CONFIDENCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 14, 2016

22-CA-161283 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

JD(NY)-32-16
Newark, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
HAMILTON PARK HEALTH CARE CENTER
and Case 22–CA–161287
1199, SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS EAST
CONFIDENCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT
HAMILTON PARK HEALTH CARE CENTER
and Case 22–CA–161283
1199, SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS EAST
Eric B. Sposito, Esq. and
Julie Kaufman, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
David F. Jasinski, Esq.
Rebecca D. Winkelstein, Esq.
Jasinski, P.C.
for the Respondent.
Katherine H. Hansen, Esq.,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN T. GIANNOPOULOS, these cases were tried in Newark, New Jersey, on June 7, 2016,
pursuant to two separate complaints, both of which were issued on February 24, 2016, by the
Regional Director for Region 22 on behalf of the General Counsel.1 The complaint and notice of
hearing in Case 22–CA–161287 alleges that Hamilton Park Health Care Center (“Hamilton

1 Citations to the transcripts will be denoted by “Tr.” with the appropriate page number. Citations to the General
Counsel’s Exhibits, Respondent’s Exhibits, Union Exhibits, and Joint Exhibits will be denoted by “GC.” “R.” “U.”
and “JX.” respectively.
JD(NY)-32-16

2
Park”) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”)
by failing and refusing to furnish 1199, SEIU United Health Care Workers East (“Union”) with
information it requested on June 23, 2015,2 that is necessary for, and relevant to, its duties as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of certain employees employed by Hamilton Park.
The complaint and notice of hearing in Case 22–CA–161283 alleges that Confidence 5
Management Systems at Hamilton Park Health Care Center (“Confidence Management Systems”
or “CMS”) similarly violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with necessary and relevant information. Because both Respondents were represented
by the same counsel, and the both cases involved similar evidence, with the same charging party,
it was agreed that the hearings would be opened concurrently with evidence admitted into the 10
record for both matters. Based upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law.3
I. Jurisdiction and Labor Organization15
Hamilton Park is a New Jersey corporation with an office and place of business in Jersey
City, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the business of operating a nursing home. It derives
annual gross revenues in excess of $100,000, and purchases and receives goods valued in excess
of $5,000 directly from points located outside the State of New Jersey. Respondent Hamilton 20
Park admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Confidence Management Systems is a New Jersey corporation with an office and place of
business in Linden, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the business of providing housekeeping 25
and laundry services to various health care facilities, including to Respondent Hamilton Park.
CMS annually purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
located outside the State of New Jersey. Respondent CMS admits and I find that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
30
Both Respondent Hamilton Park and Respondent CMS admit, and I find, that the Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Facts
35
A. Background
Hamilton Park operates a nursing home in Jersey City, New Jersey. Next to the nursing
home is an assisted living facility named the Atrium at Hamilton Park (“Atrium”). Hamilton
Park and the Atrium are located on the same campus, in two separate buildings next door to each 40

2 All dates are in 2015 unless otherwise noted.
3 When necessary, credibility resolutions have been made based upon a review of the entire record and all exhibits
in this proceeding. Witness demeanor was primarily considered in making credibility resolutions. I also considered
the inherent probability of the testimony and whether such testimony was in conflict with credited testimony or
documentary evidence. Testimony contrary to my findings has been discredited.
JD(NY)-32-16

3
other. (Tr. 51–52) In about April 2013 the assets of both Hamilton Park and the Atrium were
sold to an ownership group referred to “Alaris” or “Alaris Health.”4 (Tr. 21, 37, 75, 93, 98, 111)
The Union has represented employees at Hamilton Park since at least April 2005. At the
time, Hamilton Park was a member of a multiemployer bargaining group that bargained with the 5
Union as the bargaining representative for the group’s employees. See Hamilton Park Health
Care Center Ltd. v. 1199 SWIU United Healthcare Workers East, 817 F.3d 857, 859 (3d Cir.
2016). In April 2005 Hamilton Park signed an “Adoption Memorandum” adopting the
multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement (“2005 CBA”) with the Union.5 (GC. 2-1, p. 40)
In 2008, the bargaining group entered into a new contract with the Union, effective March 13, 10
2008 through February 28, 2013 (“2008 CBA”).6 Hamilton Park Health Care Center Ltd, 817
F.3d at 859.
The 2008 CBA gave the Union the option to reopen negotiations to bargain for new
employment terms during the CBA’s last year, and further provided that, if the parties did not 15
agree to new terms by a certain date, they could submit any unresolved items to binding interest
arbitration. Id. at 859–860.7 The Union invoked its right to reopen negotiations in November
2011, but the parties reached an impasse and submitted the unresolved issues to arbitration. In
November 2012, the arbitrator issued a multiyear award, thereby extending the collective-
bargaining agreement through June 30, 2016. Hamilton Park filed a petition in Federal court to 20
vacate the award claiming the arbitrator exceeded his authority by issuing an award that extended
the 2008 CBA.8 Ultimately, the Third Circuit upheld the arbitrator’s award extending the CBA.9

4 There is scant evidence conclusively explaining the purchase, the corporate structures of the new owners, the
exact relationship between “Alaris” and Hamilton Park, or that of “Alaris” and the Atrium. Moreover, in a Federal
district court consent order introduced into evidence, the purchaser of Hamilton Park is referred to as Hamilton Park
Opco, LLC. (GC. 8) It is unknown whether the same corporate entity/entities purchased the assets of both Hamilton
Park and the Atrium. While both Respondents and the Union submitted arbitration briefs into evidence that touch
upon the sale (GC. 36; R. 3) “[a]rguments in the parties’ briefs are not evidence.” Duha v. Agrium, Inc., 448 F.3d
867, 879 (6th Cir.2006); Estrella v. Bryant, 682 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir.1982) (Legal memoranda and oral argument
are not evidence).
5 Attachment A of the 2005 CBA lists “Hamilton Park Health Care Center, including Atrium” as one of the
employer members of the multiemployer bargaining group. (GC. 2-1 p. 51) The index of the 2005 CBA also
includes the phrase “Hamilton Park Health Care Center, including Atrium.” (GC. 2-1 pp. iii, 51) However, the actual
adoption memorandum only references “Hamilton Park Health Care Center” as the employer, with no reference to
the Atrium. Id. at p. 40.
6 Throughout the 2008 CBA, only Hamilton Park is referenced as the employer; there are no references to the
Atrium in the document. (GC. 3)
7 With interest arbitration, the parties ask the arbitrator to set new terms and conditions of employment. Hamilton
Park Health Care Center Ltd., 817 F.3d at 860 fn. 2 (contrasting “interest arbitration” with “rights arbitration”).
8 The petition to vacate was filed on January 31, 2013. See, Hamilton Park Health Care Center v. 1199 SEIU
United Healthcare Workers East, 2015 WL 3440857, at *4 (D.N.J. 2015). It does not appear from the pleadings that
any other employer in the multiemployer association joined the petition to vacate.
9 The arbitrator also included a “second generation arbitration provision” in his award, allowing the Union to reopen
negotiations for the contract’s last year (June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2016) and force arbitration on any dispute arising
therefrom. Hamilton Park also challenged this part of the award. The Third Circuit agreed with Hamilton Park and
voided the second generation arbitration provision. Id. at 864–866.
JD(NY)-32-16

4
Id. at 862–865. While the parties were in Federal court contesting the extension of the 2008
CBA, Hamilton Park and the Union were also engaged in extensive litigation over other related
matters, including the sale of Hamilton Park to new owners.
Sometime during the fall of 2012, negotiations began regarding the asset sale of both 5
Hamilton Park and the Atrium to new owners. The successorship clause in the 2008 CBA
required that any successor assume the collective-bargaining agreement and retain the bargaining
unit employees. The Union learned about the impending sale, and because employees began
receiving mass-layoff notices, it filed suit in Federal district court to enjoin the sale of Hamilton
Park.10 (Tr. 73–75) (GC. 3 p. 27)10
On December 28, 2012, an injunction issued stopping the sale. Subsequently, on
April 19, 2013, the court issued a consent order continuing the enjoinment of the sale until the
buyer formally agreed to assume the 2008 CBA, including the interest arbitration award
extending the term through 2016.11 Also, the new owner was required to retain all bargaining 15
unit members employed on the sale’s closing date as required by the 2008 CBA’s successorship
clause. (GC. 8)
After the Union had learned of the impending sale, on November 30, 2012, a Hamilton
Park payroll employee informed representatives of the Union’s benefit fund, via email, that 20
union employees working at the Atrium had been transferred to Hamilton Park effective October
14, 2012, and therefore the benefit funds would receive contributions for all employees directly
from Hamilton Park. (GC. 25) Before that date, the Union received trust fund payments broken
out separately for employees working at the Atrium (approximately 15) and those working at
Hamilton Park (approximately 139).12 Also, it appears the payments were drawn from different 25
accounts, with different checks—one check coming from Hamilton Park and another coming
from the Atrium.13 (GC. 23–27, 36 Ex. A)
Ultimately, the sale to the new owners was consummated sometime around April or May
of 2013. (Tr. 65, 77) A few months later, in July 2013, CMS started managing the housekeeping 30
department at both Hamilton Park and the Atrium. (Tr. 137.) It appears that the transition was
seamless, with employees working for Hamilton Park and/or the Atrium one day, and then
working for Respondent CMS the next.14 (Tr. 146, 150) CMS signed an assumption agreement,

10 Limited evidence was introduced into the record regarding the litigation over the sale. However, it appears that the
Union only contested the sale of Hamilton Park and not the sale of the Atrium.
11 Although the consent order required the new buyer to enter into an agreement assuming the 2008 CBA, no such
agreement was introduced into evidence in this matter.
12 The actual number of employees varied by a few workers depending upon the month.
13 There is also evidence that, in April 2013, dues deductions were made for some employees working at the Atrium.
(GC. 23–27, 36 Ex. A.)
14 According to CMS, at the time they appeared on the scene, Hamilton Park and the Atrium had separate
housekeeping staffs, and CMS simply took over the employees from each staff. (Tr. 150, 154.)
JD(NY)-32-16

5
dated July 1, 2013, recognizing the Union as the representative of workers employed by CMS “at
Hamilton Park Healthcare Center.” (R. 1.) In the agreement, CMS also agreed to be bound by the
2008 CBA, and further consented to employ the laundry and housekeeping employees employed
by Hamilton Park as of the date of the agreement. (Tr. 138, 145.) The assumption agreement
signed by CMS does not mention, or discuss, the Atrium. 5
After CMS began managing the housekeeping and laundry departments at Hamilton Park
and the Atrium, the Union believed that neither Hamilton Park, nor CMS, was properly applying
the terms of the 2008 CBA to employees. According to the Union, employees were not receiving
their contractually required minimum rates, allowances, and time off. Moreover, the laundry 10
services were contracted-out resulting in employee layoffs. The Union also claimed that some
workers were laid off from their jobs at Hamilton Park, and then went to work the next day at the
Atrium, performing the exact same work, but ostensibly as nonunion employees. All of these
disputes resulted in the Union filing multiple grievances and arbitration demands, starting in
about September 2013, against both Hamilton Park and CMS. (GC. 9, 10; Tr. 78, 81–82.) 15
An arbitration hearing on the Union’s grievances was held on June 4, 2015. At the
hearing, the arbitrator ordered the parties to exchange documents by June 30.15 Specifically, he
ordered Hamilton Park to produce to the Union documents “regarding the relationship between
the Atrium and the [Hamilton Park] Care Center”16 (GC. 12) 20
On June 23, in anticipation of the arbitrator’s deadline, the Union sent an email to the
attorney representing both Hamilton Park and CMS with two separate information requests—one
for each. (GC. 13–15.) The body of the email stated as follows:
25
As you know, at the June 4, 2015 hearing, Arbitrator Scheinman ordered the Employer to
provide the Union with all of the requested information regarding the Hamilton
Park/Atrium arbitrations by no later than June 30, 2015. For you convenience, attached
are two documents, one for Hamilton Park and one for CMS, identifying all of the
information requested by the Union. Please provide the requested information by no later 30
than June 30, 2015.

15 It is unclear from the record as to the full nature of the June 4 hearing. However, it appears that, while some
evidence was taken on the grievances in question, the hearing dealt primarily with preliminary matters, including
stipulations and the Union’s request for documents. The hearing was then adjourned to a future date. (Tr. 86–88)
16 In a subsequent letter to the parties, dated June 30, the arbitrator also instructed the parties that, should there be
any disputes regarding the document production, he would conduct a conference call to make appropriate rulings
regarding the production. Finally, the arbitrator asked the parties to submit prehearing briefs on the underlying
issues because of the “complexity of the case” by July 3. (GC. 12) The parties submitted their briefs. (GC. 36; R. 3)
One of the arguments made by the Union in its brief to the arbitrator is that Hamilton Park and the Atrium constitute
a single employer, and that there is one dietary and maintenance department for both, with centralized scheduling
and a common management. (GC. 36)
JD(NY)-32-16

6
The information requests attached to the email are the basis of the General Counsel’s complaint
allegations. For Hamilton Park the information requested was as follows:
1. All documents of Hamilton Park Healthcare Center (“Hamilton Park” or “the
Employer”) reflecting all employees in the housekeeping (including laundry), dietary and 5
maintenance departments at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, since April of 2013 to
the present, including the following information for each employee:
a. Name
b. Date of hire10
c. Job title
d. Hourly rate of pay
e. Regular hours worked per pay period
f. Number of overtime hours worked each pay period
g. Job status (i.e, part-time, full-time, per diem)15
h. Shift
i. Facility to which he\she is regularly assigned (Hamilton Park and/or the
Atrium)
j. Date employment ended, if any, and the reason for the end of his/her
employment.20
2. All documents of the Employer reflecting all employees in the housekeeping
(including laundry), dietary and maintenance departments at Hamilton Park, including the
Atrium, who were laid off since April of 2013 to the present including the date of the
layoff and the reason for the layoff.25
3. All documents of the Employer reflecting any employee identified in No. 2 who
has returned to work at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, including the following
information for any such employee:
30
a. Name
b. Job title
c. Date of his/her return to work
d. Position to which he/she was returned
e. Rate of pay prior to lay off35
f. Rate of pay upon return to work to the present
g. Hours worked per pay period from date of his/her return to work to the
present.
JD(NY)-32-16

7
4. All documents of the Employer reflecting all employees in the housekeeping
(including laundry), dietary and maintenance departments at Hamilton Park, including the
Atrium, who have had their hours reduced since April 2013 including the following
information for any such employee:
5
a. Name
b. Job title
c. Date of his/her reduction in hours
d Numbers of hours reduced
e. Reasons for the reduction in hours.10
5. Payroll registers of the Employer reflecting all hours worked and rate of pay for
each employee in the housekeeping (including laundry), dietary and maintenance
departments at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, from April 2013 to the present.
15
6. All documents of the Employer showing the actual hours worked including, but
not limited, to the weekly or monthly work schedules for all employees in the
housekeeping (including laundry), dietary and maintenance departments at Hamilton
Park, including the Atrium, since April of 2013 to the present.
20
7. All documents of the Employer reflecting the health and other benefits, including
but not limited to paid time off, provided to all employees in the housekeeping (including
laundry), dietary and maintenance departments at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium,
since April of 2013 to the present.
25
8. All documents of the Employer reflecting the job descriptions for all employees,
including managers and supervisors, in the housekeeping (including laundry), dietary,
and maintenance departments at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, since April of
2013 to the present.
30
9. All documents of the Employer reflecting the date CMS began managing the
housekeeping (including laundry) department at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium.
10. All documents of the Employer, including but not limited to an organizational
chart, reflecting the management structure of the housekeeping (including laundry), 35
dietary and maintenance departments at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium.
11. All documents of the Employer including, but not limited to an organizational
chart, reflecting the ownership, corporate structure, officers and financial control of
Hamilton Park, including the Atrium.40
JD(NY)-32-16

8
12. All documents of the Employer including, but not limited to an organizational
chart, reflecting the structure of labor relations at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium.
13. All documents of the Employer reflecting the monthly census reports at Hamilton 5
Park, including the Atrium, from April 2013 to the present.
14. All documents of the Employer reflecting the subcontracting out of the laundry
services at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, from 2013 to the presenting including,
but not limited to, the date the laundry was subcontracted and the company providing 10
laundry services to Hamilton Park, including the Atrium.
For Confidence Management Systems, the Union requested the following information:
1. All documents of Confidence Management Systems (“CMS” of “the Employer”) 15
reflecting all employees in the housekeeping (including laundry) department at Hamilton
Park Health Care Center (“Hamilton Park”), including at the Atrium, since April of 2013
to the present, including the following information for each employee:
a. Name20
b. Date of hire
c. Job title
d. Hourly rate of pay
e. Regular hours worked per pay period
f. Number of overtime hours worked each pay period25
g. Facility to which he\she is regularly assigned (Hamilton Park and/or the
Atrium)
h. Date employment ended, if any, and the reason for the end of his/her
employment.
30
2. All documents of the Employer reflecting all employees in the housekeeping
(including laundry) department at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, who were laid
off since April of 2013 to the present including the date of the layoff and the reason for
the layoff.
35
3. All documents of the Employer reflecting any employee identified in No. 2 who
has returned to work at Hamilton Park, including at the Atrium, including the following
information for any such employee:
a. Name 40
JD(NY)-32-16

9
b. Job title
c. Date of his/her return to work
d. Position to which he/she was returned
e. Rate of pay prior to lay off
f. Rate of pay upon return to work to the present5
g. Hours worked per pay period from date of his/her return to work to the
present.
4. All documents of the Employer reflecting all employees in the housekeeping
(including laundry) department at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, who have had 10
their hours reduced since April 2013 including the following information for any such
employee:
a. Name
b. Job title15
c. Date of his/her reduction in hours
d. Numbers of hours reduced
e. Reason for the reduction in hours.
5. Payroll registers of the Employer reflecting all hours worked and rate of pay for 20
each employee in the housekeeping (including laundry) department at Hamilton Park,
including the Atrium, from April 2013 to the present.
6. All documents of the Employer showing the actual hours worked including, but
not limited, to the work schedules for all employees in the housekeeping (including 25
laundry) department at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, since April of 2013 to the
present.
7. All documents of the Employer reflecting the health and other benefits, including
but not limited to paid time off, provided to all employees in the housekeeping (including 30
laundry) department at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, since April of 2013 to the
present.
8. All documents of the Employer reflecting the job descriptions for all employees,
including managers and supervisors, in the housekeeping (including laundry) department 35
at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, since April of 2013 to the present.
9. All documents of the Employer reflecting the date CMS began managing the
housekeeping (including laundry) department at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium.
40
JD(NY)-32-16

10
10. All documents of the Employer, including but not limited to an organizational
chart, reflecting the management structure of the housekeeping (including laundry)
department at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium.
11. All documents of the Employer including, but not limited to an organizational 5
chart, reflecting the structure of labor relations of CMS at Hamilton Park, including the
Atrium.
12. All documents of the Employer reflecting the subcontracting out of the laundry
services at Hamilton Park, including the Atrium, from 2013 to the presenting including, 10
but not limited to, the date the laundry was subcontracted and the company currently
providing laundry services to Hamilton Park, including the Atrium.
On June 25, the arbitrator issued an award finding that both CMS and Hamilton Park
violated the 2008 CBA by contracting out the laundry department work.17 The award required 15
both parties to return the work back to the laundry department. The arbitrator also ordered a
future hearing to determine damages if the parties were unable to stipulate to a liquidated amount
by July 31.18
On July 1, the Union received an email from the Respondents’ counsel, containing an 20
attachment with some payroll dues information from Hamilton Park and the Atrium. While the
documents were responsive to the Union’s information requests, they contained only a fraction
of the information requested by the Union. After a series of emails between the Union and
Respondents’ counsel, and at least one email between the parties and the arbitrator, on July 16 a
conference call was held with the arbitrator to discuss the issues surrounding Respondents’ 25
document production. During the conference call, Respondents asked to have until August 20 to
produce the requested information. (Tr. 167–168; GC. 29–31.)
On August 21, 2015, Respondents’ counsel sent the Union another document production.
(GC. 32–33.) While the information produced was partially responsive to the Union’s June 23 30
information requests, it again contained only a small fraction of the information sought by the
Union.
The parties had an arbitration hearing scheduled for September 16, and in anticipation of
the upcoming hearing, on September 10, the Union sent an email to Respondents’ counsel again 35
asking that some of the outstanding information be produced, noting that laundry services had

17 Although the award is dated June 23, it was not served upon the parties until June 25. (G.C. 38)
18 Respondent CMS and Respondent Hamilton Park filed a lawsuit in New Jersey superior court seeking to overturn
the arbitration award. (R. 4) The suit was moved to Federal district court, and as of the date of the hearing the matter
was still pending. (Tr. 224–225; Tr. 244)
JD(NY)-32-16

11
yet to be restored to Hamilton Park, as ordered by the arbitrator. (GC. 35) On October 1, the
Union filed the underlying charges against Hamilton Park and CMS in this matter.
On December 11, the arbitrator issued an award finding that Hamilton Park and CMS
were not paying the minimum wage rates as required by the 2008 CBA. (GC. 39) On 5
April 22, 2016, the arbitrator sent a letter to the parties confirming that a hearing would be held
on June 28, 2016, regarding the following grievances: (1) improper layoffs, reduction in hours
and seniority, the removal of housekeeping and dietary employees from the bargaining unit; (2)
the prorating of bonuses, sick pay, and personal time off; (3) violation of employee recall rights;
(4) the failure to give holiday pay and requiring employees to work a holiday; and (5) the failure 10
to pay other various contractual requirements.
Other than the information presented by the Employer on July 1 and August 21, there is
no evidence in the record that either Hamilton Park or CMS submitted any other information to
the Union responsive to its June 23 information requests. 15
III. Position of the Parties
A. The General Counsel
20
The General Counsel argues that the June 23 information request submitted to Hamilton
Park seeks information that is presumptively relevant, as it pertains to bargaining unit
employees, and serves the following purposes: (1) to investigate and establish whether Hamilton
Park violated the 2008 CBA; (2) to identify the employees affected, in the event the company
was not following the contract; (3) to prepare for future arbitration hearings resulting from the 25
Union’s arbitration demands; and (4) to present the arbitrator with evidence that he deemed
necessary to craft remedial awards. GC. Brief, at 15.
Regarding the Atrium, the General Counsel asserts that the “record evidence shows that
Atrium dietary, housekeeping, and maintenance employees are part of the same bargaining unit 30
as the Hamilton Park unit employees” and thus the information requested regarding Atrium
employees is presumptively relevant. Id. at 18–19. Furthermore, the General Counsel argues that,
even if the Atrium employees are not in the same bargaining unit, the information must still be
produced as it involves “the very integrity of the unit” citing Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 296
NLRB 591 (1989). Id. at 20. 35
Regarding CMS, the General Counsel argues that the information requested is
presumptively relevant because CMS agreed to assume Hamilton Park’s collective-bargaining
agreement as it pertained to those employees, and it is directly related to the Union’s demands
for arbitration made to CMS. Id. at 17. As with the Hamilton Park request, the General Counsel 40
also asserts the CMS information request was made to investigate the arbitration demands, to
JD(NY)-32-16

12
find out which housekeeping employees were affected by the alleged contract violations, and to
assist the arbitrator in crafting a remedy. GC. Brief, at 18.
B. The Respondents
5
The Respondents assert a variety of defenses to the information requests. First, they claim
that the Atrium is not a party to these proceedings, and therefore the Board cannot compel the
production of documents from the Atrium. Respondent Brief, at 11–12. Next, Respondents assert
that the arbitrator, and not the NLRB, has jurisdiction over the dispute involving the information
requests. Id. at 12. Citing California Nurses Assn., 362 NLRB 1362 (1998); and Tool & Die 10
Makers’ Lodge 78 (Square D Co.), 224 NLRB 111 (1976). Respondents also claim they had no
obligation to produce the documents as the information requests constitute pre-arbitration
discovery, and therefore invalid. Id. at 12–14. Finally, Respondents assert the information
requested, as it relates to Atrium employees, is not relevant to the Union’s grievance, and
therefore does not need to be produced. Id. at 14–16.15
C. The Union
In its brief, the Union focuses its argument on the requests concerning Atrium employees.
The Union argues that the scope of the Union’s bargaining unit at Hamilton Park and the nature 20
of the relationship between Hamilton Park and the Atrium is a major dispute in the underlying
arbitrations. Thus, the Union asserts that the information requested concerning the Atrium is
“directly relevant to this underlying dispute and to the Union’s ability to evaluate, process, and
present its grievances in arbitration.” Union Brief, at 3. This includes the Union’s assertion, in
arbitration, that Hamilton Park and the Atrium are single employers. Id. at 5, 5 at fn.6. Finally, 25
the Union argues that the timing of the information requests, coming after the arbitration hearing
was scheduled, is not relevant, as the duty to provide information extends to information needed
to prepare for arbitration. Id. at 7. Regarding Respondent’s jurisdiction argument, the Union
asserts that information request cases are not subject to deferral, even when the arbitrator has
determined the information sought is relevant to the matters before him/her. Id. at 2, fn.1. 30
Finally, the Union argues that California Nurses Association stands for the proposition that only
specific types of information, such as witness names and the evidence upon which a party
intends to rely, constitutes pre-arbitration discovery and need not be produced; it does not create
a blanket ban on producing documents when an arbitration is already scheduled. Id. at 6–7.
35
IV. Analysis
A. Legal Standard
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act imposes on an employer the “duty to bargain collectively” 40
which includes a duty to supply a union with requested information that will enable it to
JD(NY)-32-16

13
“negotiate effectively and perform its duties as bargaining representative.” New York &
Presbyterian Hospital v. NLRB, 649 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2011), enfg. 355 NLRB 627
(2010). This includes the duty to furnish the union with information requested in order to
properly administer a collective-bargaining agreement, and the processing and evaluating of
grievances pursuant to the agreement. Id; Oncor Electric Co., LLC, 364 NLRB No. 58, slip op. at 5
20 (2016).
A union’s bare assertion that it needs information does not “automatically oblige the
employer to supply all the information in the manner requested.” Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB,
440 U.S. 301, 314 (1979). For employees within the bargaining unit, information requested10
concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment is presumed relevant.
A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356 NLRB 499, 500 (2011). As for information requested for
employees outside the bargaining unit, the burden is on the union to demonstrate the relevance of
the requested information. Id. However, the threshold for relevance is low. A discovery-type
standard is applied to determine relevance, under which “the fact the information is of probable 15
or potential relevance is sufficient to give rise to an obligation to provide it.” Presbyterian
Hospital, 649 F.3d at 730 (internal quotations omitted); A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 359
NLRB at 500.
B. Deferral to Arbitration is not Appropriate20
Respondents assert that, because they were ordered by the arbitrator to produce
documents regarding the relationship between the Atrium and Hamilton Park, it is the arbitrator
and not the NLRB that has jurisdiction in this matter. Although not cited by any party, the facts
in this matter, with respect to the timing of the information request in relation to the arbitration, 25
are similar to those in New Island Hospital, 344 NLRB 198 (2005). In New Island Hospital, the
union filed grievances over a staffing guideline dispute, and in September 2003 demanded
arbitration of the grievance. On February 6, 2004, the Union requested information concerning
four units specified in the grievances plus a surgery unit. The company did not comply with the
information request.30
The arbitration hearing was scheduled to begin on March 9, 2004. In connection with the
arbitration, on February 11, 2004, the union served a document subpoena to the employer
seeking the same information asked for in its February 6 information request, except for the
information on the surgery unit. The employer asked the arbitrator to quash the subpoena, but the 35
arbitrator did not rule on the motion to quash. On March 11, 2004, the union filed a charge with
the Board regarding the refusal to provide information. As of the June 2004 NLRB hearing, the
arbitrator had still not ruled on the hospital’s motion to quash the arbitration subpoena; the
arbitration itself was still in progress, and was scheduled to resume in October 2004.
40
The administrative law judge dismissed the company’s claim that the matter should be
deferred to arbitration, and found the employer violated the Act by refusing to provide the
information. Id. at 199–200. The Board affirmed the judge’s decision on deferral, however for
JD(NY)-32-16

14
differing reasons. Two members of the panel found that deferral was inappropriate because the
“arbitrator has not promptly resolved the parties’ information-request dispute” noting that, as “of
the of the date of the instant Board decision, more than 10 months have elapsed, and the Union
still has not received a ruling on whether it is entitled to the requested information.” Id at 198 fn.
2. The third panel member affirmed the ALJ’s decision, relying on the Board’s longstanding 5
policy that information request cases are not subject to deferral. Id. (citing Postal Service, 302
NLRB 918, 918 (1991) (“issues concerning a refusal to supply information are not subject to
deferral to the grievance-arbitration process”). The Board majority noted that “[w]e find it
unnecessary to pass on whether, absent such a delay, the Board properly should defer an
information-request allegation where a charging party has invoked the grievance-arbitration 10
process and has also filed a charge with the board.” Id. at fn. 2
This matter presents the type of case which the Board reserved for judgment in New
Island Hospital. Here, the arbitrator ordered the Respondents to produce the type of information
the Union requested in its June 23 information request and, within a week after the information 15
requests were made, the arbitrator stated that he would “conduct a conference call to make
appropriate rulings regarding the production.”19 (GC. 12.)
Based upon the Board majority’s reasoning in New Island Hospital, a strong argument
can be made that deferral is appropriate here, where the Union first invoked the arbitration 20
process, made the information request within the context of an existing arbitration and as part of
an arbitration request for document, the arbitrator ordered the type of information requested by
the Union produced, and the arbitrator stated that he would make appropriate rulings in the event
there were any disputes.20 That being said, I am mindful that “the Board is not required by the
NLRA or by ‘national labor policy’ to defer information request cases to arbitration.”25
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. NLRB, 288 F.3d 434, 444 (D.C. Cir. 2002). And the “Board has long
adhered to a policy of refusing to defer disputes concerning information requests” to arbitration.
Id.; Postal Service, 302 NLRB at 918. Any exceptions to this policy must be made by the Board
in the first instance. Cf. SBC California, 344 NLRB 243, 243 fn. 3 (2005) (judge correctly
applied the Board’s policy of non-deferral in information cases, where a three member Board 30
majority has not overruled existing Board precedent). As such, because the Board has not made
such an exception to its longstanding policy for the type of situation set forth herein, deferral of
this matter is not appropriate.
C. California Nurses Association is not a Defense35
At my request, the parties briefed whether the Board’s decision in California Nurses
Assn., 326 NLRB 1362 (1998), privileges the Respondents’ refusal to provide information. The
Respondents claim it does, the General Counsel and the Union assert otherwise.
40

19 No party further developed the record as to whether such a conference call occurred, whether any party brought
disputes regarding the document requests to the arbitrator’s attention, or whether the arbitrator issued any further
orders regarding the information requests.
20 The Board has stated that its “processes should not be used as a substitute for district court enforcement of an
arbitration award under Section 301 of the Act [29 U.S.C. § 185].” Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 339 NLRB 871, 871
(2003).
JD(NY)-32-16

15
In California Nurses Association, the Board found no violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act with respect to a union’s refusal to provide the employer “with the names of witnesses it
intends to call, and the evidence on which it intends to rely, at the arbitration hearing.”21 Id at
1362. Citing Tool & Die Makers’ Lodge 78 (Square D Co.), 224 NLRB 111 (1976), the Board
noted “it is well settled that there is no general right to pretrial discovery in arbitration 5
proceedings.” Id; See also, Ormet Aluminum Products Corp., 335 NLRB 788, 789 (2001) (Board
draws distinction between situations where the requests for information were made before the
third-step grievance was been denied and after the grievance was referred to arbitration).
Recently, in Oncor Electric Co., LLC, 364 NLRB No. 58, slip op. at 17 (2016), the Board 10
had the opportunity to address the scope of California Nurses Association’s prohibition on pre-
arbitration discovery. In Oncor Electric the employer denied the union’s third-step grievance
over the discharge of an employee. On February 26, 2013, the union filed a request for
arbitration and on March 25, 2013, made an information request in connection with the
upcoming arbitration on the discharge. Id. The company asserted that it had no obligation to 15
comply with the information request, claiming that it was an attempt by the union for pre-
arbitration discovery. Id. slip op., at 21. The Board affirmed the trial judge who found that “at the
prearbitration stage, a party can request substantive information pertaining to the issues but not
information about the parties’ presentation of its case before the arbitrator.” Id. slip op., at 1, 21.
Thus, in relationship to the ban on pre-arbitration discovery, the Board focuses on the nature of 20
the information requested, making a distinction between information that delves into litigation
strategy and preparation which is deemed improper pre-arbitration discovery, as opposed to
substantive information pertaining to the issues at arbitration, which must be produced. Id. at 21.
Here, although the Union’s information request was made after the arbitration actually 25
opened on June 4, it appears that the arbitration was in the preliminary stages over the issue of
the relationship between Hamilton Park and the Atrium. Because the Union’s information
request is relevant to the issues before the arbitrator, and does “not seek information about the
parties’ presentation of its case,” I find that California Nurses Association does not privilege
Respondents’ refusal to provide the information requested. Oncor Electric, slip op. at 21. 30
D. The Information Requests for Atrium Employees
The General Counsel asserts that the information requested concerning Atrium
employees is presumptively relevant, because the “record evidence shows that Atrium dietary, 35
housekeeping, and maintenance employees are part of the same bargaining unit as the Hamilton
Park unit.” GC. Brief, at 18. In support of this claim, the General Counsel points to two pages in
an expired collective-bargaining agreement, and to the fact that, in the past, the Union received
dues and trust fund contributions for Atrium employees.
40
However, the General Counsel’s evidence supporting this claim is lacking. Regarding the
2005 collective-bargaining agreement, the index does include the phrase “Hamilton Park Health
Care Center, including Atrium,” as does the list of employers included in an attachment.

21 In a collective-bargaining relationship, a union has a duty under Sec. 8(b)(3) of the Act, parallel to the employer’s
duty under Sec. 8(a)(5), to provide the employer with relevant information that is necessary for the employer to
fulfill its contractual obligations. Service Employees Local 715 (Stanford Hospital), 355 NLRB 353, 360 (2010).
JD(NY)-32-16

16
However, the signed document adopting the multi-employer agreement lists only “Hamilton
Park” as the employer. Moreover, the 2008 CBA supersedes the 2005 agreement, and the 2008
CBA only lists Hamilton Park as the employer. (GC. 2–1, p. 40)
The actual unit definition in both the 2005 and 2008 CBAs are of no assistance to the 5
General Counsel’s argument. Article I of both multiemployer agreements contain a broad
general recognition clause stating that the Union represents “all employees” excluding guards,
office clericals, and supervisors, but then specifically states that the “[b]argaining unit
descriptions for each individual Signatory Employer are attached in ‘Schedule A’ and herein
incorporated by reference.” (GC. 2–1 p.1; GC. 3 p. 1.) However, schedule A is either blank, or 10
missing, from the agreements introduced into evidence, and no party introduced any evidence
explaining this anomaly.22
Also, while Atrium employees had union dues and trust fund payments deducted from
their paychecks in the past, it appears that these deductions had ended by May 2013 when the 15
sale to the new owners was finalized. Deductions made by another owner, almost 3 years before
the complaint issued in this matter, are insufficient to show that the Atrium employees are in
included in the Hamilton Park unit for the purposes of the June 23 information request. Finally,
with respect to CMS, in the July 1, 2013 memorandum of agreement, CMS recognized the Union
as the representative of “laundry and housekeeping employees employed . . . at Hamilton Park 20
Health Care Center.” (R.1) Nowhere in that agreement is the Atrium mentioned. Therefore,
based upon the evidence presented in this matter, the General Counsel has not met his burden to
show that the June 23 information request involving Atrium employees is presumptively
relevant.
25
Although the information requested for Atrium employees is not presumptively relevant,
it still must be produced if the Union can demonstrate the relevance of the information.
Presbyterian Hospital, 649 F.3d at 730. The Union’s burden is low, and it need only show a
“probability that the desired information was relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in
carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.” NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 30
432, 437 (1967). When an information request involves employees outside the bargaining unit,
and that information may be of use to the union to prepare for arbitration, or used during the
arbitration proceeding itself, it must be produced. Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB 916, 919 (1984),
enfd., 763 F.2d 887 (7th Cir. 1985).
35
Here, that burden has been met. The Union requested the information for use during
arbitration and to support its claim before the arbitrator that Hamilton Park and the Atrium are
single employers, that the laundry/housekeeping departments have common supervision, and that
one department services both facilities.23 As such, employing a “liberal discovery-type standard”
the information requested by the Union regarding Atrium employees “may therefore be of use to 40
the Union . . . in the arbitration proceeding itself,” and must be produced. Pfizer, Inc., 268
NLRB at 919.

22 Notwithstanding, it appears nobody disputes that employees performing laundry and housekeeping duties
(including dietary) are included in the Hamilton Park unit.
23 See, GC. 36.
JD(NY)-32-16

17
Because the Union has shown the relevance of the information concerning Atrium
employees, to the extent Hamilton Park and CMS have any of the information requested, it must
be produced and Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by not doing so.
However, the evidence presented shows that the operations at the Atrium are owned by a
separate legal entity that is not a party to this proceeding. While the single/joint employer status 5
of Hamilton Park and the Atrium is an issue with the parties’ arbitration, it is not an issue here,
as the complaint contains no such allegations. Therefore, my order cannot, and does not, compel
the Atrium to produce any information, as they are not a party to this matter.24
E. The Information Requests Excluding the Atrium Employees10
With respect to the information request concerning the wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment involving Hamilton Park employees represented by the Union,
Respondents have not argued, and cannot show, that such information is not presumptively
relevant. Nor have Respondents shown that the information has already been provided to the 15
Union. Specifically, numbers 1 through 7 of the June 23 Hamilton Park and CMS information
requests seek items directly related to the unit employees’ wages, hours, and terms of
employment. Similarly, the portion of request number 8, seeking job descriptions for unit
employees, is also presumptively relevant, and must be produced. Maywood Do-Nut Co., 256
NLRB 507, 508 (1981). As such, by failing and refusing to provide this information to the 20
Union, Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. A-1 Door and Building Solutions.
359 NLRB at 500.
Along with seeking the job descriptions for unit employees, Hamilton Park and CMS
information request number 8 also asks for the job descriptions for managers and supervisors in 25
the housekeeping (including laundry), dietary, and maintenance department; this information is
not presumptively relevant. Similarly, the Union seeks other information that is not
presumptively relevant, including information regarding the management structure of Hamilton
Park and the Atrium, their ownership/corporate make-up, the structure of labor relations at the
companies, and the date that CMS started managing both the Atrium and Hamilton Park.25 The 30
Union argues that this information is relevant to its argument before the arbitrator that these
departments have common supervision, that one department services both facilities, and that
Hamilton Park and the Atrium are a single employer and/or joint employers. (Tr. 96)
As noted by the Supreme Court, the controlling criteria in deciding whether “nominally 35
separate business entities” constitute a single employer “are interrelation of operations, common
management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership.” Radio Technicians
Local 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965). Because the single
employer status of the entities is an issue in the arbitration between the parties, and the
information may be of use to the Union during the arbitration, this information should also be 40
produced. Pfizer, Inc., 268 NLRB at 919.

24 The same problem does not involve Respondent CMS. CMS is a party to this proceeding, and manages the
housekeeping departments at both Hamilton Park and the Atrium. Therefore, it is presumed that CMS has records
involving both groups of employees, which must be produced.
25 Hamilton Park information request numbers 10, 11, 12, and CMS information request number 10 and 11 seek this
information.
JD(NY)-32-16

18
The same holds true for Hamilton Park information request number 14, and CMS request
number 12, which seeks information regarding the subcontracting out of the laundry services.
The arbitrator has already ordered that this work be returned to the laundry department. (GC. 38)
As such, the Union has shown the relevance of these requests, and the documents must be 5
produced. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 339 NLRB 871, 871 (2003) (union has the right to ask for
information concerning the implementation of an arbitrator’s award).
Finally, although Hamilton Park information request number 12, seeking census data, is
not presumptively relevant, it must be produced if the Union can show its relevance. Camelot 10
Terrace, 357 NLRB 1934, 1993 (2011). According to the Union, it needs this information to
determine whether the patient load warranted a reduction in staffing. (Tr. 99) Because proper
staffing levels could be relevant to pending grievances, including potential damages, applying
the “low” discovery-type standard, I find this information is also relevant and must be produced.
Schrock Cabinet Co., 339 NLRB 182, 188 (2003) (union entitled to information to prepare for 15
arbitration hearing, including liability and potential damages in the event the arbitration is
successful).
Accordingly, because the Union has shown the relevance of the information requested
that was not presumptively relevant in its June 23 information requests, I find that Respondents 20
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to provide this information.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent Hamilton Park is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of 25
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, 1199, SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
30
3. All employees employed by Respondent Hamilton Park performing the work covered by
the collective-bargaining agreement between Hamilton Park and the Union effective March 13,
2008, as extended by an arbitration award through June 30, 2016, constitutes an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
35
4. All employees employed by Respondent CMS performing work covered by the
assumption agreement, dated July 1, 2013, between CMS and the Union constitutes an
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
40
5. By failing and refusing to provide the Union with the information it requested on June 23,
2015, the Respondent Hamilton Park has been engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
JD(NY)-32-16

19
6. By failing and refusing to provide the Union with the information it requested on June 23,
2015, Respondent CMS has been engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
5
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Hamilton Park and Respondent CMS has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that they must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the polices of the Act.10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended Order26
ORDER15
The Respondent Hamilton Park Health Care Center, Jersey City, New Jersey its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from20
(a) Refusing to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant and
necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as collective-bargaining representative of the
Respondent Hamilton Park’s employees.
25
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
30
(a) Promptly provide the Union with: all relevant information requested by the Union
in its email dated June 23, 2015, and related attachments.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Jersey City, New Jersey
facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix A.”27 Copies of the notice, on forms 35
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic 40

26 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all
objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
27 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted
by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)-32-16

20
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to 5
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since June
23, 2015.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for
Region 22 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region 10
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
ORDER
The Respondent Confidence Management Systems at Hamilton Park Health Care 15
Center, Linden, New Jersey its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant and 20
necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of Confidence Management Systems at Hamilton Park Health Care Center.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.25
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Promptly provide the Union with: all relevant information requested by the Union
in its email dated June 23, 2015, and related attachments30
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Jersey City, New Jersey
facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix B.”28 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive 35
days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, 40
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to

28 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted
by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)-32-16

21
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since June
23, 2015
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for
Region 22 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region 5
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 14, 2016
10
John T. Giannopoulos
Administrative Law Judge15
r Ag‘ejt
JD(NY)-32-16

APPENDIX “A”
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to
post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose a representative to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant and necessary to
the Union's performance of its duties as collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights listed above.
WE WILL promptly provide the Union with all relevant information requested in its email dated June 23,
2016, and related attachments,
Hamilton Park Health Care Center
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations
Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-3100
(973) 645-2100, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
JD(NY)-32-16

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-161287 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER,
(973) 645-3784.
JD(NY)-32-16

APPENDIX “B”
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us
to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose a representative to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant and necessary to
the Union's performance of its duties as collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights listed above.
WE WILL promptly provide the Union with all relevant information requested in its email dated June 23,
2016, and related attachments,
Confidence Management Systems
at Hamilton Park Health Care Center
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations
Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-3100
(973) 645-2100, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
JD(NY)-32-16

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-161287 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER,
(973) 645-3784.