D'Youville Manor Nursing Home

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 173 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

D'YOUVILLE MANOR NURSING HOME 173
D'Youville Manor Nursing Home and District 1199
Massachusetts , National Union of Hospital and
Health Care Employees , a Division of RWDSU,
AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-9787
conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
March 28, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On November 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Walter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
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
i In concluding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act by
unlawfully discharging employee Solomont, the Administrative Law Judge
found that Respondent had discharged only two employees in recent times
and that each was a probationary employee Record testimony, however,
discloses that these 2 employees in fact may have completed their proba-
tionary periods at the time of their discharges and that Respondent had
dismissed at least some 16 additional employees in the recent past in accord-
ance with its rule providing for the dismissal of employees accruing three
written reprimands within a 12-month period. Although the findings of the
Administrative Law Judge in these respects are inaccurate, they do not
affect the results herein inasmuch as we agree with his other findings, which
support his conclusion that Solomont was unlawfully discharged by Re-
spondent.
2 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent
violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act by announcing on April 3, 1974, its intention
to pay health insurance premiums and seniority wage increases, we specifi-
cally do not rely on his finding that Respondent intentionally timed its
announcement to coincide with a union organizational meeting in the ab-
sence of evidence showing that Respondent had knowledge that such a
meeting had been scheduled for that date We agree, however, with the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent was primarily moti-
vated by union considerations in making the announcement and not by
considerations relating to the Federal wage controls then in effect. In this
regard, the record discloses that, although Respondent had considered
granting such benefits at least as early as November 1973, it deferred further
consideration of these matters at that time and did not actively reconsider
them until March 1974, when the Union's organizational drive was in full
swing. Furthermore, in late February 1974, Respondent's comptroller ad-
mitted during an employee meeting that the lower, paid employees were
exempt from the Federal wage controls but stated that, in any event, Re-
spondent's revenues were limited by state law and, therefore, it could not
grant such benefits Thereafter, on March 12, 1974, Respondent's assistant
administrator informed the employees that Respondent had a sizable deficit
and for that reason it could pay them no more than it was presently paying.
Despite these assertions, only 2 weeks later Respondent decided to imple-
ment these benefits and about a week and a half thereafter announced to the
employees that it had decided to grant such benefits, but that, in view of the
pendency of the Union's campaign, it had done so subject to the approval
of legal counsel. In these circumstances, and in view of Respondent's
demonstrated union ammus, we conclude, as did the Administrative Law
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that
Respondent, D'Youville Manor Nursing Home, Low-
ell, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
Judge, that the announcement of these benefits was calculated to influence
the employees to withdraw support for the Union and, therefore, was viola-
tive of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act
3 Respondent contends that discrimmatee Alan Solomont should be de-
nied reinstatement because he failed to fully state his educational back-
ground in his application for employment. Respondent asserts that it would
not have hired Solomont for the orderly position had it known that he had
a college education However, Solomont did subsequently discuss his col-
lege education with Respondent's director of nursing personnel. No action
was taken as a result. We see no basis for denying Solomont reinstatement
and backpay.
DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
WALTER H. MALONEY JR., Administrative Law Judge: This
case came on for hearing at Lowell, Massachusetts, upon a
complaint, issued by the Regional Director of the Board's
Region,' alleging that the Respondent D'Youville Manor,
Nursing Home violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
More particularly, the complaint alleged that the Respond-
ent, on March 11, 1974, unlawfully reprimanded employee
Alan Solomont for engaging in union activities; on March 14,
1974, it unlawfully threatened employees for engaging in
union acitiviies; that in April 1974, it granted an increase in
fringe benefits to employees for the purpose of interfering
with their union activities; and that, on April 21, 1974, it
discharged Solomont for engaging in union activities. The
Respondent denied any unlawful threats or reprimands, stat-
ing that it was invoking a valid no-solicitation rule. It further
contends that the institution of a policy of granting periodic
in-grade increases and its decision to pay employee premiums
on the group health insurance policy was not motivated by
reasons relating to union activities, and that Solomont was
discharged for insubordination. Upon these contentions, the
issues herein were joined.'
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation organized under the
law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It maintains its
place of business at Lowell, Massachusetts, where it is en-
1 The principal docket entries in this case are as follows Charge filed by
District 1199 Massachusetts, National Union of Hospital and Health Care
Employees, A Division of RWDSU, AFL-CIO (herein called Union), on
April 26, 1974; complaint issued on June 7, 1974, Respondent's answer filed
on June 19, 1974; hearing held on August 27 and 28, 1974, at Lowell,
Massachusetts, briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent on
October 15, 1974
2 The transcript in this case has been corrected.
217 NLRB No. 36
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaged in the operation of a nursing home. During the preced-
ing year, Respondent did a gross volume of business in excess
of $100,000, and purchased, at its Lowell, Massachusetts,
place of business, goods from points and places outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts valued in excess of $5,000.
It is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act.
The Sisters of Charity of Ottawa, Canada, are an Order of
Roman Catholic sisters who operate schools, nursing homes,
and hospitals. The American Province of this order, head-
quartered in Lowell, Massachusetts, has under its administra-
tive jurisdiction the operation of the D'Youville Manor Nurs-
ing Home in Lowell. The home is technically owned and
operated by a nonprofit corporation, organized in 1973, and
is headed by an 11-member board of trustees composed of
priests, religionary, and laymen, but the substantial control
remains in the Order, which staffs major positions at the
Manor with its members. The Order has, directly and in-
directly, operated the Manor since 1960. The Manor has 207
beds, employs in excess of 200 people, and it's the largest
nursing home in the Lowell area. It is principally devoted to
the care of the aging and the infirm. Some 85 percent of its
revenues are derived from Medicaid payments.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Events in Question
The discriminatee named in the complaint, Alan Solo-
mont, is about 25 years of age , a graduate of Tufts University,
where he majored in subjects unrelated to medical care. He
was employed as an orderly from June 1973, -until his dis-
charge on April 21, 1974. During most of his employment,
he worked as an orderly on wing east-one, caring mostly for
the needs of male patients, but doing other work as assigned.
There are about 40 patients on wing east-one. He worked
under the supervision of Sister Irene Blazon , who was at one
time supervisor of nursing on wing east-one and later was
assigned to her present position as director of nursing for the
entire home. During most of his career at the Manor, Solo-
mont had a positive and amicable relationship with Sister
Irene. When, in January, he evidenced an interest in taking
a course relating to a facet of nursing care to be conducted
through scholarship funds provided by the Respondent, Sis-
ter Irene endorsed his request and furnished him with a letter
of recommendation which stated, inter alia, that "his work
had been excellent. He is conscientious, dedicated and de-
pendable. His judgment has also been good, always for the
patient's welfare. With co-workers, his relationship has been
very good and he is respectful to the authorities of the Manor.
Furthermore, he has leadership qualities that could enhance
a career in nursing particularly with the elderly whom he
loves. I would recommend him for such an endeavor." The
course was to be given in late May. As the unfolding of
subsequent events will indicate, Solomont did not take the
course in question but was discharged for insubordination on
April 21.
Despite the warm sentiments noted above, Sister Irene
expressed the opinion that, beginning in February, Solo-
mont's attitude begain to change. This change coincided with
the initiation of an organizing drive on behalf of the Charging
Party among the employees of the Manor. Sister Irene testi-
fied that she regarded Solomont as the "instigator" in this
effort.
On February 15, a meeting was called by the Respondent
of about 50-60 licensed practical nurses (LPN's), nurses
aides, orderlies, and other health care personnel to discuss
wages. In January, the Respondent had given these em-
ployees a 5.5-percent wage increase , the maximum allowed
under the wage-price control guidelines in effect at that time.
This increase meant an increase of 12 cents an hour to Solo-
mont, who was then earning $2.10 an hour. The meeting, held
in the auditorium of the Manor, was conducted by Mrs. Joan
McMenamin, the former director of nursing, and Mrs. Diane
Geehan, the director of nursing personnel. -During the course
of the meeting, Solomont asked Mrs. McMenamin to explain
why the January wage increase was limited to 5.5 percent in
light of the rapid rise in the cost of living. Mrs. McMenamin
replied that she would try to arrange for a general meeting
with Mr. Langell, the comptroller of the Manor, who could
better explain the background of the wage increase . Solomont
announced to the assembled employees that he had been in
touch with a labor organization which represents health care
employees, and stated that he would be interested in talking
to any e9mployee at the Manor who would be interested in
discussing unionization. To this announcement, Mrs. McMe-
namin replied that Solomont would have to seek the permis-
sion of Sister St. Odelia, the administrator of the nursing
home, for permission to give out any union literature. Solo-
mont stated that he did not intend to give out literature
during work time but would do so only during breaks and
before and after work. He insisted that he had a right to
engage in such activities. Mrs. McMenamin reiterated that he
would still have to seek permission of Sister St. Odelia to do
so. Another unnamed employee spoke up to support Solo-
mont's view that he had the right to distribute literature
before and after work.
A few days later, Sister Irene spoke to Solomont privately.
She complained to Solomont that he had developed a negative
attitude toward his work. When asked what promoted this
remark, Sister Irene recounted a discussion a few days earlier
in which Solomont made the suggestion that more male or-
derlies were needed to accommodate the increasing number
of male patients on wing east-one. Solomont denied any nega-
tive attitude. Sister Irene told him that he should not be
critical of the Manor in the presence of other employees.
Solomont reiterated that he had made the same suggestion to
various supervisors at different times. Sister Irene then
brought up the subject of the prospective union campaign.
She told Solomont that he should be careful as to which union
he chose, recounting an incident in which a unionized nursing
home in which she had worked in Canada had been taken
over by the government as a result of unionization. She ar-
gued that Solomont would not want to do anything that
would jeopardize the building program which was envisioned
for the Manor. She then noted that, after he had been hired
I
- D'YOUVILLE MANOR NURSING HOME
the previous June, she had been told, in her position as acting
administrator, that Solomont was reputedly a troublemaker
and that some people had wanted him fired. However, she
told him that the quality of his work was reviewed and he was
retained, despite these adverse references.
On February 26, a meeting of employees, involving not
only health care personnel but also maintenance and
housekeeping personnel, was convened in the auditorium to
hear Langell, the comptroller. Langell informed the assem-
bled employees that the Manor was bound by the directives
of the Cost of Living Council, which had frozen wages with
a limitation of 5.5 percent on increases. Solomont challenged
Langell's statement, stating that it was his understanding of
the regulations that they did not apply to persons making less
--than $3.50 per hour, inasmuch as such employees were re-
garded as low wage earners. Langell admitted that this was
so, but stated that employees not covered by the guidelines
could not be given increases above and beyond that 5.5--
percent limitation without disturbing the balance in the Ma-
nor's general wage program, which also included employees
making in excess of $3.50` He also noted that the Manor had
to deal with the ratesettmg commission in Massachusetts
which, in effect, established the income of the Manor, and
that a wage increase could not be granted in excess of the
Manor's controlled income. Various complaints, relating
both to wages and to working conditions, were then aired at
this meeting by Solomont and others. Some one complained
that there were housekeepers at the Manor who had been
employed 10 years who were making $2.28 an- hour. Solo-
mont reiterated his complaint that more male orderlies
should be hired because, in his judgment, certain patients
were not getting proper care due to inadequate staffing. Sister
Theresa Martin, the deputy administrator, was in attendance
at the meeting and suggested-to Solomont that he make in-
quiry of other institutions in the locality to determine how
many male orderlies were employed there.
During this same period of time, Solomont met with five
other employees in an employee's home in nearby Dracut to
discuss an organizational drive. Representatives of Local
1199 attended. They determined to launch such a drive,
signed cards, and discussed the distribution of a letter inviting
others to do likewise. About 10 or 12 employees, including
Solomont, undertook to distribute an open letter inviting
employees to membership. They did so by standing in front
of nursing home before and after work to make contact with
other employees. The leaflet, dated March 11, contained the
names of about 30 employees, including Solomont.
At or about this same time, the Mother Provincial of the
Order, who resides in Lowell, had returned from a trip to
Louisiana and began to hold a series of small meetings with
employees. The meetings were held with groups of about 15
persons and were conducted at various hours of the day in
order to reach personnel on all shifts. The Mother Provincial,
Sister Clare Cayer, testified that she had noticed, or had been
informed, of a good deal of confusion among employees con-
cerning personnel practices and compensation, so she wanted
to speak to employees in small groups in order to encourage
a direct discussion of these matters. The format of the several
meetings was largely unstructured and varied slightly, de-
pending upon questions asked and items brought up for dis-
cussion by employees. She normally explained at each of
175
these meetings the organization and background of the
Manor and then invited questions concerning employee com-
plaints and suggestions. Normally the question of union or-
ganization came up at these meetings. She regularly explained
to employees that the advent of a union meant the payment
of union dues by employees, and that there was no guarantee
that there would be no strikes if a union came into the Manor.
When asked if she would recognize and bargain with a union,
her standard reply was that she had no way of knowing if a
union represented the majority of the employees at the
Manor. The suggestion arose that an employee committee be
formed which would have some imput in revising the em-
ployee policy handbook. Not long after these series of meet-
ings concluded, the management of the Respondent under-
took to organize what amounted to an election of
representatives from various departments, whose function it
would be to meet with managementto discuss revisions to the
employee handbook: Various management personnel dis-
tributed written ballots to employees and encouraged them to
select a representative from their respective departments to be
on the employee committee.
On March 11, 1974, an incident occurred at or near the
room of a patient, Dr. O'Connor, which formed the basis of
the second of three reprimands received by Solomont which
led to his discharge. As more fully discussed hereinafter, the
Manor has a written policy that three written reprimands
during the course of 1 year will normally result in the dis-
charge of an employee. In November 1973, Solomont had
received his first written reprimand for various instances of
tardiness in reporting to work in the morning. No issue has
been raised as to the propriety of this reprimand. By March
11, the Union's organization drive was in full swing. A few
days earlier, Solomont had given employee Carol Golen, a
nurses aide, a union designation card. On her way to work on
March 11, Mrs. Golen returned the card, which was partially
filled out, to Solomont just outside the Manor building. Dur-
ing the morning, Solomont encountered Mrs Golen in the
utility room and invited her attention to the fact that she had
forgotten to append her signature to the card. He returned it
to her for that purpose.
Shortly before noon, Mrs. Golen passed Solomont in the
hall' of wing east-one, handed him the card, and went on
her way. Solomont took the card, put it in his pocket, and
entered Dr. O'Connor's room. Immediately thereafter, Sister
Irene confronted Solomont and warned him that he could get
into trouble doing that sort of thing. Solomont replied that
he was entitled to give out cards on breaktime and lunchtime.
Later in the afternoon, Sister Irene called Solomont aside and
handed him a written reprimand. The reprimand, written on
a company form, was checked "Breaking company rules." A
typewritten statement said: "You were seen soliciting 2
Nurses' aides in Dept. E-Room Ctr. 6B to sign a card. You
admitted you knew it was wrong to do this on duty. Unau-
thorized solicitations. See IV, p. 15-Employee Hand Book."
' Sister Irene's version of this incident is slightly different. She testified
that she saw Mrs Golen and another employee inside Dr. O'Connor's room
with Solomont and saw Mrs Golen leaning over a dresser signing the card
which she then gave to Solomont It was immediately after noticing the
return of the card that she confronted Solomont and criticized him for
violating the Manor's rule against solicitations on company time, I, credit
Solomont's corroborated version-
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Solomont refused to sign an acknowledgement of the repri-
mand or to accept the piece of paper on which it was written.
Accordingly, on March 14, the administrator mailed him a
copy to his home with a cover letter which stated:
Enclosed are two typed copies of a formal reprimand
issued to you for your violation of the rule against unau-
thorized solicitation.
This is the second written reprimand which you have
received within the past twelve months. If you receive
another reprimand prior to November 6, 1974, you may
be subject to immediate discharge. Please sign one copy
of the reprimand and return it to me.
During this March 11 interview, Sister Irene asked Solomont
if he had any work problems. Solomont complained to her
that she was being petty and harassing.
On March 12, Solomont attended a small employee meet-
ing with the Mother Provincial, Sister Theresa, and others,
which was a part of the program of employee discussion
noted above. At the meeting attended by Solomont, Sister
Theresa made mention of a strike which had taken place at
a nursing home in nearby Haverill, Massachusetts, and re-
marked, "Look what happened when they got a union in
there?" She also asked employees "Why bring in an out-
sider?" The employees assembled for this meeting informed
her that this was a decision that only they could make. Sister
Theresa asked if the employees knew that they would have
to pay union dues if the Manor were to become organized.
Solomont spoke up to complain that employees had the right
to organize and that the meeting in question was an attempt
by management to interfere with this right. Sister Theresa
replied that no one was attempting to interfere with anyone's
rights, and that if employees wanted a voice in what went on,
they should choose a group of representatives to meet with
management on their behalf. She stated that the Manor could
not pay employees more than it was already paying them,
stated that the Manor's books were open for inspection, and
invited employees to inspect them.
On or about March 14, Solomont met privately with Sister
Irene and the administrator, Sister St. Odelia, to discuss the
written reprimand of March 11. Sister St. Odelia asked him
to sign the written reprimand form and Solomont refused,
saying that he was not guilty of doing anything wrong. He
further stated that all he had said to Sister Irene during their
discussion on March 11 is that she had observed him, but he
had not admitted to her any wrongdoing. He said he told her
that he knew what constituted correct behavior on his part,
and that he would act accordingly. He asked Sister St. Odelia
if his job was in jeopardy. She replied that it would take a
serious offense to warrant discharge. She also asked Solomont
why he had not come to her in the past with any grievances.
He mentioned that he had spoken to other management per-
sonnel concerning the shortcomings of Manor but they had
not taken him seriously. At this time, Sister St. Oledia men-
tioned to Solomont that, when he was first hired, manage-
ment had received reports that he was a troublemaker but
they had ingored these statements and had decided to let him
remain.
On the preceding Saturday evening, March 10, Solomont
had come to the nursing home about 6 p.m. to speak with
second shift employees in the cafeteria on their dinner hour.
At that time, he attempted to solicit signatures on union
cards. Sister Irene told Solomont then that she could have
given him a reprimand for soliciting at other times. At the
March 14 interview, Sister St. Odelia brought this matter to
his attention, telling Solomont that "we could have given you
a warning for coming to the Manor on your day off."
For a considerable period of time, the question of whether
the Manor should pay the health insurance premiums of its
employees and whether the pay scale should include in-grade
increments in recognition of longevity had been a matter of
concern and discussion. One such discussion occurred at a
meeting of the D'Youville Manor executive committee on
November 13, 1973. The then director of nurses, Mrs. McMe-
namin, brought to the attention of the Respondent's manage-
ment the desire of a number of employees for seniority in-
grade increases and payment by the Respondent of their
health insurance premiums. While no objection to such forms
of compensation was voiced, the executive committee deter-
mined instead to accord employees a 5.5 percent wage in-
crease in January, inasmuch as the committee felt that it
could not do both and remain within' the guidelines estab-
lished by the Cost of Living Council. The matter was brought
up again at a meeting of the board of directors, held on March
25. At this meeting, the board gave tentative approval to the
payment of health insurance premiums and seniority in-
creases, subject to the approval of legal counsel. The board
referred the matter to legal counsel for an opinion in light of
the pendency of an organizing campaign.
On April 3, the Union planned a general and well-publi-
cized organizational meeting for Respondent's employees, to
be conducted "at an elementary school building located near
the nursing home. Shortly before the end of the first shift on
April 3, the Respondent called a meeting of first-shift em-
ployees to announce the tentative decision of the board of
directors which had been taken the preceding week. A writ-
ten notice to employees, dated April 3, was distributed, recit-
ing the tentative decision of the Board relative to both fringe
benefits and the fact that the matter was being referred to
legal counsel for an opinion because of possible influence on
the organizational campaign.
Shortly thereafter, the organizational campaign and the
tentative offer of increased benefits were the subjects of an
article appearing in a local newspaper called the Communica-
tor. The Communicator is a nonprofit, monthly community
paper which is published by an ad hoc staff of unpaid person-
nel. It primarily addresses itself to social and economic issues
of importance in the Lowell area. The paper has some sub-
scribers but for the most part is distributed free of charge in
the Lowell area by leaving copies at commercial establish-
ments for interested patrons. Solomont wrote from time to
time for the Communicator and composed an article appear-
ing in its April issue, signed by,the "1199 Organizing Com-
mittee at D'Youville Manor." The article made reference to
the tentative announcement of the D'Youville board of direc-
tors, discussed above, but complained about the slowness in
implementing the decision. The article stated:
Workers were delighted that these long awaited benefits
were approved until it was also announced that these
benefits would not presently go into effect because of the
union organizing campaign. Management claims that
D'YOUVILLE MANOR NURSING HOME
they hesitate to interfere with the legal rights of the
workers to organize by granting these benefits at this
time.
Why make such an announcement on the day of a union
meeting? Why bait workers with benefits that are at best
being delayed in the midst of an organizing drive? Why
delay giving workers these benefits when they are badly
needed and no worker feels that it would violate his or
her rights under the law?
Now, many workers at D'Youville Manor was suspi-
cious of management's concern for our welfare because
of this kind of anti-union activity resulting from the
organizing drive.
The 1199 Organizing Committee definitely wants to see
these new benefits implemented immediately.
On Sunday, April 21, the events occurred which led to
Sol[omont's discharge. It has long been the practice for nurses
aides, orderlies, and others on wing east-one to take a smoke
break in the bathroom on that wing, as smoking by employees
is not allowed elsewhere in the area. These smoke breaks are
casual and incidental interruptions of the work routine and
do not constitute regular coffeebreaks, which normally take
place in the lunchroom in another part of the building. Em-
ployees frequently take these smoke breaks during the inter-
val between the time that meals are brought to patients and
the time that meal trays must be removed. Because it is
necessary to keep a certain number of personnel actively on
the floor at all times to attend to patients' needs, the Manor
has imposed an unwritten but generally acknowledged rule
that no more than two employees should take a smoke break
in the bathroom at any one time.
]During the early morning interval, while patients on wing
east-one were eating breakfast, nurses aide Tina Therriault,
nurses aide Cheryl Hancock, and nurses aide Claire LeVoie
went to the bathroom in question and began to smoke. A few
minutes thereafter, Solomont and LPN Mary Ann Jutras
entered the bathroom and also began to smoke. Sister Irene
approached the bathroom and noticed four sets of feet
through the louvers at the bottom of the bathroom door. She
called through the door, "Only two in the bathroom at a
time," paused momentarily and added, "or this will be a
written, reprimand."4 Therriault, Hancock, and LeVoie put
out their cigarettes, left the bathroom, and returned to their
duties, followed immediately by Solomont and Jutras. Sister
Irene testified that she saw only four people leave the bath-
room, did not notice exactly whom they were or where they
went, and learned later that LaVoie was in the bathroom
along with the other four. When she looked in the bathroom
a minute or, so later, it was empty.
There is some dispute as to what period of time elapsed
between the statements "Only two in the bathroom" and "or
this will be a written reprimand." Sister Irene said that they
were uttered within a time frame of 20 to 30 seconds. There
is also some dispute as to whether Hancock, Therriault, and
LaVoie exited before the phrase "or this will be a written
4 Sister Irene testified that she prefaced her remarks with the statement
with the initial admonition, "Time to pick up breakfast trays I" No one else
who was present heard this remark. I discredit this much of her assertion
177
reprimand" was uttered, or whether they emerged just as
these words were being spoken. In any event, the bathroom
was soon cleared and all who were smoking were back at
work.
Sister Irene regarded the presence of more than two em-
ployees in the bathroom as a violation of the rule restricting
smoke breaks to two at a time, and regarded it to be of
sufficient seriousness as to prepare written reprimands for
Jutras, Therriault, Hancock, and Solomont. Later, upon
learning that LeVoie was also there, a written reprimand was
prepared and given to her a few weeks later by Mrs. McMe-
namin. Sister Irene also regarded the actions of the employees
in question as insubordinate, characterizing them as the
deliberate violation of three of her direct verbal orders,
namely (1) "time to pick up trays", (2) "no more than two
in the bathroom at a time"; (3) "this will be a written repri-
mand."
She discussed these events with Sisters Theresa and St.
Odelia during the morning. Sister Irene said she regarded the
insubordination of the employees in question as a serious
offense, so they determined to give written reprimands to the
four whom Sister Irene recalled being in the bathroom. They
made out the reprimands in longhand and in duplicate, Sister
Theresa assisting Sister Irene in this matter. The reprimands
to Jutras and Hancock contained check marks in the repri-
mand form for smoking, refusal to obey orders, and breaking
company rules. They also contained the written notations:
You came out of Bathroom only after 3rd warning. You
were four (4) in Nurses Bathroom smoking. You were
told it was time to pick up-trays, then later that you were
not be more than two (2) at any time for a cigarette. Still,
you came out only after my third warning.
The reprimand to Therriault contained the same check
marks, but contained written notations relating only to an
alleged refusal to leave the bathroom until a third warning
and the fact that there were four people smoking-in the nurses
bathroom. The top printed portion of Solomont's reprimand
was similar to those of Jutras and Hancock, although it con-
tained no check mark for smoking. It also contained a hand-
written notation by Sister St. Odelia that "male nurse should
not be in with female nurse," which was placed there by her
after the original reprimand had been tendered to Solomont
on the afternoon of April 21. Sister Theresa added on the
further notation that Solomont had been tardy on several
occasions during the preceding week.
Toward the end of the day shift on April 21, Sister Irene
gave Solomont his reprimand. As it was his third reprimand,
it meant dismissal. He refused to sign the paper and argued
to Sister Irene that he had been told by Sister St. Odelia on
the occasion of his second reprimand that it would require a
serious offense before he would be given a third written repri-
mand. Sister Irene told him that, in her judgment, this was
a serious offense because of the influence which he had on
others. She told him that since he had been insubordinate, the
other employees who were with him in the bathroom -would
regard this event as a precedent if management had failed to
do anything about it. She also told him that she could not
tolerate the kind of insubordination which he had exhibited.
Solomont denied that he had tried to influence others to
challenge her authority. While she did not elaborate upon it
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the occasion of Solomont's discharge, Sister Irene ex-
plained for the record that she had observed Solomont in
failing to follow orders on other occasions , which had not
resulted in reprimands . Because of his influence over other
employees , she found that other nurses aides were also begin-
ning to become insubordinate.
The following day, the Union put out a leaflet objecting to
Solomont's discharge. It noted that a member of the organiz-
ing committee had been fired for smoking in the bathroom
but charged that the real reason for the discharge was that
Solomont had been outspoken on the question of union repre-
sentation . The leaflet went on to argue that Solomont's dis-
charge illustrated the lack of job security which existed at
D'Youville Manor and that unionization was the only way in
which such security could exist.
On Tuesday , April 23, the Respondent called a meeting of
employees in its auditorium to answer the union leaflet. Sister
Theresa read the leaflet to the assembled employees and then
spoke to them from a prepared text. She stated that the leaflet
was a gross untruth and that
[t]he reason why management fired Alan Solomont was
for lack of subordination, and not, as the letter falsely
points out because: "he had been outspoken on the ques-
tion of union representation ." Had this been the reason,
management could have done this long ago. The purpose
of this meeting is to clarify this-point in your minds: It
is one of our policies to fire employees who have received
three written warnings for misconduct . After alerting
Alan and three other female nurses three times for smok-
ing in the bathroom of East I when it was time to pick
up trays, the supervisor informed management that she
told them that it would be a written reprimand . At this
point, management was informed , and had no other al-
ternative but to fire Alan because this warning con-
stituted a third written reprimand. Again, the reason that
this reprimand was given was for insubordination, and
not for the mere fact that he was smoking, and far less
because he had been an outspoken member of an organ-
izing committee.
Sister Irene added tb Sister Theresa 's prepared remarks by
stating that Solomont had been negligent on other occasions
by leaving an external catheter too long in bleach water and
by failing to dress a patient named Breton with underwear.
One employee, LPN Lillian Dozois, began to speak up in
Solomont's behalf, but was silenced by Sister Irene. Sister
Irene stated that she had spoken once to Solomont about
unions and about the difficulty she had experienced with
them in, but -Solomont would not listen.
On the Monday immediately preceding this meeting, the
Respondent -circulated a notice to employees that, on April
18, the board of trustees had voted to implement both the
seniority increases and the payment of health insurance
premiums , effective April 30, provided that wage controls
were lifted by April 30. Such controls expired on that date.
The leaflet stated:
The Board is mindful that the granting of these benefits
at this time may be misconstrued. However, having
reached the conclusion in the ordinary course that they
should be granted, the Board concluded that it would
not be desirable to postpone implementation of these
benefits for an indefinite period of time.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The payment of health insurance premiums and
seniority wage increments
It is well settled that the offer or payment of increased
wages or benefits during the pendency of an organizing drive
in a manner designed to dissuade employees from giving
support to a labor organization is an unlawful interference
with rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v.
Exchange Parts, 375 U.S. 405 (1964). However, where an
employer can show that the increase was prompted, not by
a desire to influence the union sentiment of his employees but
by an objective business justification, such increases have
found to be lawful. In this case, the Employer points to the
fact that the payment of health insurance premiums and
seniority increases, which were tentatively promised on April
3 and actually awarded on April 22, had been under discus-
sion by the management of the Manor for a period of several
months and that the payment of such fringe benefits had been
the subject of several employee requests over a similar period
of time. By these considerations, Respondent seeks to insulate
its decision, taken with finality in mid-April, from any taint
of union animus. Respondent also properly points to the
article in the Communicator, admittedly written and cir-
culated with the assistance of the Union's organizing commit-
tee, which chided the Respondent for making only a tentative
announcement of its intention to grant these benefits and
insisted that they_be implemented forthwith. Respondent can
object, with no little justification, that it is unfair for the
Union to insist publicly that the Respondent grant increases
in fringe benefits during the pendency of its organizing cam-
paign and then complain, after the deed is done, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act for doing what
the Union asked it to do. This argument would be persuasive
except for two factors surrounding the increases here at issue.
This Respondent has displayed to its employees, both by
word and work, its intense union animus. Statements to in-
dividuals and groups of employees, while in many instances
not violative of the Act, clearly evidenced for all to see the
hostility and resentment which the Respondent bore to Local
1199. Of even more significance is the timing' of the April 3
benefit increase announcement. The whole question of
whether to grant or withhold these benefits had been under
consideration for a period of months. The board of trustees
had voted on March 25 to grant these benefits, conditioned
upon the approval of legal counsel. However, it was not until
1 week after the decision of the board was taken that it was
made known to employees, and such was done on the after-
noon of the day on which the Union had scheduled a large,
well-publicized meeting at a nearby school to stimulate its
organizational campaign. There can be little doubt that the
announcement of these benefits was timed to influence em-
ployee attendance, participation, and support 'for the organi-
zational meeting which was to take place in a matter of hours
after the announcement was made. In light of these factors, I
conclude that, by announcing on April 3 to employees that
it intended to pay health insurance premiums and seniority
pay, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) I of the Act.
D'YOUVILLE MANOR NURSING HOME 179
2. The reprimand and threats to reprimand for violations
of a no-solicitation rule
The Supreme Court has had several occasions to pass upon
the compatibility of no-solicitation and no-distribution rules
with the rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the
Act. Republic Aviation, Company v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793
(1945); N.L.R.B. v. Babcock an Wilcox, 351 U.S. 105 (1956);
N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of America [NuTone], 357
U.S. 357 (1958). Based upon these cases, the Board, in such
cases as Walton-Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697
(1960), and Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Company, 138
NLRB 615 (1967), has fashioned rules of presumption and
rules of limitation to govern the validity of restrictions placed
upon employee organizational conduct within a plant, store,
or other place of business. One of these rules is that a broad
no-solicitation rule-one which forbids employees to solicit
members on breaktime as well as worktime-is presump-
tively a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In justifying
a formal reprimand given to Solomont on March 11, and a
threat to impose such a reprimand made to him on March 14,
the Respondent herein relies upon a portion of its employee
handbook which says:
Unauthorized solicitations of employees, patients, or
visitors is strickly forbidden at D'Youville Manor. This
prohibition applies both to employees and to outsiders
and covers soliciting in any form.
This rule makes no distinction between worktime and non-
worktime as is, -and by its terms is broad as any rule could
be written. The General Counsel does not attack the validity
per se of this rule, so no order will be recommended herein
seeking generally to invalidate it or to suppress its enforce-
ment. However, the Respondent relies upon this rule in as-
serting its defense, so some consideration of its validity must
be made in order to evaluate this contention.-
There is little doubt that the Respondent construed the rule
as broadly as it is written. When Solomont first indicated a
public intention to seek union memberships from employees,
Mrs. McMenamin, the director of nurses, said that he would
first have to get authorization from the administrator of the
home. When Solomont argued that he had the right to solicit
on his own time, Mrs. McMenamin persisted that he would
still have to obtain permission from management. When
Solomont, on his own time, visited the Manor to speak to
night-shift employees as they were eating dinner, he was
threatened with discipline for violation of a company rule.
Accordingly, the Respondent may not rely upon the rule
itself in effectuating discipline, as the rule unlawfully im-
pinges upon employee freedom in areas of activity allowed
them by congressional mandate and Board and court deci-
sions.
Solomont received a formal reprimand for violating the
rule. These reprimands, in the course of time, formed a chain
of events leading to his discharge. The reprimand was im-
posed because, while passing another employee in the hall, he
took from her a union card and put it in his shirt pocket. Only
by a hypertechnical construction of language could this ac-
tion be deemed a solicitation. The solicitation of Golen by
Solomont had occurred much earlier. The hallway activity
could not possibly have interrupted his work or her work,
because the time it took for the card to change hands con-
sumed only a fleeting interval as they passed each other. The
event was prompted, not by Solomont but by Golen, who
took advantage of the occasion to return the card to Solo-
mont, yet Golen was not disciplined in anyway while Solo-
mont was. Both the rule itself and the application thereof
make it clear that the reprimand in question amounted to an
interference by the Respondent with Solomont's Section 7
rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Even if the
rule were valid, the disparate application of it to Solomont
and not to Golen does not evidence a desire by the Respond-
ent to preserve work time for work, but an effort to intimidate
the "instigator" of the union drive and to build a discharge
case against him. I so find and conclude. In the discussion on
March 14, the administrator of the Manor told Solomont that
she could have given him a reprimand for violating the rule
for his action in visiting the home on his own time and
speaking to employees as they were eating dinner about-the
organizational drive. This threat also violates Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
3. The discharge of Alan Solomont
The employee handbook provides:
Written reprimands are issued to insure important cor-
rection of employee attitude. A total of any three (3)
reprimands within a twelve-month period may mean
immediate dismissal. -
The rule, by its terms, is discretionary. Three reprimands may
result in a dismissal, although this is not a required result. Of
more cogent significance is that there is a wide area of discre-
tion allowed to a supervisor in imposing a written reprimand
instead of an oral warning. Only two employees in recent
times have been dismissed for accruing three reprimands;
both of these were probationary employees. On one occasion,
an employee was not dismissed until receiving his fourth
reprimand. On the other hand, there is certainly no require-
ment that the Respondent wait until an employee receives
three reprimands before discharging him, if he commits an
offense which is serious enough to warrant immediate re-
moval.
The nub of the Respondent's defense to the allegation of a
discriminatory discharge is that Solomont was guilty of
insubordination' and that the offense prompted his third
and terminal reprimand. Accordingly, the application of the
5 In the course of the hearing, Respondent offered as evidence probative
of the issues herein a decision on eligibility for benefits, issued on June 20,
1974, by Reviewer Examiner James P. McKeon of the Division of Employ-
ment Security of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The decision, now
on appeal, denied the claim of Alan Solomont for umemployment compen-
sation for a period of 8 weeks under sec 25(e)(2) of the Massachusetts
Employment Security Law, because of a finding by the Examiner that
Solomont was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of sec 25(e)(2) of
the law, which misconduct prompted his discharge. At the hearing, I sus-
tained the objection of the General Counsel to admission of this decision
(Resp Proposed Exh. 9) Upon reviewing the question of the admissibility
of this document as probative evidence, I conclude that its rejection was
error, in light of the Board decisions in Supreme Dyeing Corporation, 147
NLRB 1094 (1964); Aerovox Corporation, 104 NLRB 246 (1952); Du-
quesne Company, 212 NLRB 142 (1974) Accordingly, I reverse the ruling
and admit to evidence Resp Exh. 9 Having reviewed the exhibit, I find that
it provides scant illumination to the matters here at issue
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
standard set forth in the employee handbook would, in the
estimation of the Respondent, require Solomont's discharge.
Based upon the findings herein, one quick answer to the
Respondent's contention is that the second reprimand was
illegally given and cannot serve as the basis for any action.
Accordingly, on April 21, the Respondent failed to comply
with its own handbook requirement because the April 21
reprimand was only the second lawful reprimand in Solo-
mont's file, and hence not a basis for the imposition of a
three-reprimand rule. However, since the restrictions in the
handbook are self-imposed, the Respondent is, of course,
legally free to ignore them unless it does so for discriminatory
reasons, a consideration which perforce brings us back full
circle to the facts and circumstances of the April 21 events
themselves.
The infraction first noticed by Sister Irene on the morning
of April 21 was that at least four nurses aides were smoking
at the time in the bathroom, a violation of a rule or practice
which exists in order to assure sufficient coverage of wing
east-one by health care personnel at all times. While the
written reprimands which were given to various culprits indi-
cate a smoking violation, there is no evidence that the Re-
spondent ever before issued written reprimands for this in-
fraction, because it is manifestly a trival matter which could
easily be corrected by an oral on-the-spot admonition. Re-
spondent impliedly recognizes that smoking in the bathroom
with more than one other employees is not a serious offense
warranting discharge. The administrator, Sister St. Odelia,
had told Solomont that it would take a serious third infrac-
tion before he would be discharged. After the Union issued
its protest letter of April 22, chiding the Manor for pretend-
ing to discharge an employee for smoking in the bathroom,
the Respondent in effect changed its position, announcing to
the employee gathering on April 23 that "the mere fact that
he was smoking" in the bathroom, the event which triggered
the five reprimands, was not the cause for Solomont's dis-
charge.
On its official reprimand forms, the Respondent character-
ized Solomont's action or inaction on the morning of April
21 with a multiplicity of charges-smoking with female
nurses, 'a refusal to obey orders, and breaking company rules.
Into this melange, it also tossed a fourth makeweight
infraction-tardiness-though this latter complaint was
plainly an afterthought There is no known company rule
which forbids male orderlies from smoking with female
nurses aides. Thus, the first infraction noted charges some-
thing which, insofar as this record reflects, has never
been a violation of company rules. As for the insub-
ordination-the violation of three direct orders, in the
view of Sister Irene-the record is most insubstantial and
shows, to the contrary, that Solomont in fact complied with
her orders with alacrity. I discredit Sister Irene's statement,
heard by no one but her, that she uttered the phrase "Trays
have to be removed," or words to that effect. The other
statement "Only two in the bathroom-... or this will be a
reprimand" is clearly a warning, but a conditional one. It
does not assert that everyone in the bathroom was obligated
to clear out. It does state that two could remain. Immediately
upon uttering this phrase, the three nurses aides who entered
first and were nearing the conclusion of their smoke break left
immediately. Sister Irene estimates that the whole incident
took only between 20 and 30 seconds; others say it took even
less time. -Hancock, Therriault, and presumably LaVoie im-
mediately put out their cigarettes and left, while Solomont
and Jutras, who would under the terms of the instruction be
allowed to stay, also put out their cigarettes, vacated the
bathroom, and immediately returned to ward duty without
uttering a word or gesture. Within a minute, the bathroom
was empty of all smokers. Since cigarettes had to be extin-
guished and could not be brought back into the patient care
area, and since only one person could walk through the bath-
room door at a given interval, it is difficult for me to under-
stand how the five individuals concerned could have com-
plied with Sister Irene's directive with greater promptness.
Far from being insubordinate, their response to her instruc-
tion was complete, swift, and without a word of protest. The
reprimands and the consequent discharge which was pre-
mised thereon were given for insubordination which simply
did not occur. Had the Respondent limited its complaint
against Solomont and the other employees to an infraction of
the rule against several employees smoking in the bathroom
at the same time, the facts of the situation would have sup-
ported this charge. However, in such an instance, the Re-
spondent would have run into the difficulty of justifying, at
least to itself and also to its employees, the seriousness of this
offense. By compounding this incident with the element of
refusal to obey a direct order so that an internally defensible
cause for discharge could be made out, the Respondent sim-
ply went beyond the facts in order to give them a larger effect
than they warrant.
Solomont was the leader of the organizing campaign and
was regarded by Sister Irene as its instigator. For various
reasons of its own, the Respondent was hostile to this effort
and manifested its hostility in various ways, including threats
to Solomont coupled with an unlawful reprimand. When
these efforts failed to cool his ardor and to stem the tide of
the organizing campaign, it seized upon the trivial smoking
incident of April 21 as a pretext for discharge. In so doing,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record herein considered as a whole, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Respondent D'Youville Manor Nursing Home is an
employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local 1199 Massachusetts, National Union of Hospital
and Health Care Employees, A Division of RWDSU,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Alan Solomont for engaging in union
activities, as found above, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By the acts and conduct set forth in Conclusion of Law
3; by timing of the announcement of an increase in the pay-
ment of fringe benefits to employees in order to interfere with
a union organizational campaign; by reprimanding Alan
Solomont because he engaged in union activities; and by
threatening him with other reprimands for engaging in union
D'YOUVILLE MANOR NURSING HOME
activities, Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial effect on interstate commerce , within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY -
Having found that,the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative
actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the
Act. The recommended Order shall provide that the Re-
spondent be required to offer to Alan Solomont reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position' and to
make him whole for loss of earnings in accordance with the
Woolworth formula,7 with interest computed thereon at 6
percent per annum. I will also recommend that the Respond-
ent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in a repeti-
tion of the conduct found to be illegal, and to post a notice
advising its employees to this effect.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the following
recommended:
ORDER'
Respondent, D'Youville Manor Nursing Home, its offic-
ers, directors, agents, successors, and assigns, and all persons
acting in concert and participation with it, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Timing the announcement of increases in wages and
benefits in order to interfere with employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act; provided
that nothing herein shall be construed to require the Re-
spondent to revoke or modify any increases in wages or bene-
fits heretofore granted.
(b) Reprimanding or threatening to reprimand employees
because they have engaged in union activities.
(c) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other
labor organization of its employees, by discharging em-
ployees or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Alan Solomont immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position, or in the event his former posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or to other rights he pre-
6 The Respondent seeks to avoid a reinstatement order by claiming that
Soloriont, a graduate of Tufts University , is overqualified for the menial
position in which he was employed from June 1973 until April 1974. The
contention is simply without merit.
I F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
8 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.
181
viously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of the discrimination found, in the manner
described above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Remove from any company records any reprimands
placed therein because Alan Solomont engaged in union ac-
tivities or in concerted protected activities, as found herein.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
and other records necessary to analyze the amount of back-
pay due under the terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at Respondent's place of business at Lowell, Mas-
sachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed
by a representative of the Respondent, shall be posted im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by
the Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily placed. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered over by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
9 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ODER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
D'Youville Manor Nursing Home is posting this Notice
to comply with the provisions of a recommended Order
issued by an Administrative Law Judge. The recom-
mended Order was issued after a hearing in which we
were found to have violated certain provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT reprimand or threaten to reprimand em-
ployees because they engage in union activities.
WE WILL NOT time the announcement of increases in
wages and fringe benefits in order to interfere with em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees because they have engaged in union
activities. All of our employees are free to become or
remain members of Local 1199 Massachusetts, National
Union of Hospital and Health care Employees, a Divi-
sion of RWDSU, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation. '
WE WILL offer to Alan Solomont full and immediate
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
employment and make him whole for any loss which he
has suffered, with interest thereon at 6 per annum.
D'YOUVILLE MANOR NURSING HOME