in excess of $10,000 which were transferred to that facility
from out-of-state sources. I find that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that Local 200, General Service Employees Union,
S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
I11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Beginning in April 1976 there was a move among the
Respondent's employees to join a union. The employees
talked the matter over among themselves and decided
Patricia Coe would take the necessary first steps for all. She
obtained a number of authorization cards in favor of Local
200 and together with several other girls distributed them
among the total group. She also handed out leaflets,
literature, union buttons, and fliers in the parking lot, at
lunch inside the building and elsewhere, a number of times
during several weeks. A petition for a Board-conducted
election was filed on or about the first of June and an
election was held on June 29. The Union lost in the
450
BARNWELL NURSING HOME & HEALTH FACILITY
balloting, and the girls continued their concerted efforts to
improve their conditions of employment.
Coe was discharged on September 9. In support of the
defense, four members of management testified - Gladys
Bownes, the owner of the business and co-administrator;
Clinton Steuerwald, her son and administrator; Peter
Nalen, personnel director or manager; and Lillian Meskie,
director of nursing services. The first three said they had
nothing to do with the discharge decision; they passed that
responsibility on to Meskie, who testified the determina-
tion was entirely hers. Nalen even said unequivocally at the
hearing that he had no authority to fire or discharge
anyone. And while it is a fact of record that the owner, her
son, and the personnel director knew of Coe's participation
in the Union and concerted activities, Meskie said more
than once she had no knowledge of that particular
employee's union sentiments until after her dismissal. The
weakness, and the fundamental unreliability of the entire
defense of discharge for cause, starts emerging from these
first assertions. Meskie was present at the election on June
29, 2 months before Coe's discharge. Coe was the union
observer at the election and signed the certification on
conduct as representative of Local 200. Nalen is the person
who on behalf of the Company personally fired Coe. He
had signed the tally of ballots as the agent for the employer
that day. Having seen Coe as the Union's representative at
the election, Meskie had to know of her prounion feelings
before the girl was discharged; it follows therefore that she
lied at the hearing. And Nalen's statement under oath that
he has no authority to discharge also had to be false, if only
because he in fact did fire the girl.
Without necessity for detailing here every jot and tittle of
evidence, the record shows clearly that it has long been a
practice in this home for groups of employees to meet with
Nalen to discuss with him any common grievances they
have, or complaints directly relating to conditions of
employment. The system has been for one of the employees
to speak to the receptionist, who is also Nalen's secretary,
to inquire when he would be available and when the group
could meet with him. The receptionist would then check
with Nalen and call back to tell the employees where and
when Nalen would see them. At the appointed hour,
usually three girls from each floor - there are four work
floors, each with six girls on duty - would go to the
conference room next to Nalen's office and discuss their
problems with him. In this way there is always a cadre of
employees on duty on each floor, presumably sufficient at
the particular hour of the day chosen by Nalen for the
meeting.
There were several such meetings during 1976. A
recurring subject of complaint by the employees was the
shortage of both necessary supplies and help. They asked
for more linens, more wheelchairs, and more labor help
because the current staff had too much trouble keeping up
with the workload necessary to care for all the patients
properly. It was a meeting with Nalen exactly of this kind
- the employees complaining, among other things, about
supplies and labor shortages - that took place on
September 9, and which Meskie said at the hearing had
been called by Coe "individually . . . without authority"
and therefore justified immediate discharge.
There was a significant sequence of events that must be
clarified for better understanding the conflicting conten-
tions as to what finally happened that day. On September 2
there was a meeting in the conference room where 12 girls
talked with Nalen and Mrs. Bownes, the owner administra-
tor. It was Coe who on behalf of the group spoke to the
receptionist this time to ask whether there could be a
meeting. When she was told yes, she asked the other
employees to write down on a slip of paper what their
grievances were, and agreed she would speak for them
during the meeting. She did and after the usual talk about
shortages, the girls complained about the fact they were not
permitted to have a cup of coffee, or smoke a cigarette,
when there was a lull in the work. To satisfy them Bownes
told them "if our patients were taken care of and they were
all fed and no bells were ringing, then we could have a
cigarette." This is from the testimony of Rita Rouleau.
Another employee, Cheryl Dubois, recalled it as follows:
"Mrs. Bownes said as long as patients were taken care of,
we could sit down and have coffee and a cigarette at 8:00
in the morning." Patricia Shields, another employee
witness: "Mrs. Bownes said that while the patients were
eating breakfast, if there were no bells ringing and no
patients that we had to take care of right then, that we
could sit down and have a cigarette and a cup of coffee."
From yet another employee witness, Sherry Van Allen:
"Gladys Bownes said that while the patients were eating
their breakfast and there was nothing for us to do, there
was no bells to be answered and if our patients had been
fed, while we were waiting for the patients to finish, it
would be all right to sit down and have a cup of coffee and
a cigarette."
Bownes equivocated as a witness about what she had
said, but I deem her testimony, set out here in too, as not
contradictory to that of the employees: "Pat Coe said that
she was called down for sitting down at 8:30 for a coffee
break, and asked if they could have permission to do so. I
explained or tried to explain that when the work was done,
I did not mention time and so on, . . . Q. And what did
you say? What was your reply to them? A. My reply to
them was, there would never be criticism if they're sitting
down when, and only when the work was finished."
Meskie, the director of nursing, came to the home that
weekend, the Labor Day holiday weekend, because the
shortage of nurses and aides was so severe she had to make
beds and help tend to the patients' personal needs. At or
about 8 a.m., on Sunday, September 5, she saw all five or
six of the girls on the fifth floor sitting down and having
coffee, or juice; some of them smoking. This was during
breakfast period and while the patients were eating. Meskie
told the girls this was not permitted, and some of them got
up and walked away. Coe and Van Allen, another aide,
stayed and told the supervisor they were only doing what
Bownes had told them they could do, inasmuch as the
patients had been served and were still eating. Meskie
became indignant and expressed resentment at the fact the
owner told one thing to the help and another to the
supervisor who was responsible for seeing that work was
done. Coe and Van Allen held firm to their position, and
there was a certain antagonism between them and Meskie.
451
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In any event, Meskie did nothing about it and walked
away.
Meskie worked in the home several days thereafter and 4
days later, on September 9, at or about 9 in the morning,
called Coe to her office and gave her a written reprimand
warning, reading that it was for "conduct" and "attitude
inconsistent to good order and operation" of the home.
The written warning does not mention the smoking
incident of September 5, so that there arises a question as
to just why Meskie did this, as well as why, if it was
provoked by the smoking incident, the supervisor waited so
long before issuing the reprimand. At the hearing Meskie
implied the 4-day delay was because she did not have time
to give the warning earlier.
Coe recalled, and Meskie did not contradict her, that
when she was given the warning Meskie told her not to tell
anyone about it. If, as strongly suggested by the Respon-
dent's repeated emphasis on the September 5 smoking
incident, the fault Meskie found in Coe was neglect of the
patients during working time, the last thing she would do is
prevent passing such word around to the rest of the
employees. This attempt at concealment, together with the
implausible statement that she had had no time to write the
few words during the intervening 3 days; makes Meskie's
entire testimony most unconvincing.
Be that as it may, having received the warning, believing,
logically, that it had something to do with the smoking
incident, Coe went from Meskie's office back upstairs to
her floor and told the other employees about it. There then
developed a feeling that something should be done about
this. The girls decided to ask for another meeting with
Nalen, but this time Coe thought it best not to be the front
person. Another girl therefore called the receptionist to ask
when Nalen would be available and when a meeting of
employees could be held. And again in keeping with the
established practice, the receptionist did check with Nalen
and did call to tell the girls to come down at or about 1
p.m. They did that, and came prepared once again to also
emphasize the shortages of tools and help that were
plaguing their lives.
And again three girls came from each floor and gathered
at the designated time in the conference room. In a matter
of minutes Coe was called to Nalen's adjacent office, where
she found Meskie and the personnel director. Nalen simply
told her she was then and there fired, and Coe left.
A very revealing phrase from Nalen's testimony as to
what he did immediately upon discharging Coe merits
attention here. Asked what happened next, he said: "I went
to that room [the conference room]. I advised the aides
that the meeting would have to be brief. . . . I sat down
with the aides to see what their particular issue was....
In the light of the belabored insistence at the hearing that
the "unauthorized" meeting had been called by Coe
personally, without permission or even knowledge of either
Nalen or Meskie, this admission by the personnel director
that he calmly started to hold the usual and regular joint
conference to hear employee complaints virtually gives the
lie to the entire defense of discharge for cause. Nalen even
said that it was after he had started the meeting as always
that Meskie entered the room and called the whole thing
off. If, as the Respondent contended during the hearing in
this case, all these girls were that moment neglecting
pressing duty and disregarding rules by being down there,
the personnel manager would have sent them scurrying
right back to their posts. The truth of the matter is Nalen's
secretary did pass on to him the request for a meeting and
did, on his authority, tell the girls they could come down
and exactly when. There is no denial of all this having
taken place.
The total defense stands discredited for a more pervasive
reason. At the start of the hearing the Respondent moved
to quash a subpena, issued by the General Counsel and
calling for certain company records, on the ground it had
not been served on any agent or employee of the
Respondent. The subpena had been served on Nalen, who
throughout the hearing referred to himself as no more than
a "consultant." This position - removing Nalen complete-
ly from the entire cast of characters - was intended to fit
into Meskie's story, who said it was she who made the
decision to discharge Coe. Nalen, who in fact discharged
Coe, having been the Respondent's official representative
at the election, could hardly claim ignorance of Coe's
union activity, so he was removed via the euphemism of the
title. Meskie denied knowledge of Coe's activities, and
thereby made her claimed participation in the discharge
superficially respectable.
On cross-examination Nalen admitted he is paid by the
Respondent, has an office and a secretary in the home,
works on policies relating to terms of management of the
employees, and comes into contact with all the employees
and the supervisors. There is also uncontradicted testimony
that whenever an employee is given a reprimand or
warning notice which then goes into her personnel file, she
is called to Nalen's office, where he discusses it with her,
and sometimes asks her to sign it. At a preelection meeting
held by the Union at a public place, Nalen was invited by
Patrick, an official of the Union, to give the Employer's
version to the employees. Nalen admitted he debated the
union pros and cons with Patrick. As to his having been
present at the election, he said he signed the tally of ballots
under the Respondent's printed full name "as a consultant,
sir."
I find, considering all the evidence, that the Respondent
discharged Patricia Coe in retaliation for her persistent
concerted activities, first in the name of the Union and
thereafter in common cause with fellow employees, and
thereby violated both Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. It
is not true that Coe did anything without authorization of
the personnel director, or that she caused employees to
leave their work stations in violation of company rules. She
violated no rules when resting a few moments while the
patients were taken care of, because the owner had given
her, and the others, express permission. Had Supervisor
Meskie felt Coe's manners on September 5 merited
censure, she would have criticized, or warned her, then.
The fact is Meskie's ire was directed to Mrs. Bownes for
going over the head of the director of nurses and giving
orders to the underlings.
Meskie chose instead to issue her reprimand warning
early on the morning of September 9. On the afternoon of
September 8, Mrs. Bownes and her son, the administrator,
walked through the corridors and spoke to the aides on
452
BARNWELL NURSING HOME & HEALTH FACILITY
duty and told them, as Coe testified, to say to the patients
that a television news report about mother and son having
been indicted was not true. Bownes also said, still
according to Coe, that she and other aides had caused
trouble for the owner over the coffee drinking incident.
When Coe responded she had only done what Mrs.
Bownes had said was permitted, the son told her she could
quit the place if she did not like it there, and Bownes then
said the same thing. Bownes, testifying later, did not
contradict this; she said only that Coe was disrespectful to
her and that she "turned on [her] heels and left." The son
quoted her differently. His story is that the mother asked if
the patients were "all right," and that Coe answered
"they're all right." Both these witnesses simply stated the
general conclusion that the girl was rude.
The incident explains the timing of Meskie's issuance of
the reprimand notice the next morning. It was an obvious
implementation of a decision to start the ball rolling to get
rid of Coe and had nothing to do with any individual
misbehavior on her part.
With the management's witnesses not credible, I also
believe Coe's testimony that, when giving her the warning
notice on September 9, Meskie was very angry and said,
among other things: "[M Jy job was on the floor taking care
of the patients and she says, trouble, the union, all this, if I
hear anything more out of you, I am personally going to
escort you out the door." This was the supervisor literally
telling Coe her activities with the employees, whether
"union" or "trouble" - less than union, but concerted
nevertheless - would have to cease. I find that the threat
so spoken was a deliberate coercion and a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act chargeable to the Respondent.
But Coe did not heed. In the face of Meskie's warning to
desist, and the explicit direction not to tell other employees
about the warning notice, she simply continued generating
the same old concerted action. And the discharge followed
in a matter of hours.
About 2 weeks before the June 29 election, during a talk
with employees, Sylvia Hoose, head of the housekeeping
department and a conceded supervisor, said "that we
would be in trouble if we had signed the cards and she
knew about it." This is from the testimony of Deborah
Schermerhorn, at the time an employee in housekeeping. I
credit the employee against Hoose's denials, and I
therefore find that the head of the housekeeping depart-
ment also violated Section 8(aXI) by the threat to the
employees.
Nurse Doris Hotaling's duties include making periodic
evaluations of the employees' work performance. These
written evaluations, some received in evidence over her
signature, are kept in the employees' personnel files. When
the report is made, the employee is called to the office,
where it is discussed with her and she is asked to read it
and sign it. There are two such evaluations in evidence, one
to employee Van Allen, dated July 12, 1976, and one to
Lura Devleer, issued the same day. The first shows, in
Hotaling's handwriting, "Cherri was not obvious about her
desires for a 'Union Shop' at Barnwell. (At least not with
I 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.
me)." The second reads "Lura showed good composure
while working daily with girls whose ideas differed greatly
from her's (regarding a 'Union Shop')."
The conclusion is inescapable that when an employee is
told, in unmistakable written words, that her attitude
towards union activity bears so direct a relationship to how
the employer will weigh her value as an employee, she is
being "coerced," as that concept is set out in the statute.
Whether or not Hotaling is a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act is totally beside the point. Clearly she is the
agent of the employer for evaluating the merits of
employees in the context of their union activities. The girls
are shown these evaluations in the office of the personnel
director, and they know the records are then kept in their
personnel files. I find that, by so recording its impression of
the employees' union activity and attitude, the Respondent
violated Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set out in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Patricia Coe the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(aX3) of the Act.
2. By the foregoing conduct, by threatening to dis-
charge employees in retaliation for their union activities, by
telling employees their employment status would suffer if
the Respondent learned of their prounion activities, and by
evaluating employee performance in part on the basis of
their attitude towards union activity, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
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:
ORDER'
The Respondent, Barnwell Nursing Home and Health
Facility, Inc., Valatie, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 200, General
Service Employees Union, S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by discharging
employees or otherwise discriminating against them in
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.
453
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their employment conditions because of their membership
in or activities on behalf of the above-named or any other
labor organization.
(b) Threatening to discharge employees in retaliation for
their union activities, telling employees their employment
status would suffer if the Respondent learned of their
prounion activities, or evaluating employee performance in
part on the basis of their attitude towards union activity.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named labor
organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Patricia Coe immediate and full reinstatement
to her former position or, if such position no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make Patricia Coe whole for any loss of pay or any
benefits she may have suffered by reason of the Respon-
dent's discrimination against her.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records, and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Valatie, New York,
copies of the notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 3, after being duly signed by its representatives,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 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
Judgment 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 having found, after a
hearing, that we violated the Federal law has ordered us to
post this notice and abide by it.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 200,
General Service Employees Union, S.E.I.U., AFL-
CIO, or in any other labor organization of our
employees, by discharging any of our employees
because of their membership in, support of or activities
in favor of the above-named or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees in
retaliation for their union activities.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that their employ-
ment status will suffer if we learn of their prounion
activities.
WE WILL NOT evaluate employee performance in part
on the basis of their attitude towards union activity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist Local
200, General Service Employees Union, S.E.I.U. AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, or to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer Patricia Coe immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position or, if such position
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position.
WE WILL pay Patricia Coe for any loss of earnings
she may have suffered as a result of our discrimination
against her, plus interest at 6 percent.
BARNWELL NURSING HOME
AND HEALTH FACILITY, INC.
454