Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 808 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and
Queens, Inc., Mary Immaculate Hospital Division,
and St. Mary's Hospital Divison and New York
State Federation of Physicians and Dentists. Case
29-CA-5479
September 28, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO.
AND MURPHY
On May 26, 1978, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceed-
ing.' The Board, in agreement with Administrative
Law Judge Robert E. Mullin, found that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing
to bargain with and supply certain requested infor-
mation to the New York State Federation of Physi-
cians and Dentists (hereinafter called the Federation
or the Union), which was certified by the Board in
Cases 29-RC-3276 and 29-RC-3278 as the exclusive
bargaining representative of physicians and dentists
in the stipulated appropriate units at Mary Immacu-
late Hospital (hereinafter also called Mary Immacu-
late) and St. Mary's Hospital (hereinafter also called
St. Mary's),2 respectively. In so doing the Board, in
pertinent part, found without merit Respondent's af-
firmative defense that in the underlying representa-
tion proceedings the Board had erroneously adopted
the Regional Director's Reports on Objections which
found, inter alia, that supervisors had engaged in con-
duct in support of the Federation, but that, looking
only at evidence of such conduct occurring after the
filing of the operative petitions as required by the
Board's Ideal Electric rule,3 there was insufficient ba-
sis for concluding that the election should be set
aside. The Board also adopted the Administrative
Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by reinstating a system for
periodic wage reviews to all its physicians and den-
tists except those in the collective-bargaining units
"to convince its employees that the Union was re-
sponsible for the loss of their wage increase." The
Board therefore directed Respondent to cease and de-
sist from, in any other manner, infringing upon em-
ployees' rights under Section 7 of the Act.
'236 NLRB 497.
2 Mary Immnnaculate and St. Mary's are also collectively referred to herein
as the Center or Respondent.
3 In The Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275
(1961), the Board, in considering objections to elections, ruled that it would
look only to evidence of conduct which occurred between the time the peti-
tion is filed and the election is held. In Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,
138 NLRB 453 (1962), the Board extended the Ideal Electric rule to consent
elections.
Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals or
the Second Circuit issued its decision4 setting aside
that portion of the Board's Order finding the Em-
ployer guilty of a refusal to bargain. The court re-
manded for determination by the Board the question
whether the election should be set aside because of
alleged objectionable supervisory conduct in support
of the Federation which occurred during the pen-
dency of a petition for election subsequently with-
drawn and replaced. Thus the court, without deciding
the validity of the Ideal Electric-Goodyear cutoff in
the usual type of cases, directed the Board to consider
the evidence of supervisory conduct in support of the
Federation prior to the filing of the operative, i.e.,
second, petition.5 Additionally, the court vacated the
Board's Order regarding the 8(a)(3) violation to allow
full reconsideration of such matters upon resolution
of the alleged unlawful refusal to bargain. The court
also set aside the "broad order" with instructions that
any cease-and-desist provisions found necessary by
the Board be limited to the unfair labor practices
found and any like or related unlawful acts.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board, having duly considered the issues out-
standing in light of the order of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanding
the proceeding, and the statements of position on re-
mand of Respondent and the General Counsel, has,
for the reasons set forth below, decided to reaffirm the
validity of the Federation's certification and therefore
its original finding that Respondent unlawfully re-
fused to bargain with and supply certain information
to the Federation. Additionally, the Board has de-
cided to reaffirm its finding that Respondent discrim-
inatorily reinstituted its system of periodic wage re-
views in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
1. Alleged objectionable supervisory conduct in
support of the Federation
The facts, as set forth in the Regional Director's
Reports on Objections, are undisputed. The clinical
'589 F.2d 1166 (December 5 1978: amended January 9 1979).
5The court, at fn. 6. noted that Respondent, in attacking the Board's
application of the Ideal Electric doctrine to conduct prior to the first petition,
cited Gibson's Discount ('enter, A Division of Scrivner-Boogaar,t. Inc., 214
NLRB 221 (1974). In Gibsons the Board, applying N L..R B v. Savair Manu-
facluring Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1973). found that a prepetition offer to waive
initiation fees for employees signing authorization cards prior to the election
invalidated the election. Respondent also cited Lyon's Restaurants, A Wholly
Owned Subsidiary of Consolidated Food Company, 234 NLRB 178 (1978).
wherein the Board, Member Murphy dissenting, found objectionable prepe-
tition threats of job loss which propelled two employees into signing union
authorization cards. The court, observing that the Board had considered
245 NLRB No. 106
808
THE CATHOLIC MEDICAI. CENTER OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS
operations of the Center's divisional hospitals are or-
ganized into departments which represent medical
disciplines or groups of disciplines. Many depart-
ments consist of divisions and/or sections. Each de-
partment is headed by a chairman. designated by the
board of trustees, who is responsible for the profes-
sional and administrative operations of the depart-
ment and serves on the medical board. The day-to-
day operation of each departmental service is over-
seen by a director or a chief. Codirectors share de-
partment duties and responsibilities with directors.
Chairman, directors, codirectors. and chiefs possess
and exercise supervisory authority within the mean-
ing of the Act.
The Federation's organizational campaign at the
Center evolved as follows: In spring 1975, Calvin
Norman (director of the department of radiology, St.
Mary's) spoke to a number of directors and chiefs at
St. Mary's and Mary Immaculate about the desirabil-
ity of forming an organization to represent the Cen-
ter's salaried physicians. Thereafter, in May or June
1975,6 Norman, Alexander Gotta (director of the de-
partment of anesthesiology, St. Mary's), Cassim
Jadwat (director of' the department of anesthesiology.
Mary Immaculate), and Vito Cardo (chief of oral sur-
gery of the department of dentistry, St. Mary's) held
three or four meetings to ascertain the sentiments
among the Center's salaried physicians and dentists
regarding forming a labor organization. About the
same time, Norman received an unsolicited letter
from the Federation stating that it was formed to rep-
resent physicians. Norman thereupon contacted the
Federation and, subsequently, accompanied by
Gotta, Jadwat, and Cardo, attended a meeting with
several Federation officers, including Executive Sec-
retary Larry Nathan, at which the Federation was
discussed.
No communications occurred between the Feder-
ation and the Center's physicians and dentists until
October or November when Nathan, in response to a
call from an unidentified physician indicating an or-
ganizing campaign might be fruitful, commenced the
Federation's organizing campaign at the Center. Nor-
man and Jadwat supplied Nathan with the names of
Center employees who might be interested in the
Federation. Nathan telephoned employees requesting
their support for the Federation and the names of
other employees to contact, and he mailed blank au-
thorization cards and other union literature to em-
both of those situations unique, found neither case applicable here The
court indicated. however, that Respondent was free on remand to attack
Ideal Electric "more generally "
6 Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated. all dates are in late 1975 or earl:
1976.
ployees. The Federation held no meeting for Center
employees and sent no representatives to the Center.
The Federation's initial petition was filed on De-
cember 187 and was withdrawn on December 31.
Thereafter. on January 15. the Federation filed the
operative petitions for separate elections in units of
full-time and regular part-time physicians and den-
tists at Mary Immaculate and St. Mary's. The elec-
tions were conducted on February 26.
In addition to the above, there is evidence that,
prior to the filing of the December 18 petition, super-
visors attended early organizational meetings, spoke
favorably to employees regarding unionization,
signed authorization cards, and distributed authoriza-
tion card:; to employees. The evidence of supervisory
activity in support of the Federation after December
18 is as follows: Norman and Cardo distributed au-
thorization cards to employees at both hospitals and
Manuel Arel (chief physician, emergency room, Mary
Immaculate) gave at least one authorization card to
an employee at Mary Immaculate. All of these solici-
tations took place before January 15, the date the
second petition was filed. Several supervisors signed
authorization cards, although only one did so after
Januarv 15, and she did so in private at her home.
Both before and after January 15, Norman, on a few
occasions, told employees that he personally favored
the Federation, but that the choice was up to the indi-
vidual. Up to January 15, Cardo had conversations
with employees during which he stated he felt union-
ization would be beneficial. About a month before the
election Cardo discussed the advantages and disad-
vantages of the Federation with an inquiring em-
ployee and a few days before the election allegedly
told one employee it would be a good idea to have the
Federation. Upon employee inquiries regarding the
Federation, Howard Adleman (director of the depart-
ment of radiology, Mary Immaculate) indicated that,
while he personally favored the Federation, employ-
ees were free to choose for themselves. Andel and
Jadwat similarly told employees who asked that the
decision to support the Federation was up to them.
Jerome Dobowy (codirector of the department of ra-
diology, St. Mary's) told inquiring employees up to
the date of the election that he personally favored the
Federation.
During the election campaign. the Center made
known to employees its opposition to unionization
and the Federation. On February II. certain Center
officials and its attorney held a meeting at each hospi-
tal to advise supervisory physicians and dentists that
they were ineligible to vote in the election and not to
support the Federation. Also, a 10-page document
I his petition. a armended on December 31, sought an election in a unit
of the ('enter's physicians and dentists at its four hospital divisions
809
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entitled "Guidelines for Management Employees,"
which in effect urged supervisors to publicize the Cen-
ter's opposition to the Federation, was distributed
and discussed.' Between February I I and 18, the Em-
ployer held department service meetings for most of
the employees at which it presented its opposition to
the Federation. The Center also distributed to em-
ployees letters, dated February 12, 20. and 23 and
signed by the director of labor relations and person-
nel, which set out in detail the reasons why they
should not support or vote for the Federation.
Respondent asserts that the evidence of supervisory
support for the Federation between the filing of the
first petition on December 18 and the election on
February 26 is sufficient to warrant setting aside the
election,9 but that, if the Board reaches a contrary
result, it should additionally consider the evidence of
similar conduct predating the first petition which Re-
spondent alleges so tainted the election process as to
require a new election. We find no basis for departing
from the Ideal Electric rule with respect to the first
petition. Nor do we find that the evidence of supervi-
sory support for the Federation occurring after the
filing of the first petition impaired the employees'
freedom of choice in the election or constituted inter-
ference which would warrant setting aside the elec-
tion.
With respect to Respondent's contention that the
Board, in considering the objections, should rely on
supervisory conduct in support of the Federation pre-
dating the filing of the first petition, we concur in the
finding of the Second Circuit that Gibson's Discount,
supra, and Lyon's Restaurants, supra, are inapplicable
to the instant facts.'° Furthermore, we find misplaced
Respondent's reliance on R. Dakin and Company"
and N.L.R.B. v. Lawrence Typographical Union No.
570, AFL-CIO [Kansas Color Press, Inc.]. 2 In R.
Dakin, supra, the Board clearly indicated that it was
considering the alleged objectionable prepetition con-
duct only because the remanding court had directed
it to do so'3 and that the case did not establish a rule
of law to govern the disposition of future cases. As to
I Excerpts from the "Guidelines for Management Employees" indicating
the Center's strong opposition to union representation appeared in a Febru-
ary 18 letter sent to employees by the Federation.
I As noted above, the court's remand directs the Board to consider evi-
dence of alleged objectionable conduct dating back, at least, to the filing of
the first petition.
l0 See fn. 5, supra. Neither case was intended to indicate "any broad depar-
ture from the Ideal Electric rule," Gibson's Discount, 214 NLRB at 222. fn. 3.
Lyon's Restaurants, 234 NLRB 178, 179, and Respondent has presented no
persuasive reasons why the Board, in considering objections to an election.
should rely on prepetition conduct in other than similar, unique situations.
Member Murphy, in any event, would not follow Lyon's Resraurants (see her
dissenting opinion therein).
H 207 NLRB 521 (1973).
12 367 F.2d 643 (0th Cir. 1967).
1' N.L.R.B. v. R. Dakin and Company, 477 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1973).
Lawrence Typographical Union, supra, the emphasis
therein was not the number of days between the al-
leged objectionable conduct and the election, as Re-
spondent suggests, but rather the nature of the con-
duct at issue. Thus, having determined that an offer
of superseniority to strike replacements prior to the
filing of a decertification petition would have a con-
tinuing coercive effect, the court concluded that the
premise of the Ideal Electric rule, i.e., that bh the elec-
tion the coercive effects of prepetition conduct have
dissipated, was manifestly inapplicable. Accordingly,
we find no justification for deviating from the eal
Electric-Goodyear rule with respect to the first peti-
tion. We will not, therefore, specifically rely on super-
visory conduct in support of the Federation antedat-
ing December 18 as grounds for setting aside the
election.
Turning to the evidence of supervisory conduct in
support of the Federation between the filing of the
first petition and the election. which we are required
by the remanding court to consider, we note at the
outset that mere supervisory participation in a
union's organizational campaign does not necessarily
warrant setting aside an election.'4 The Board has
found that such participation can constitute grounds
for setting aside an election where: (I) employees
may be led to believe the supervisor was acting on
behalf of the employer and that the employer favors
the union: and (2) employees could reasonably have
been coerced out of fear of future retaliation by
union-oriented supervisors into supporting the
union." Neither situation is present here.
With respect to the first, it is inconceivable that the
employees here could reasonably have believed the
supervisors were acting on behalf of the Employer.' 6
The supervisory activity herein occurred predomi-
nantly among first-line supervisors whose views were
known by employees to differ from those of higher
management. Most supervisory comments in support
of the Federation were qualified as statements of per-
sonal preference, thereby dispelling any notion that
4 Turner's Express, Incorporated. 189 NLRB 106 (1971 ); Steenson Equip-
men/ Company, 174 NLRB 865 (1969).
5 Gary Aircrafti Corporation, 220 NLRB 187 (1975).
i5 We note that certain of the statements under consideration-supervisors
telling employees they personally favored the Federation but hat the choice
was up to the individual, and discussing with an inquiring employee the
advantages and disadvantages of the Federation would not in themselves
be ound objectionable even if attributed to management because not rea-
sonably construable as carrying implied threats or promises of benefit. The
other statements involved herein -a supervisor telling employees that the
supervisor felt unionization would be beneficial, or that it would be a good
idea to have the Federation, or in response to inquiries that the supervisor
personally favored the Federation are, at most. doubtful or borderline ob-
jectionable statements. Here. however, we have considered all of the above
statements in the context of the pre-December 18 supervisory conduct sup-
porting the Federation insofar as that conduct my lend meaning and di-
mension to the supervisory postpetition statements. Selsan Equipment
Company. 174 NLRB at 866, fn I; Warren W Parke. d/h/a Parke (ol/
Company. 219 NLRB 546. 547 (1975).
810
THEi A (' I IOI.IC MEI)I(AI. (EN IER OF BROOKLYN AND Q[ FEtNS
the supervisor was speaking on behalf of manage-
ment. Further, in a letter to employees dated Febru-
ary 18, the Federation stated that certain supervisors
opposed management's "heavy handed pressure tac-
tics suggested to attack the physicians' representa-
tive." The letter went on to cite from Respondent's
"Guidelines for Management Employees" Respon-
dent's belief that a union could do serious harm to
employees, the Center. its patients. and the commu-
nity.'7 Additionally, in the 2 weeks immediately pre-
ceding the election, Respondent held department
meetings during which it indicated to employees its
opposition to the Federation. DIuring this same period
Respondent also distributed three separate letters de-
tailing the reasons why employees should not support
or vote for the Federation. The last such letter was
dated February 23, only 3 days before the election.
Thus, any lingering employee doubt regarding Re-
spondent's attitude toward the Federation would
have been eradicated by Respondent's explicit and
vigorous opposition to the Federation in these closing
days of the campaign."
As to the second situation, the record is devoid of
evidence that any conduct of the supervisors herein
could reasonably have coerced any employee into
voting for the Federation. Nor is there evidence that
any supervisory action was taken to make employees
fear possible retribution if they did not concur in the
views expressed by the supervisors. To the contrary.
most supervisors expressed their views regarding the
Federation only in response to employee inquiries as
to the pros and cons of unionization, and many super-
visors indicated that the decision to support the Fed-
eration or not to support it rested with the individual.
Further, since employees knew that Respondent had
directed management employees to take an active
role in opposing the Union, they could easily have
reported to management any prounion pressure from
supervisors. 1
On the foregoing findings and the entire record
herein, we conclude that the evidence of supervisory
conduct in support of the Federation did not impair
the employees' freedom of choice in the election or
constitute interference which would warrant setting
aside the election.20 We therefore reaffirm the validity
of the Federation's certification.
"tCf. Fuqua Homes (Ohio), Inc, 219 NLRB 1033, 1040 (1975).
" Gary Aircraft Corporation, supra. Cf. Diversified Products (Corporation,
199 NLRB 1024 (1973).
1See Fall River House, Inc., 196 NLRB 74. 75 ( 1972).
20 We find the instant case distinguishable from Monroe Tube Co(mpuani,
Inc., 220 NLRB 302 (1975), enfd. on other grounds 546 F.2d 1320 (2d ('lr
1976). In that case the Board set aside the election based on conduct viola-
tive ofSec. 8a)XIl) of the Act. As noted above, the instant record is devoid of
evidence of such unlawful conduct.
2. The alleged 8(a)(5) and (I) violations
In view of our above finding that the Federation
was properly certified as the bargaining representa-
tive in appropriate units of Respondent's physicians
and dentists, we find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and ( I ) of the Act by refusing to bargain
with, and provide certain requested information re-
garding the terms and condition of employment of
unit members to the Federation.
3. Tlhe alleged 8(a)(3) and (I) X iolation
We adhere to our earlier finding that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( I ) of the Act by discrim-
inatorily withholding wage increases from the units'
employees for 3 weeks during the period it was chal-
lenging the Federation's certification.2t The remand-
ing court, while agreeing that such conduct violates
the Act. found it to be "one of the most inconsequen-
tial unfair labor practices in the history of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act." apparently based on the
fact that the delayed wage increase, occurring a year
after the certification, was short lived and, upon the
Federation's complaint. "fully rectified." However.
with all due respect to the court, we do not find "in-
consequential" withholding of wage increases to two
entire units of employees. By withholding the wage
increases from unit members exclusively Respondent
clearly conveyed the message that it had full power to
grant or withhold benefits and that union representa-
tion was its sole criterion for determining who would
and who would not receive a wage increase.? Re-
spondent's subsequent retroactive implementation of
the wage increase may well have placed unit employ-
ees on an economic par with nonunit employees, but
this unilateral action could only reinforce its message
of the employer's economic power: it could not have
eradicated the impact of withholding the increase on
the employee's exercise of their free choice as to rep-
resentational rights. Thus, while wages were withheld
for a limited duration and unit employees were ulti-
mately granted the wage increase retroactively. the
fact remains that the statutory rights of numerous
employees were violated and that to dispel the dis-
criminatory effect of such conduct and discourage its
future recurrence remedial action by this Board is
:1 N.L.R.B. v. United Aircraft Crporaion. Hmdilrn Stnda,ld Diti,,,n.
490 F.2d 1105 (2d Cir 1973)
12 Respondent asserts that its motivation for vlthholding the wage increase
from unit emplo.ees was to avoid being charged with an unfair labor prac-
tice for unilaterally implementing emplo)ee benefits during the pendenc of
the representation proceeding. lowever. at no time did it inform the em-
ployees that said wage iuthholding was so mot.ated or :akc ;in action
which would impart to unit employees the message that the grant ol benefits
was not dependent ,on their union r nonunion status.
I I
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary. Accordingly, we shall order that Respon-
dent cease and desist from discriminatorily withhold-
ing wage increases from employees to discourage
their membership in the Federation. Further, inas-
much as there is no evidence whether or not Respon-
dent paid interest on the retroactive wage increases it
ultimately granted the bargaining units' physicians
and dentists, we shall adhere to our original Order
directing Respondent to pay interest on said moneys
in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corpora-
tion. 24
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board reaffirms, except as modified below, its
Order issued in this proceeding on May 26, 1978 (re-
ported at 236 NLRB No. 59), and hereby orders that
the Respondent, The Catholic Medical Center of
Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., Mary Immaculate Hospi-
tal Division, and St. Mary's Hospital Division,
Brooklyn and Queens, New York, its officers, agents,
;uccessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said Order, as so modified:
;3 Member Penello notes that the court not only characterized the 8(aX3)
violation herein as "inconsequential," but also observed. at fn. 10 of its deci-
sion, that the Board had " committed public funds to the prosecuting of the
miniscule §8(a3) violation here alleged." Member Penello has long advo-
cated that the Board not process those cases where the "alleged misconduct
is such that no purpose of the Act would be served by the issuance of a
remedial order." See his concurring opinion Peoria Journal Star, 242 NLRB
No. 139 (1979), s. op. at 3. Member Penello would not consign the Board's
scarce resources to those cases involving inconsequential, isolated violations
of the Act. In such matters, it is Member Penello's view that the General
Counsel should exercise his discretion under Sec. 3(d) of the Act to refuse toissue a complaint and proceed to a hearing. See also his concurring opinions
in United States Postal Service, 242 NLRB 228 (1979); United Steelworkers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO (Bucyrus-Erie Company), 238 NLRB 177 (1978); Peer.
less Food Products, Inc., 236 NLRB 161 (1978); and the note his remarks inBureau of National Affairs, Inc., 235 NLRB 8, fn. 2 (1978). The commentscontained therein are based on the general principle set forth in American
Federation of Musicians, Local 76, AFL CIO (Jimmy Wakely Show), 202
NLRB 620 (1973). which has received the endorsement of the judiciary. See
Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers Local No.
705, IBT lJohns-Manville Corporation] v. N.L.R.B, 509 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir.
1974); N.L.R.B. v. Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, International Ty-
pographical Union of North A merica, A FL -CIO I The Evening Star Newspaper
Co. and the Washington Daily News], 470 F.2d 1274, 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1972);
and Dallas Mailers Union, Local No. 143 and International Mailers Union
IDow Jones Company, Inc.] v. N.L.R.B., 445 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
The court has instructed the Board to reconsider its original finding that
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a(5) by refusing to bargain with, and provide
information to. the Union. If Member Penello were to find that no violation
of that section had been committed, he would not hesitate to find that theconduct involved in the wage increase matter, alleged as a violation of Sec.
8(aX3), was so insignificant and substantially remedied by Respondent's sub-
sequent actions such that he would not utilize it as a basis for either finding
a violation or a remedial order. However, Member Penello agrees with his
colleagues that Respondent did, in fact, violate Sec. 8(aX5) by refusing to
bargain with, and provide information to, the Union. Thus, in the context ofthis violation, it cannot be said that Respondent's denial of a wage increase
was insignificant or isolated. Accordingly, Member Penello will let stand the
Board's earlier finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8aX3) of the Act by
discriminatorily withholding wage increases from unit employees.
231 NLRB 651 (1977).
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(d) of
the original Order:
"(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing: and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any and all such activities."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that attached
to our Decision dated May 26, 1978.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMP.OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOI refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
conditions of employment with New York State
Federation of Physicians and Dentists as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the bargaining units described below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the aforesaid
Union, upon request, with information regarding
employees in the appropriate units described be-
low with respect to their names, addresses, sala-
ries, years of service, and fringe benefits.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
aforesaid Union by withholding wage increases
or by discriminating with respect to any term or
conditions of employment because of their union
or concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in like or related manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization; to
form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or
any other labor organization; to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own
choosing; and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
WE WILt., upon request, bargain with the
aforesaid Union, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate units and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such un-
derstanding in a signed agreement. The appro-
priate units are:
All full-time salaried physicians and dentists,
and all part-time salaried physicians and den-
tists regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or
more per week employed at our Mary Im-
812
THE CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS
maculate Hospital Division, exclusive of chair-
man, assistants to chairmen, directors, codi-
rectors, medical directors, clinic directors.
associate directors, assistant directors, chiefs,
co-chiefs, supervising physicians, senior emer-
gency room physicians, coordinators, interns,
residents, fellows, guards, and supervisors as
defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, and all
other employees.
All full-time salaried physicians and dentists,
and all part-time salaried physicians and den-
tists regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or
more per week employed at our St. Mary's
Hospital Division, exclusive of chairmen, as-
sistants to chairmen, directors, codirectors.
medical directors, clinic directors, associate di-
rectors, assistant directors, chiefs, co-chiefs,
supervising physicians, senior emergency room
physicians, coordinators, interns, residents, fel-
lows, all other employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in Section 2(1 1 ) of the Act. and
all other employees.
WE WILL, upon request. supply the aforesaid
Union with information requested by it for the
purpose of collective bargaining, including the
names, addresses, salaries, years of service, and
fringe benefits of our employees in the appropri-
ate units herein.
WF WILL make whole all employees in the
aforesaid units for the losses they suffered, if any.
by reason of our failure in February 1977 to re-
view their eligibility for salary increases, plus in-
terest.
THE CATH()I.I( MEI)(AI. ClN IER OF
BROOKLYN AND QUEENS, INC.. MARY IM-
MACULATE HOSPITAl. DIVISION, ANI) ST.
MARY'S HOSPITAL DIYISION
813