Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY 217
Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley , Inc. and Hel-
en B. Fields . Case 5-CA-7029
September 11, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
warning violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.i For the
reasons fully-explained below, I conclude that the Respon-
dent violated the Act as alleged in the complaint, except
that it did not refuse to call Fields for part-time duty in
September.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent, I make the following:
On May 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Al-
mira A. Stevenson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun-
sel filed a brief in reply to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Community Hospital of
Roanoke Valley, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia, its officers,
agents , successors, and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON , Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in Roanoke, Virginia, on March 5, 6,
and 18, 1975. The original charge was filed by Helen Fields
and served on the Respondent on December 9, 1974; the
amended charge was filed on January 20 and served on
January 21, 1975. The complaint was issued on January 23,
1975.
The issues are whether or not the Respondent refused to
call Helen Fields , a registered nurse, for part-time duty in
September 1974; whether or not the Respondent removed
Fields' name from the on-call list on October 10, 1974, and
refused her application for full-time reemployment on No-
vember 29, 1974, because she engaged in protected con-
certed activity , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended; and whether or
not the conduct for which the Respondent issued a warn-
ing notice to Irene Weinman , a registered nurse, on Sep-
tember 26, 1974, was protected, thereby rendering the
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Virginia
corporation with its principal office in Roanoke, Virginia,
where it is engaged in the operation of a nonprofit hospital.
During the preceding 12 months the Respondent had gross
revenues in excess of $250,000, and purchased and received
materials and supplies valued in excess of $10,000 from
points outside Virginia. I conclude that the Respondent is
an employer as defined by Section 2(2) and is engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce as de-
fined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in
this proceeding.2
iI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts 3
1. Background
The complaint alleges as unlawful only events which oc-
curred after August 25, 1974, when the National Labor
Relations Act was amended so as to bring nonprofit hospi-
tals within its coverage. However, those events must be
viewed in the context of what took place before then.
The Respondent began operations in the new building it
now operates in September 1967. It employs approximately
1,000 employees, of whom there are, on average, 200 regis-
tered nurses . There is a big turnover among registered
nurses, 14 positions being unfilled at the time of the hear-
ing, and hiring of registered nurses is continual.
i There is no merit in the Respondent 's contention that the allegation with
regard to Weinman should be dismissed because it is unsupported by a
charge . The amended charge alleges , among other things, that the Respon-
dent violated Sec. 8(a)(I) by its conduct toward Fields and by other acts As
the allegation with regard to Weinman is closely related in kind and time to
that set forth in the amended charge, I find that it is adequately covered by
the charge . N.L.R.B. v. Fant Milling Company, 360 U S 301 (1959); Truck
Drivers, Oil Drivers, and Filling Station and Platform Workers Local No. 705,
IBT (Associated Transport, Inc.), 209 NLRB 292 (1974); Casino Operations,
Inc, 169 NLRB 328, 330 (1968), Star Expansion Industries Corporation, 164
NLRB 563, 565, (1967).
2Allegheny General Hospital, 216 NLRB No 168 (1975); Butte Medical
Properties, d/b/a Medical Center Hospital, 168 NLRB 266 (1967)
J Much of the evidence is undisputed Where conflicts exist, I have re-
solved them on the basis of comparative demeanor, corroboration, likeli-
hood in light of all the circumstances , and other factors specifically referred
to below All evidence presented has been carefully considered , and omis-
sion of any reference to some of it indicates that it is considered irrelevant
or incredible
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent admits that William Reid, administra-
tor, and Margaret Hanley, director of nursing service, have
authority to hire and fire, and I find that they are supervi-
sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Helen Fields, registered nurse , was employed by the Re-
spondent at and before the time it moved into its new
building. There is no question that she is a qualified com-
petent nurse. At the time she resigned from full-time em-
ployment with the Respondent, in September 1973, she oc-
cupied the position of supervisor of the 3-11 shift.
Thereafter, although working full-time days for a private
medical clinic, she was on the Respondent's on-call list for
part-time work.
Irene Weinman, registered nurse, has been employed by
the Respondent since June 1969 and was promoted from
staff nurse to in-service instructor, a position which is paid
at the same rate as head nurse. She, also, is admittedly
competent and skillful. The duties of in-service instructor
initially involved interviewing and hiring clerical employ-
ees, taking them through a 3-week training course to pre-
pare them for work as hospital secretaries, or effectively
recommending that they not be retained. In June 1973,
another employee was hired for that position, and Wein-
man became the in-service instructor, responsible to Direc-
tor Hanley, of staff nurses assigned to intensive care and
coronary duty. From then on, Weinman helped out with
some orientation programs, but her assignment was teach-
ing specialized nursing skills."
From 1972 until April 1, 1974, the wage increases given
by the Respondent to its employees were limited to 5-1/2
percent a year under wage controls imposed on the hospi-
tal industry by the Federal government during that period.
The 1974 increase in that amount was given by the Re-
spondent on January 1.
When Weinman heard that economic controls over the
hospital industry were to be lifted, she wrote a letter to the
Roanoke World-News, which published it, along with an-
other letter on the same subject, on April 3, 1974, under the
headline "Another Group Has Pay Gripe." Weinman's let-
ter began:
I am writing to let the public know that nurses, along
with other professionals in this valley, are underpaid. I
feel this is the main reason for the shortage of nurses
in this area.
Weinman then contrasted the training and responsibilities
of nurses with those of grocery store checkout clerks who
received approximately the same pay, and ended with the
following appeal:
I hope people will support the health industry's efforts
to be released from economic controls before they be-
Based on Weinman 's credited testimony that although she was paid at
the same level as a head nurse , a supervisory position, she had no discipli-
nary authority, did not select nurses for training or weed them out, or rec-
ommend job assignments, I find that Weinman was not a supervisor after
June 1973. 1 place no reliance on Hanley's uncorroborated and generalized
testimony not further developed in the record that Weinman was a member
of the head nurse committee and participated fully in policy-making deci-
sions , or in Hanley's uncorroborated testimony which Weinman said was
contrary to her understanding that Weinman was solely responsible for
evaluating the qualifications of nurses for critical care work.
come patients in a hospital and then find out the hard
way about the shortage of nurses.
The letter made no reference to the Respondent.
Two or three days later, Weinman spoke to 20 to 40
nurses employed by the Respondent, encouraging them to
join Virginia Nurses' Association, or VNA (an affiliate of
American Nurses' Association). If 60-percent membership
at the hospital could be achieved, she told them, VNA
could bargain for increased wages. On April 11, Director
Hanley, who was at that time president-elect of VNA, sum-
moned Weinman to her office and told her Hanley had
heard about Weinman's encouraging nurses to join VNA
for collective-bargaining purposes. Weinman admitted it,
and Hanley told her
... that it was improper or inappropriate to be doing
this on hospital property and time and that it also
didn't encourage good members, because you would
be giving them false promises or false hope and they
would quickly become disillusioned and leave the or-
ganization and they wouldn't become long-term mem-
bers.
Meanwhile, Helen Fields read the letters to the newspa-
per and, after consulting with another nurse employed by
the medical clinic where she worked full time, drafted a
letter to the World-News which represented the views of
the two of them. This letter was published on April 17 over
Fields' name and was headlined "Nursing Dilemma." Af-
ter referring to the salary situation as a hard fact in every
local nurse's life, the letter stated that "Eleven years of
hospital nursing have taken their toll on me." The letter
went on to say,
I recently left hospital nursing for employment in a
physician's office. The salary is good, the benefits are
excellent. The duties are a challenge not a frustration.
After a day's work I know I will not be asked to work
eight hours more because of a help shortage, and feel
guilty when I say No. For the first time in nine years I
have time to spend with my family.
Many more nurses in this area are leaving hospital
nursing for the same reasons.
The public cannot afford to continue to sit idle or
remain mute concerning such a sad situation as nurs-
ing finds itself in in our area. Won't you speak up
before more nurses leave hospital nursing?
Again, no reference was made to the Respondent.
About 3 months after these events, on August 6, 1974,
Weinman and a part-time staff nurse, Laura Wilbon, in-
formed Director Hanley that they intended to make a tele-
phone survey of the nurses at the hospital to find out
whether they were satisfied with the 5-percent cost-of-liv-
ing wage increase which had been announced, and whether
they would be interested in collective bargaining. They also
informed Hanley that if the results of the survey were posi-
tive they intended to communicate with Barbara Walker,
executive director of VNA. Hanley responded that she
could understand Wilbon's participation as a staff nurse,
but she could not understand Weinman's because Hanley
considered Weinman, as a head level nurse, to be a part of
management. Weinman disagreed.
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY
The telephone survey was made by a group of about 10
nurses during the period August 6 to 11. Subsequent tally
of results showed the nurses still dissatisfied with their pay,
that they would like to be covered by a collective-bargain-
ing contract, and that they preferred to work through VNA
rather than through a union. Wilbon thereupon contacted
Walker, sent her the survey results, and set up a meeting of
hospital staff nurses with her on August 27, 1974.
Meanwhile, Director Hanley sent for Weinman on two
occasions, August 14 and 22, and on both occasions in-
formed Weinman that Hanley could not tolerate one in
Weinman's position working with the staff nurses to pro-
mote collective bargaining, and that Weinman would have
to decide whether she was management or labor. At their
August 22 conference, Hanley asked Weinman, "was she
reading me correctly in saying that I thought that an out-
side organization could do more for the hospital employees
financially and professionally . . . than the hospital ad-
ministration could do." Weinman indicated assent, and
ticked off the factors she believed made her position labor
and not management. That same evening Director Hanley
telephoned Weinman at home and Weinman agreed to
come to Hanley's office the next day, Friday, August 23,
although it was her day off. Weinman subsequently recon-
sidered, however, and canceled the appointment.
On Friday afternoon, August 23, Hanley personally de-
livered a letter to Weinman's home demoting Weinman to
staff nurse. In her letter, Hanley referred to "the need of
Nursing Service Administration to function as a team with
all members loyal to and supportive of the same hospital
philosophy," and stated that "it appears to me that you
have a deep conflict with the hospital philosophy." Hanley
outlined the hospital's efforts on behalf of its employees
despite wage controls and its plans for them in the future,
and ended,
The Community Hospital's position is that it is well
aware of the needs of its employees as well as the
needs of its patients . . . We do believe that the hospi-
tal can achieve the goals of satisfactory wages and
working conditions within the hospital organizational
framework.
Inasmuch as you have indicated to me that you can
not concur with Nursing Service Administration, and
since your position as Inservice Instructor involves
you as a member of Nursing Service Administration, I
have no other alternative except to regretfully inform
you that as of this date, August 23, 1974, you are ter-
minated from your position as Inservice Instructor. I
am transferring you to the position of Staff Nurse and
our records will so indicate with a concomitant reduc-
tion in salary.5
As stated above, it was 2 days later, August 25, that
nonprofit hospitals became subject to the National Labor
Relations Act.
5 I do not credit Hanley's testimony to the effect that she was motivated
in demoting Weinman by her belief that as the holder of a management
position Weinman might be accused of domination of or interference with
employee organization activities after the Respondent came within the pro-
visions of the Act. Hanley did not claim she expressed such concern to
Weinman , Weinman testified she did not , and no mention was made of such
a motive in the letter of demotion.
2. Immediate events
219
Three events took place on August 27, two days after the
amendment of the Act became effective: The Respondent
made effective a 5-percent cost-of-living increase; Helen
Fields had an interview with Hanley about full-time staff
nurse positions available at the hospital; and staff nurses
met with VNA Executive Director Walker at the public
library in the evening.
At her interview, Fields told Hanley she was interested
in returning to the hospital. Hanley replied that she was
surprised "after the letter you wrote to the newspaper and
your unhappiness with hospital nursing." Fields asked
Hanley to read the letter again because she had not intend-
ed to express unhappiness with hospital nursing but only
with situations in hospital nursing which could be changed.
She explained that she was spending her time with comput-
ers in her present job and wanted to get back to patient
care, and asked if there were any positions available as
staff nurse. Hanley inquired whether Fields had either re-
signed or notified her present employer of her intent to
resign, and Fields said she had not. Hanley then refused to
give any information regarding positions available for the
stated reason that it would be unethical to do so before
Fields had given notice.'
That evening 40 to 50 of the Respondent's staff nurses
met with Walker at the public library. The meeting was
called to order by Wilbon who led a discussion of the tele-
phone survey results and possible objectives of the group.
Walker took the stage and a heated argument ensued be-
tween her and the group over whether they had made ade-
quate use of in-hospital channels for dealing with employee
complaints. As a result, Walker was asked to step down
and the group selected a steering committee with tempo-
rary officers including Weinman, chairman; Wilbon, vice
chairman; and Fields, secretary. The committee met sepa-
rately and set a date for another meeting. Afterwards,
Weinman, Wilbon, and another instructed Walker to ad-
vise Hanley and Administrator Reid of the nurses' concern
regarding salaries, fringe benefits, grievance procedures,
and other matters, and of their interest in forming a chap-
ter of VNA to discuss such matters with hospital adminis-
tration. Walker subsequently reported back that she had
done as instructed, and that Reid and Hanley expressed
willingness to receive input from staff nurses on such mat-
ters through regular hospital channels.
On September 8 or 10, the steering committee met in a
private home and drafted a letter over the names of its
officers and members, which was mailed to all hospital
staff nurses on September 19. The letter set October 10 as
the date of the next nurses' meeting in the public library to
6 Where Fields' and Hanley's testimony is contradictory as to what was
said in this and other interviews, I have relied in most instances on that of
Fields as she impressed me as the more credible of the two overall In
addition, Hanley's statements that in the first interview Fields merely ex-
pressed interest in vacancies without asking for a job and that Hanley ex-
pected an applicant to apply for a particular position, and Hanley's denial
that she told Fields to give notice to her present employer are not believable
because they are inconsistent with the probabilities in light of other credited
evidence
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organize a chapter of VNA to continue efforts to obtain
more professional recognition and better wages and bene-
fits.
At about that time, Fields received a request from Sue
Davidson, reporter for WDBJ-TV, Inc., for an interview to
be recorded as part of a news story on dissatisfaction
among the Respondent's nurses. Fields got in touch with
Weinman who checked the matter out with other members
of the steering committee and the two of them agreed to
grant the interview. Davidson also interviewed Administra-
tor Reid, and the story was included in the TV station's
news broadcast at 6 and II p.m. on September 24.
Davidson reported over the air in the 6 p.m. newscast
that nurses at Community Hospital had begun to informal-
ly organize through VNA because they felt understaffed
and underpaid and that regular hospital channels were no
longer effective. Weinman was shown making the follow-
ing statement:
There are times, especially the 3 to 11, and 1l to 7
shifts when there are not RNs to cover the whole med-
ical-surgical unit of 40 patients. And this isn't just par-
ticular at our hospital alone in the Valley. That's a
known fact. And, you know, we feel very badly about
this, we feel it's directly related also to the salary and
benefits situation we're having, like Helen was saying
earlier. The cost of living, according the National
Chamber of Commerce figures, that have come out,
are just as high here in the Roanoke area as they are
anywhere in the country. And yet our salaries in this
area are like 60-80 cents an hour lower than they are
anywhere else in the country.
Reid was then shown defending the hospital wage struc-
ture, and Davidson asserted that the nurses at Community
Hospital did not want to unionize but did want the oppor-
tunity to bargain collectively. There followed a discussion
between Davidson and Reid of Weinman's demotion on
August 23 which did not mention Weinman by name and
which she took no part in. The II p.m. broadcast was simi-
lar but shorter, and Fields, as well as Weinman and Reid,
was shown. After Davidson referred to a "part-time and a
full-time nurse at the hospital" who "say three-fourths of
the staff nurses favor the drive," Fields and Weinman
made the following remarks.
Fields: According to a telephone survey that we made,
according to a first meeting that we held with the
group, and the response we've had since then from
staff nurses.
Davidson: Also, this administrative official told me
you're going to be asking for salaries that they pay
in California and New York.
Weinman: I don't think so. I feel if their salaries are
higher, that's fine. But I think we should be, in this
area, making at least what other areas of the coun-
try are making, who have similar costs of living that
we do have.
Remaining remarks on the newscast were made by Reid
and Davidson.
Two days after the broadcast, September 26, Director
Hanley sent for Weinman and told her Hanley "was ap-
palled at what she had said on the television interview."
Weinman retorted she had said nothing that was untrue.
Hanley replied:
That may be so; but the impression that you created
with the public was disastrous to the hospital as far as
I was concerned.
Hanley handed Weinman the warning notice which is a
subject of the complaint in this proceeding, and which
specified:
Breach of hospital and professional ethics in broad-
casting via the television news media her dissatisfac-
tions with the hospital working conditions regarding
staffing and her demotion.
Further incidents of this nature would be cause for
dismissal.
Weinman told Hanley she understood it was a requirement
to have a registered nurse on every unit every shift. Hanley
informed her there was no such requirement, as long as
licensed practical nurses responsible to registered nurses
were assigned. Weinman asked on what basis Hanley
found she had breached hospital and professional ethics,
and Hanley showed her portions of Respondent's employ-
ee handbook pertaining to the necessity for personnel to
assume responsibility of the image of the hospital to the
public; and the ANA Code for Nurses, pertaining to "the
appropriate channels" for improving economic and general
welfare conditions of the profession, which, the code indi-
cated, was "her professional association." Hanley told
Weinman she had no objections to collective bargaining
but that she did object "when the image conveyed to the
public was not a true one of the concern and care that the
patients received at our hospital," and that Weinman must
proceed ethically and professionally.
Weinman appealed the disciplinary notice, and other
conduct of Hanley's, to the Respondent's personnel direc-
tor, L. E. Collier. Collier's memo denying the appeal ad-
vised Weinman, "Your efforts beginning April 1974, to se-
cure larger salaries, greater benefits, and improved staffing,
is without foundation" as the hospital employees had been
given many improvements since 1967, "without the neces-
sity of asking or pressuring the Administration for them."
Collier upheld Hanley's warning notice on the ground that
Weinman was identified on television as an employee of
the Respondent and that her remarks "could only cause
the viewing public to form erroneous opinions of, the qual-
ity of care and treatment patients of Community Hospital
could expect."
Administrator Reid testified that he concurred in this
judgment.
The October issue of the in-plant hospital newspaper
carried an article by Administrator Reid advocating use of
in-hospital procedures for the presentation of personnel
matters and bona fide grievances, and expressing his belief
"that in our situation, any extraneous organization would
be detrimental to the best interest of the patient and per-
sonnel alike of Community Hospital."
On October 10 the staff nurse meeting to organize a
chapter of VNA was held. Fields did not attend, and the
turnout was disappointing. No action was taken, and it was
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY
decided by those present not to work through VNA as it
was thought that the Association leaned toward manage-
ment . The evidence shows that more than 50 percent of the
members of VNA occupy positions of head nurse or high-
er. Membership in ANA or VNA is not required for licens-
ing as a registered nurse nor for employment by the Re-
spondent . At the time of the hearing , Hanley was president
of VNA, and Weinman and Fields were members.
About a month later, on November 7, Fields notified the
medical clinic of her intent to resign effective December 5.
On November 18, she had another interview with Hanley
during which she requested a transfer from the on -call list
to a full-time staff nurse position on the 11-7 shift in any
unit except pediatrics . Hanley responded that Fields was
no longer on the on-call list as she had not worked 2 week-
end days a month as required . Fields protested that she
had received no notice of having been removed from the
list, and asked when it happened . Hanley said , "We are
tying up the loose ends now." Hanley said she was not sure
there was an opening for a full -time nurse on the shift re-
quested by Fields and that Hanley would have to check
with the assistant director for the 11 -7 shift . Fields asked
whether Hanley had a warning for her like the one she had
given Weinman . Hanley replied she did not, as she did not
consider Fields to represent the hospital ; and asked wheth-
er Fields thought she would be happy at Community Hos-
pital "after the letter you wrote to the newspaper where
you stated your unhappiness with hospital nursing." Fields
again requested Hanley to read the letter over as she had
misinterpreted it. The two then discussed the possibility of
a union coming to the hospital , Fields predicting it would
happen "if VNA did not support the nurses there and try
to help them in the situation they were in." Hanley replied,
"She would rather deal with a union any day than be un-
dermined from within ." The interview ended with Hanley's
saying she would get in touch if a job was available.
Hanley testified that she deleted Fields' name , and the
names of two other nurses, Cassell and Lott, from the on-
call list on October 10, 1974. The list is kept, and calls are
actually made , by a secretary . Hanley testified as follows
with regard to the October 10 deletions: the secretary who
keeps the list and makes the calls happened about that time
to ask Hanley whether she should continue to call "those
people who are on call and don 't work," and gave Hanley
these three names . This was the first time , Hanley claimed,
that she became aware that Fields ' name was on the on-call
list. Hanley told the secretary she would check into the
matter . She obtained the call -in sheets for 1974 and ascer-
tained that the three nurses were not working a weekend
per month . Fields conceded that this was a requirement of
which she was aware , but insisted it had never been strictly
enforced; no one, to her knowledge , had ever been
dropped from the list for failure to meet the requirement. '
The name of Lott does not appear on the call-in sheets in
evidence , but Hanley said her name was on another call-in
list which is otherwise unidentified . Hanley's testimony
i Although Hanley testified she had dropped one nurse from the list be-
fore this, in June 1974, 1 do not credit this statement Hanley failed to give
the name , and the Respondent's call-in sheets in evidence do not reflect It
I find the testimony to be a self-serving afterthought.
221
continued to the effect that the timecards of Fields, Cassell,
and Lott bore out their failure to meet the monthly week-
end requirement , so she notified the personnel office to
drop their names . No notice was given to those affected, as
Hanley considered it "comparable to simply abandoning a
position." Lott is now working regular part time for the
hospital. Cassell, who had last accepted a call-in to work in
May 1974, thereafter telephoned in late December 1974
asking for call-in work. Hanley told her, "I was only clean-
ing out some files and it's my mistake that I did not let you
all know; but you can come back to work whenever you
want to, if you will let us know...:. Cassell returned to
on-call work on January 3, 1975, at which time Hanley
discussed with her the weekend-a-month requirement for
the first time.
The Respondent's call-in sheets in evidence reveal that
the last time Fields worked 2 weekend days in 1 month was
January 26 and 27, 1974; after that she worked 1 weekend
day in March and 1 in September 1974; she refused re-
quests to work on three other dates in September. Fields
claimed that she called in and asked for weekend work
many times, including two unspecified dates in September,
when work was not given her. The call -in sheets reveal that
nurse Elizabeth Moore failed to meet the weekend require-
ment 1 month, and that Dianne Rice failed to meet it 6
different months, in 1974. Neither was dropped. Hanley
testified that all such nurses except the three whose names
were dropped were on leave of absence or sick leave, but
no notations to that effect appear on the call-in sheets for
Moore and Rice.
On November 29, Fields again saw Hanley. Hanley ad-
mittedly told Fields Hanley had decided "that it would be
in neither her best interest nor the hospital's for me to
reemploy her because of her obvious and public discontent
or dissatisfaction with hospital nursing." Hanley added
that,
it was our hospital philosophy and nursing service phi-
losophy that we believed that the quality of patient
care is related to the happiness and morale and satis-
faction of our employees and that I did not feel that it
would be in the patient's interest to re-employ her.
Hanley testified that in these remarks she made reference
to the letter Fields had written to the newspaper in April
1974, and conceded that there were positions available on
the shift Fields had requested. Fields asked Hanley if she
could be allowed to do private duty nursing through the
hospital. Hanley took the matter under advisement.
Administrator Reid testified he agreed with Hanley's de-
cision not to reemploy Fields "Because when a person says
publicly" that she "is not happy with us, we are happy that
they leave, because it is best for everybody.... And we
did not feel that she should come back and still do not feel
that she should come back."
Although a copy of a letter dated December 17, 1974,
from Hanley to Fields accepting her request for private
duty nursing is in evidence, the original apparently had
been sent to an old address and Fields never received it.
There has been no further communication between Fields
and the hospital.
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the treatment ac-
corded both Weinman and Fields was motivated by their
participation in the television broadcast of September 24,
which brought to public attention the dissatisfaction of the
Respondent's staff nurses with their wages and conditions
of employment, and that the reasons advanced by the Re-
spondent are pretexts.
The Respondent contends that it did not refuse to call
Fields for on-call duty in September 1974. The Respondent
in effect concedes that at material times both Fields and
Weinman were employees engaged in concerted activities
for the purpose of organizing staff nurses for collective bar-
gaining which were protected by the Act. It asserts, howev-
er, that it dropped Fields from the on-call list solely be-
cause she failed to work 2 weekend days a month as
required, and that it refused to reemploy her as a full-time
staff nurse because of her public personal and individual
declaration in her letter to the newspaper published on
April 17 that she could not tolerate the frustrations and
demands of hospital nursing. The Respondent further as-
serts that it gave Weinman the disciplinary warning notice
because in the television interview she engaged individually
in unprofessional, unethical, and disloyal conduct by mak-
ing a damaging statement which would mislead the public
into believing that the hospital did not provide safe and
adequate patient care.
I agree with the Respondent that the allegation that it
refused to call Helen Fields for part-time duty in Septem-
ber must fail. The hospital records, offered into evidence
by the General Counsel, show that the Respondent called
Fields for part-time duty on four different occasions and
that she actually worked once during the month of Septem-
ber 1974. I shall therefore recommend that this allegation
of the complaint be dismissed.
On the other hand, it is not disputed that the Respon-
dent dropped Fields from its on-call list, and refused her
application for full-time employment as a staff nurse, at a
time when positions were available , and that it issued the
warning notice to Weinman. In my opinion a preponder-
ance of the credible evidence supports the General
Counsel's contention that the reasons advanced by the Re-
spondent for this conduct were pretexts.
The evidence detailed above clearly reveals that the
Respondent's true motivation was to channel or control its
employees' organizing efforts. While at times professing no
objection to the principle of collective bargaining, Reid,
Hanley, and Collier as well, all revealed their determina-
tion to contain their employees' organizing efforts within
the confines of in-hospital procedures to the exclusion of
any outside organization; and, failing that, to channel
those efforts through the Virginia Nurses' Association. I
infer from Hanley's forceful personality as I observed it on
the witness stand, from her predisposition stated to Fields
not to be "undermined from within," and from her other
conduct and statements set forth above, that Hanley in-
tended to control these efforts, either as the director of
nursing service or as the president of VNA.
It is also clear that the appearance of these two employee
leaders of the organizational movement on the television
news broadcast brought their cause to public attention and
thereby triggered the Respondent's coercive conduct to-
ward them.
Only the broadcast explains the timing of the sudden
enforcement of the weekend rule, and the disparate en-
forcement of the rule against Fields. The facts show that
five nurses had been out of compliance with the rule for a
considerable time, Fields for 7 months. The Respondent
did nothing about this until shortly after the broadcast.
Then instead of warning them of the need to comply, or
seeking to obtain their compliance as one would expect
during a period when nurses were in short supply, it sud-
denly selected three of the five to be dropped without even
telling them. Thereafter, two of the three were restored to
duty, leaving only Fields, a leader of the organizational
movement , permanently dropped.
The broadcast also presents a more rational explanation
for the refusal to reemploy Fields than her purported un-
happiness with hospital nursing. In the first place, as Fields
repeatedly told Hanley and as is clear from her letter to the
newspaper, it was the salary situation and consequent staff
shortages that Fields expressed her unhappiness with.8
Moreover, although Hanley accused Fields, in their first
interview on August 27, of being unhappy with hospital
nursing, Hanley did not, on that occasion, indicate a dispo-
sition not to employ her. Hanley implied that Fields' appli-
cation would be favorably received if she gave notice to her
present employer. In their next interview, which took place
after the broadcast, Hanley's attitude toward Fields' appli-
cation changed and she indicated, untruthfully, that she
was not sure there was an opening for Fields. There fol-
lowed, 10 days later, the flat refusal to reemploy Fields
despite her admitted competence, the shortage of nurses,
and available openings.
Weinman's warning was, of course, admittedly caused
by the broadcast. Moreover, here again the reason ad-
vanced by the Respondent does not withstand analysis. I
agree with the General Counsel that the likely overall im-
pression created in the public mind by the broadcast was
that the Respondent's employees were dissatisfied with
their wages and conditions of employment. Weinman's ref-
erence to times when there are not enough RN's to cover
all units was specifically stated to be directly related to the
salary and benefits situation. In my opinion, most listeners
would take this as an expression of the widely held view
that low wages cause labor shortages. As the view would be
as applicable to a hospital as to any other employer, I can
see no discernible basis for the Respondent's professed
alarm over implications regarding patient care. The Re-
spondent explains Weinman's purported breach of hospital
ethics as being based on the responsibility with which she is
charged in its handbook for the hospital's image with the
public. Here, also, there appears to be no appreciable dif-
ference between a hospital employee's responsibility and
8 Even if Hanley's reason were accepted , it would not , in the circum-
stances, be a valid reason . Where the evidence indicates , as it does here, that
reemployment would have been accepted had it been tendered, an
employee's knowledge of, or unhappiness with, the employer 's working con-
ditions does not rob her of the protection of the Act See Lipsey, Inc, 172
NLRB 1535 (1968).
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY
that of employees of any other retail establishment . Final-
ly, it is clear that Weinman's so-called breach of profes-
sional ethics meant her taking the organizational activities
outside the VNA and the regular in-hospital channels pre-
ferred by management, which is merely further evidence of
the Respondent 's unlawful motivation.
For the reasons set forth above, as well as the credibility
findings heretofore made , I do not credit the Respondent's
witnesses as to the reasons for this treatment accorded
Fields and Weinman , and find that the real reason was the
employees ' bringing to public attention their efforts to or-
ganize for the improvement of their wages and working
conditions through collective bargaining , which manage-
ment was attempting to channel and control.
The Respondent concedes , and I find , that these efforts
were protected by Section 7 of the Act. I also find that
these employees had the additional right under the Act to
appeal for public support of their efforts, which is in es-
sence what they did here .9 Moreover , there is no merit in
the Respondent's contentions that Fields and Weinman
lost the Act's protection because (1) the views they ex-
pressed publicly were personal and individual; and (2) that
Weinman's remark was misleading and disloyal. As to (1),
the right to engage in concerted activity extends to the
right, exercised here , of each individual in a group of em-
ployees to speak in favor of, as well as on behalf of, such
activity. As to (2) the Respondent concedes that what
Weinman said was true, and I have found above there were
no reasonable grounds for the Respondent to conclude
that the viewing audience was misled to the detriment of
the hospital's public image. I have also found that
Weinman 's statement was made in a context of, and was
specifically related by her to, the employees' efforts to im-
prove wages and working conditions. Nor is there any evi-
dence at all that Weinman deliberately intended to alienate
the public by impugning the quality of the hospital's pa-
tient care.10
I conclude that by dropping Helen Fields' name from
the on-call list on October 10 and refusing her application
for reemployment on November 29, and by issuing a warn-
ing notice to Irene Weinman on September 26, 1974, the
Respondent interfered with , restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section
7, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
9 Southern Business and Industrial Development Corporation d/b/a The
Jackson Hilton, et al., 216 NLRB No 99 (1975) See, also, Schnell Tool & Die
Corporation and Salem Stamping & Manufacturing Co., Inc, 144 N LRB 385,
406 (1963), modified in other respects 359 F.2d 39 (C,A, 6, 1966)
10 N L.R.B. v. Cement Transport, Inc., 490 F 2d 1024 (C.A. 6, 1974); Ow-
ens-Corning Fibreglas Corporation v. N.LR.B., 407 F.2d 1357 (C.A. 4, 1969),
N.L.R.B. v. National Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., 315 F.2d 280
(C.A. 7, 1963); Frontier Guard Patrol, Inc., d/b/a Frontier Guard and DeLue,
Inc., et al., 161 NLRB 155 (1966). In Bowling Green Manufacturing Company
v. N.L.R. B., 416 F.2d 371 (C.A. 6, 1969 ), relied on by the Respondent, the
court found , contrary to the Board, that an employee 's broadcast statements
were false and calculated to expose the employer to public contempt. That
case is clearly distinguishable from this case where there is no evidence that
Weinman 's remark was so calculated , and where the Respondent admits
that what she said was true and relies solely on its unsupported assertion
that its import was misleading.
11 See N.L R B v Crystal Tire Company, 410 F.2d 916 (C.A 8, 1969);
Champion Papers, Inc. (Ohio Division) v. N L R B, 393 F.2d 388 (C A 6,
1968); Signal Oil and Gas Company v. N. L. R. B., 390 F 2d 338 (C.A. 9, 1968),
Belts Baking Company, Inc v N L.R.B, 380 F 2d 199 (C.A 10, 1967);
III. REMEDY
223
'In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recom-
mend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and from any like or
related conduct, and that it take certain affirmative action
detailed below.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully issued a
warning notice to Irene Weinman on September 26, 1974, I
shall recommend that it be ordered to rescind that notice
and remove all copies of it from the Respondent's files.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully dropped
Helen Fields' name from its on-call list on October 10 and
refused to reemploy her on November 29, 1974, I also rec-
ommend that it be ordered to restore her name to the list,
and offer her immediate and full employment in a position
as staff nurse, for which she applied, or if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges,
and to make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered by
reason of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, plus interest
at 6 percent per annum. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716 (1962). The Respondent's contention that no backpay
should be awarded Fields because there is no standard
against which to measure it is rejected, as this matter can
be properly dealt with at the compliance stage of this pro-
ceeding.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER12
The Respondent, Community Hospital of Roanoke Val-
ley, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Issuing warning notices or refusing employment to
employees, or dropping their names from the on-call list,
because of their protected concerted activity.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Rescind the warning notice issued to Irene Weinman
and remove all copies of the notice from the hospital files.
(b) Restore Helen Fields' name to the on-call list, and
offer her immediate and full employment in a position as
staff nurse, for which she applied, or, if such position no
Reno's Riverside Hotel, Inc. d/b/a Riverside Hotel, 166 NLRB 426, 433
(1967) N L R B. v. Local Union No 1229, International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers [Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Co], 346 U S 464 (1953),
and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (Coca-Cola
Bottling Works, Inc) v. N L R B, 466 F 2d 380 (C A D C., 1972), cited by
the Respondent, and similar cases , are inapposite as the employee conduct
there were deliberate attacks on the employer's product made in a manner
unrelated to a labor dispute
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
longer exists , to a substantially equivalent position , without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges.
(c) Make Helen Fields whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlawful conduct,
in the manner spelled out in the Remedy section hereof,
plus 6-percent interest.
(d) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records , timecards , personnel records and reports, and
all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this recommended Order.
(e) Post at its hospital in Roanoke , Virginia, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said
notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director of Re-
gion 5, after being duly signed by an authorized represen-
tative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent 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 the
Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced , 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 Respon-
dent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it here-
by is, dismissed as to all allegations not specifically found
herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT issue warning notices or refuse employ-
ment to employees , or drop their names from the on-
call list because they engage in concerted activities
protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the warning notice issued to Irene
Weinman and remove all copies of it from hospital
files.
WE WILL restore Helen Fields' name to the on-call
list and offer her immediate and full employment to a
position of staff nurse for which she applied or, if such
position no longer exists , to a substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges.
WE WILL make Helen Fields whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered plus interest at 6 per-
cent.
13 In the event that the Board 's 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."
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY, INC.