Carillon House Nursing Home

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1984

268 N.L.R.B. 589 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

CARILLON HOUSE NURSING HOME
Vincent Carillo, Joseph Carillo Jr. and Ferdinand
Carillo, a partnership d/b/a Carillon House
Nursing Home and Health Related Facility and
Charlotte Schifano
Professional Services, a Division of Propoco, Inc.'
and Charlotte Schifano. Cases 29-CA-9645 and
29-CA-9669
20 January 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
On 1 April 1983 Administrative Law Judge
James F. Morton issued the attached decision. Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, and
Respondent filed an answering brief to the General
Counsel's cross-exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 2 and
conclusions, but not to adopt the recommmend
Order. 3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the joint Respondent, Vincent Carillo, Joseph Car-
illo Jr. and Ferdinand Carillo, a partnership d/b/a
Carillon House Nursing Home and Health Related
Facility, and Professional Services, a Division of
Propoco, Inc., Huntington, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
I. Cease and desist from
I The case caption has been changed to reflect the proper spelling of
Respondent's name.
2 Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings.
The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law
judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
In adopting the judge's finding that Respondent's discharge of Char-
lotte Schifano violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, we disavow his
remarks in the last paragraph of part IV,A, of his decision that Schifano's
statement that she would "bring the roof down" on the head of Respond-
ent Administrator Alfano, if found to be a threat of physical harm, would
still be protected. Member Zimmerman finds it unnecessary to pass upon
this particular finding by the judge.
Because no party requested the Board to defer to arbitration, we did
not consider that issue. See McDonald Engineering Co., 202 NLRB 748
(1973).
3 We shall issue an Order in lieu of the judge's recommended Order to
require Respondent to expunge from its files any references to discharge
of Schifano, the transfers of Califano and Polycarpe, and the more vigor-
ous supervision of McQueen, and to notify them in writing that evidence
of these unlawful actions will not be used as basis for future personnel
actions against them. See Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472 (1982).
268 NLRB No. 80
(a) Threatening to discharge or to supervise
more closely the housekeeping employees at the
Huntington facility in order to discourage them
from appearing as witnesses at arbitration proceed-
ings for Local 1115, Nursing Home and Hospital
Employees Union, a Division of 1115 Joint Board.
(b) Discharging Charlotte Schifano or any of its
other housekeeping employees at the Huntington
facility because of their activities on behalf of the
Union.
(c) Assigning Al Califano, Marcel Polycarpe, or
any of its other housekeeping employees more ar-
duous duties or supervising Mary McQueen or any
other housekeeping employees more closely to dis-
courage them from supporting the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering
with, coercing, or restraining its housekeeping em-
ployees at the Huntington facility in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Make Charlotte Schifano whole for any loss
of earnings she may have suffered due to the dis-
crimination practiced against her by paying her a
sum equal to what she would have earned, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest.
(b) Reassign Al Califano and Marcel Polycarpe
to their formers jobs at the health related facility.
(c) Remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Charlotte Schifano, the
transfers of Al Califano and Marcel Polycarpe, and
the closer than normal supervision of Mary
McQueen, and notify those employees in writing
that this has been done and that evidence of these
unlawful actions will not be used against them in
any way.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, 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.
(e) Post at its place of business in Huntington,
New York, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 4 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 29,
after being signed by the Respondent's representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places, including all places
4 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
589
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge or to super-
vise more closely the housekeeping employees at
the Huntington facility in order to discourage them
from appearing as witnesses at arbitration proceed-
ings for Local 1115, Nursing Home and Hospital
Employees Union, a Division of 1115 Joint Board.
WE WILL NOT discharge our housekeeping em-
ployees at the Huntington facility because of their
activities on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT assign Al Califano, Marcel Poly-
carpe, or any other housekeeping employee more
arduous duties or supervise Mary McQueen or any
other housekeeping employee more closely to dis-
courage them from supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, coerce, or restrain the housekeeping
employees at the Huntington facility in the exercise
of rights guranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Charlotte Schifano whole for
any loss of earnings she may have suffered due to
the discrimination practiced against her by paying
her a sum equal to what she would have earned,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL reassign Al Califano and Marcel Poly-
carpe to their former jobs at the health related fa-
cility.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful discharge of Charlotte Schifano, the
transfers of Al Califano and Marcel Polycarpe, and
the closer than normal supervision of Mary
McQueen, and WE WILL notify them in writing
that this has been done and that evidence of these
unlawful actions will not be used against them in
any way.
VINCENT CARILLO, JOSEPH CARILLO
JR. AND FERDINAND CARILLO, A
PARTNERSHIP D/B/A CARILLON
HOUSE NURSING HOME AND HEALTH
RELATED FACILITY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, A DIVISION
OF PROPOCO, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES F. MORTON, Administrative Law Judge: On
April 14, 1982, Charlotte Schifano filed the unfair labor
practice charge in Case 29-CA-9645 which alleged that
Carillon House Nursing Home violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
On April 23, 1982, Schifano filed the unfair labor prac-
tice charge in Case 29-CA-9669 against Professional
Services, alleging that it had violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act. On June 22, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board (the Board), by the Re-
gional Director for Region 29, consolidated those cases
for hearing and issued a complaint against Vincent Car-
illo, Joseph Carillo Jr. and Ferdinand Carillo, a partner-
ship, d/b/a Carillon House Nursing Home and Health
Related Facility (Respondent Carillon) and also against
Professional Services, a division of Procopo, Inc. (Re-
spondent Professional). Respondent Carillon and Re-
spondent Professional filed answers to that complaint. I
heard this case in Brooklyn, New York, on December
20, 1982.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consider-
ation of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and by
Respondent Professional, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. ISSUES
The pleadings, as amended, present the following mat-
ters for resolution:
a. Whether Respondent Carillon and Respondent Pro-
fessional constitute a joint employer of Charlotte Schi-
fano and other housekeeping employees.
b. Whether Schifano was discharged on February 9,
1982, because of her activities as a steward for Local
1115, Nursing Home and Hospital Employees Union, a
Division of 1115 Joint Board (the Union), as the General
Counsel contends, or whether she was discharged on
that date because she threatened the nursing home ad-
ministrator, as both Respondents assert.
c. Whether Respondent Carillon and Respondent Pro-
fessional threatened employees with discharge, with
being subjected to closer supervision, and with other re-
prisals because they had attended an arbitration proceed-
ing in support of Schifano,
d. Whether Respondent Carillon and Respondent Pro-
fessional assigned a porter, Al Califano, to more arduous
and less agreeable work because he attended that arbitra-
tion proceeding as a union witness.
e. Whether Respondent Carillon and Respondent Pro-
fessional more closely supervised a housekeeping maid,
Mary McQueen, because she attended that arbitration
proceeding, also as a union witness.
f. Whether Respondent Carillon and Respondent Pro-
fessional assigned a porter, Marcel Polycarpe, to more
arduous and less agreeable work to discourage employ-
ees from assisting the Union.
590
CARILLON HOUSE NURSING HOME
11. THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION AND THE UNION'S
STATUS
Based on the pleadings, I find that the operations of
Respondent Carillon and Respondent Professional each
meet the applicable Board standard for the assertion of
jurisdiction over them. I find also that the Union is a
labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE JOINT EMPLOYER ISSUE
The first issue in this case is whether Respondent Car-
illon and Respondent Professional are the joint employer
of housekeeping employees employed at a nursing home
and health related facility in Huntington, New York. Re-
spondent Carillon and Respondent Professional, contrary
to the General Counsel, assert that only Respondent Pro-
fessional is the employer of those housekeeping employ-
ees.
In April 1969, Respondent Carillon opened a nursing
home and health related facility in Huntington, Long
Island. The Union has been the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of all nurses aides, dietary department em-
ployees, and housekeeping employees employed there.
The housekeeping department has been comprised of
about 12 aides, 4 porters, and a supervisor, also referred
to as the executive housekeeper.'
On October 1, 1980, Respondent Carillon and Re-
spondent Professional signed a contract in which Re-
spondent Professional agreed to perform the housekeep-
ing duties at the Huntington facility. The 15 employees
on the housekeeping staff of Respondent Carillon were
then transferred to the payroll of Respondent Profession-
al, as was the supervisor of that department. Under the
terms of that contract, Respondent Professional agreed
to operate the housekeeping department with a staff of
15 people and 1 executive housekeeper. Respondent Pro-
fessional further agreed therein to comply with the poli-
cies set by Respondent Carillon, including detailed provi-
sions governing the supervision of the housekeeping em-
ployees, the in-service training to be given them, the spe-
cific duties they are to perform, their daily and weekly
schedules, and other related matters. In addition, the
written personnel policies of Respondent Carillon were
given to Respondent Professional for guidance and im-
plementation respecting the housekeeping employees.
Those written policies set out the length of the work-
week, shift hours, the morning, afternoon and lunch
break periods, and various work rules. Grounds for dis-
charge or discipline were also set out in those written
policies.
The contract between Respondent Carillon and Re-
spondent Professional also provided that Respondent
Professional shall comply with all the terms and condi-
tions set out in the collective-bargaining agreement that
existed between Respondent Carillon and the Union. On
July 6, 1981 (slightly over 8 months after Respondent
Professional took over the operations of the housekeep-
ing department at the Huntington facility), Respondent
Carillon entered into a renewal contract with the Union.
The unit of employees covered by that contract included
There are separate units of registered nurses and of licensed practical
nurses. No issue exists in the instant case respecting those units.
not only the nurses aides and dietary employees on Re-
spondent Carillon's payroll, but also the housekeeping
department employees on Respondent Professional's pay-
roll.
Respondent Professional offered in evidence, in fur-
therance of a related point, a written notice of suspension
it served on Charlotte Schifano on March 13, 1981, for
having engaged in what it termed, "raucous behavior
and vile language." A copy of that notice had been sent
to the Union. The uncontroverted testimony in this case
establishes that a grievance filed by Schifano protesting
that suspension resulted in her being made whole for the
wages she lost. That grievance had been processed in ac-
cordance with the contract between Respondent Carillon
and the Union.
There is uncontroverted evidence also that in March
1981, Schifano, as steward of the housekeeping depart-
ment employees, discussed a grievance with the execu-
tive housekeeper on Respondent Professional's payroll
and that that particular grievance was later taken up by a
union representative with the administrator of the overall
facility, employed by Respondent Carillon. In the fall of
1981, another grievance relating to meals to be furnished
to the housekeeping employees was processed. The
union steward, Schifano, handled that grievance with the
executive housekeeper of Respondent Professional at the
first step; the second step of that grievance was handled
by the union representative directly with the administra-
tor of the Huntington facility, Joseph Alfano, who, as
noted earlier, is employed by Respondent Carillon.
The administrator of the Hunington facility conducts
regular meetings of supervisors of the various depart-
ments at that facility. The executive housekeeper of Re-
spondent Professional is the supervisor of the housekeep-
ing department, and she has at various times attended
those meetings in that capacity. Those meetings are held
to discuss various problems that arise in the operation of
the facility and related matters. Noting that the contrac-
tual unit contains employees on the payrolls of both Re-
spondent Carillon and Respondent Professional, and that
that contract is signed by Respondent Carillon and sets
out grievance procedures for employees on that payroll
of Respondent Professional and, based on the record as a
whole in this case, it is clear that Respondent Carillon
and Respondent Professional share and codetermine the
working conditions of the housekeeping department em-
ployees working at the Huntington facility. I thus find
that a joint employer relationship exists between them,
vis-a-vis the housekeeping employees at that facility. 2
Respondent Carillon and Respondent Professional are
referred to hereafter jointly as Respondent.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Schifano
The Charging Party, Charlotte Schifano, was dis-
charged on February 9, 1982, and was reinstated on June
24, 1982. The General Counsel contends that Respondent
discharged her because of her activities as union steward.
2 C R. Adams Trucking, 262 NLRB 563 (1982); General Electric Corp.,
256 NLRB 753 (1981).
591
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent contends that she was discharged because
she threatened the administrator of the Huntington facili-
ty with physical harm.
On February 9, Donald O'Toole, the operations man-
ager of Respondent Professional, arrived at the Hunting-
ton facility and observed that the housekeeping depart-
ment employees ended their afternoon break at 2:22 p.m.
Their break had begun about 2 p.m. As the executive
housekeeper was not on the premises then, O'Toole
asked the union steward, Charlotte Schifano, to go to the
office with him. She did so. He then told her that the
union contract provided for a 15-minute afternoon break
and that he did not want the housekeeping employees
taking a 20-minute break or longer. She responded that,
by past practice, all employees took a 20-minute after-
noon break and that it was not fair that the housekeeping
employees should be required to take a 15-minute break
when the other unit employees (dietary aides and nurses
aides on the payroll of Respondent Carillon) should con-
tinue taking a 20-minute break. O'Toole left the office to
talk with the administrator, Joseph Alfano, who told him
that all employees are given a 15-minute break. Alfano
testified at the hearing before me that he had heard the
claim of "past practice before" and stated further that
"there is no such animal." Alfano and O'Toole went
back to the executive housekeeper's office to talk to
Schifano. At this point, the account given by Schifano
differs from the accounts given by O'Toole and Alfano.
Schifano's account is as follows. Alfano began by tell-
ing her that he had been told by O'Toole that the house-
keeping employees had extended their afternoon break to
20 minutes. Alfano then said that if the housekeeping em-
ployees were not out of the cafeteria within 15 minutes
on the following day as required by the contract, they
would all be fired. She answered that he was threatening
her and she told him that he should discuss the matter
with the Union's business agent, Raul Aldrich. She start-
ed to leave and O'Toole called her back. Alfano asked
her what the contract says about breaktime. She re-
sponded that the contract specifies 15-minute breaks in
the morning and afternoon. Alfano stated that that was
all that the housekeeping employees were entitled to.
Schifano responded that that was not so, as past practice
had already been established by which they were entitled
to take 20-minute afternoon breaks. She told him further
that the contract provides for hot meals and for seniority
as the basis for overtime, apparently in connection with
assertions by her that Respondent had, in practice,
changed those provisions of the contract without having
negotiated language changes. About this point in the dis-
cussion, Nursing Supervisor Lewis came into the office.
The administrator, Alfano, asked her whether the nurses
aides took a 20-minute break. Lewis responded that they
did not, to her knowledge. Alfano then told Schifano
that the aides only took a 15-minute break. Schifano
stated that this was not true and that "a lot of things go
up and around the contract, that [the housekeeping em-
ployees] did not get the hot meals." She told Alfano too
that the housekeeping employees were not getting time
and a half and that overtime is not based on seniority.
Alfano then told her to notify the employees in the
housekeeping department that, in the future, they would
all have to be out of the cafeteria within 15 minutes of
the start of their breaktime or that they would all be
fired. She responded that his request was unreasonable as
it was then 10 minutes before quitting time. Alfano told
her that she should get in touch with them even if it
meant getting on the telephone and calling them later.
Schifano then asked Alfano if his threat to discharge also
included the nurses aides. She told him that if he fires
the housekeepers and not the nurses aides for staying
longer than 15 minutes, "that was clearly discrimination
against the housekeeping department and [Schifano]
would bring the roof down about it." Alfano then stated
that she was threatening him and told her that she was
fired. O'Toole interrupted to say that he thought she
should just be suspended, but Alfano repeated, "No, she
is fired." She left the premises of Respondent but not
before she told the housekeeping employees to make sure
they did not take a break longer than 15 minutes.
O'Toole testified for Respondent as follows. When
Alfano told Schifano that the 15-minute-break schedule is
the one that is in effect, Schifano stated that she would
inform the housekeeping department employees that they
were still to take a 20-minute break. Schifano started to
raise her voice and stated that the housekeeping depart-
ment was not going to be treated as second-class citizens.
Alfano told her that if they took a 20-minute break they
would be violating the contract and that he, Alfano,
would then speak to the Union's business agent, Aldrich.
Schifano replied, "If you do that. I will bring the roof
down on you." Alfano then looked at O'Toole and asked
if he had heard what she said and O'Toole said he had.
Alfano asked O'Toole what he was going to do about it.
O'Toole told Schifano that she was terminated, effective
immediately. On cross-examination, O'Toole related the
following. He had testified in an unemployment compen-
sation proceeding which pertained to Schifano's dis-
charge. He acknowledged that, in that proceeding, he
had testified that Alfano had told Schifano on February
9 that the break schedule was to be 15 minutes, that it
was not to be exceeded and that, if it was, he would take
whatever disciplinary action was necessary. In a prehear-
ing affidavit, O'Toole had stated that the specific remark
that precipitated Schifano's having said that she "will
bring the roof down on you" was Alfano's statement to
her that she is to make sure that break schedules were
adhered to without exception.
Alfano testified as follows respecting the discussion on
February 9. After he had referred to the 15-minute break
as provided for in the contract and after Schifano had re-
ferred to "past practice" and after those matters "went
back and forth," Schifano said that the housekeeping em-
ployees were going to take 20-minute breaks. Alfano
asked her if she was going to tell the housekeeping em-
ployees to take 20-minute breaks. When she responded
that she would, Alfano told her that she would then be
breaking the contract and that he would call Union Rep-
resentative Raul Aldrich with a grievance against her.
Schifano then said to Alfano, "If you do that then I will
bring the roof down on top of your head." Alfano then
turned to O'Toole and told him that he had better do
something about it and Alfano then "took off down the
592
CARILLON HOUSE NURSING HOME
hallway." The next thing he heard was O'Toole telling
her, "You're fired, pack your stuff." On cross-examina-
tion Alfano testified that "everyone tries to use past
practice," that he had heard this claim previously mostly
from Schifano, and that it is "no big problem with the
Union."
Nursing Supervisor Lewis did not appear as a witness
before me.
The following considerations are significant in resolv-
ing the credibility issue raised by Schifano's version of
the February 9 discussions as against the accounts given
by O'Toole and Alfano.
It is improbable that an elected experienced union
steward such as Schifano would make a direct threat of
physical harm to the administrator to discourage him
from proceeding to the second-grievance level stage. I
note also the inconsistencies in O'Toole version, as de-
veloped in the cross-examination of him. Further, Schi-
fano did not strike me as a wild-eyed anarchist but, in-
stead, she is a mature, reserved individual. I credit her
account.
The credited evidence establishes that Schifano was
discharged on February 9 because she said to Alfano and
O'Toole, in the course of discussions relating to work
conditions, that the Union in effect would not readily
abandon its claim that past practice superseded the lan-
guage provisions of the contract respecting the length of
afternoon breaks and that, in any event, seized upon a
statement she made in furtherance of the Union's position
as a pretext to discharge her.
Even if I were to credit the accounts of O'Toole and
Alfano, it would appear that Schifano had not engaged
in unprotected activity in telling Alfano that, if he pur-
sued the matter with the union representative Aldrich,
she would bring the roof down on him, Alfano. Alfano
asserted that she was making, in essence, a personal
threat against him. In overall context, such a statement
would seem to be simply an expressive way of stating
that the past practice claim would easily prevail over the
language provisions of the contract. It does not seem
plausible that a statement by Schifano that she would
bring the roof down on Alfano's head would be a threat
of physical harm directed only at him (as Respondent
contends) as the collapse of the roof would undoubtedly
harm patients, employees, and others besides Alfano.
Such a comment would still be protected. 3
B. Alleged Unlawful Work Assignments and Related
Allegations
On April 1, 1982, Schifano brought two of her co-
workers to testify on her behalf at a scheduled arbitra-
tion proceeding pertaining to her discharge on February
9. They were a porter, Al Califano, and a maid, Mary
McQueen.
Califano testified for the General Counsel, in the hear-
ing before me, that he had been hired by Respondent as
a porter in January 1977 and that he had worked in the
nursing home at the Huntington facility in that capacity
until October 1979 when he was switched to the health
related facility (herein called HRF). The work required
3 See Rexaat Color Co.. 246 NLRB 240, 242-243 (1979).
of housekeeping employees in the nursing home is more
demanding than the work required in HRF as the pa-
tients in the nursing home are for the most part invalids
whereas those in the HRF are able to care for them-
selves. Califano testified before me that, on April 2 or 4,
his supervisor, Tom Cavanaugh (who Respondent admits
is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act), told him
that he was being transferred to the nursing home be-
cause O'Toole was mad at him as he, Califano had
crossed him, O'Toole. Califano further testified that Ca-
vanaugh then pointed at Mary McQueen and told her
that she and another maid (Califano's mother-in-law)
were "also on the outs." Califano was transferred to the
nursing home on the next working day. He was the only
one switched to the nursing home at that time. Califano
testified that he was out ill for a couple of weeks and
that, upon his return to work, the other porter who had
worked with him at HRF, Marcell Polycarpe, was also
transferred to the nursing home and, at that time, the
two permanently assigned porters at the nursing home
were transferred to HRF.
Housekeeping Supervisor Cavanaugh did not testify at
the hearing before me. Respondent Professional's oper-
ations manager, O'Toole, testified that he did not have
any discussions with his supervisor, Cavanaugh, respect-
ing the transfer of Califano from HRF to the nursing
home on April 2 and he denied that transfer was in any
way discriminatorily motivated.
I credit the uncontroverted testimony by Califano that
Cavanaugh told him on April 2 that he was being trans-
ferred to the nursing home because Califan, had crossed
O'Toole. I further find that that reference was to the fact
that Califano had appeared, the day before, at an arbitra-
tion proceeding to testify on behalf of Schifano and that
O'Toole was aware of that as he was also present at that
proceeding. I also find that Respondent effected the
transfer of Califano to the nursing home about April 4
because,Califano had appeared as Schifano's witness on
April 1. I credit, too, Califano's testimony that Cavan-
augh stated on April 2 that two other employees were
also "on the outs" and that that statement was made as a
warning to discourage employees from supporting Schi-
fano in her capacity as union steward.
Mary McQueen testified as follows for the General
Counsel. On April 2, she was told by her supervisor, Ca-
vanaugh, that he wanted to talk to her and she went into
the TV room on Unit 6. Al Califano was also there. Ca-
vanaugh said to her that operations manager O'Toole
was just there and that he wanted Cavanaugh to fire
McQueen, Califano, and Califano's mother-in-law. She
asked Cavanaugh whether O'Toole had indicated when
they were to be fired and Cavanaugh responded in the
negative. Cavanaugh also stated that Califano had been
switched to work in the nursing home. Cavanaugh also
told her that O'Toole wanted Cavanaugh to check on
everything that McQueen did that day and to give him a
report on it. Cavanaugh told them that he was sorry but
those are the orders he received from O'Toole. Cavan-
augh said also that O'Toole was very upset and surprised
that Califano had gone to the arbitration proceeding but
he was not surprised that McQueen went.
593
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McQueen testified further that, later on April 2, Ca-
vanaugh checked each and every room that she had
cleaned that day and complained to her that the walls
were dirty. That was the first time since she began there
on September 23, 1970, that her supervisor had ever
checked all the rooms she cleaned or had ever com-
plained directly to her that her work was not satisfac-
tory.
As noted above, Cavanaugh did not appear to contro-
vert McQueen's account. I credit her testimony. 4
Based on the foregoing credibiity findings, I further
find that Respondent, through its supervisor, Cavanaugh,
threatened to discharge its employees because they sup-
ported Schifano's grievance, threatened to supervise
McQueen's work more closely because she too supported
Schifano, assigned Califano to the more demanding work
in the nursing home on April 2 because he attended the
abritration session on Schifano's behalf, engaged in closer
supervision of McQueen's work because she too attended
that session as a union witness, and shortly afterwards
transferred Marcel Polycarpe to the nursing home in a
transparent attempt to conceal its reason for having
transferred Califano there.
I4 do not view the fact that the General Counsel did not adduce de-
tailed corroborative testimony from Califano as a basis to discredit
McQueen's account particularly as her testimony was not directly contro-
verted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Carillon and Respondent Professional
are each an employer. within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act and are the joint employer of hte
housekeeping department employees involved in this
case. As before, they are referred to jointly as Respond-
ent.
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent discharged Charlotte Schifano on Feb-
ruary 9, 1982, and failed to reinstate her until June 24,
1982, for discriminatory reasons, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and Respondent, jointly and
severally, shall make her whole for all earnings she lost
in that period as a result of that discrimination; such
losses are to be computed in the manner prescribed in F.
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 5
4. Respondent threatened its housekeeping employees
with discharge and threatened to supervise their work
more closely than normal, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
5. Respondent assigned Califano and Polycarpe to
more arduous duties and more closely supervised
McQueen's work, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
I See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
594