East Bronx Health Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1984

271 N.L.R.B. 898 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Massive East Bronx Comprehensive Health Center,
Inc. and District 1199, National Union of Hos-
pital and Health Care Employees, RWDSU,
AFL-CIO. Case 2-CA-19746
8 August 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
On 30 March 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Steven B. Fish issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,1 findings, 2
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Massive East Bronx Comprehensive
Health Center, Inc., Bronx, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified.
I We specifically affirm the judge's denial of the Respondent's motion
for a 10-day adjournment of the hearing made at the close of the General
Counsel's case. We note that the hearing had previously been postponed
at the Respondent's request from the original hearing date of 27 October
1983 and rescheduled for 4 January 1984. The Respondent had over 4
months to prepare its case from the date the complaint issued and over 2
months from the date the hearing was postponed. Furthermore, the rea-
sons the Respondent presented in support of its motion for adjournment
fail to explain adequately why the Respondent was unable to go forward
with its case or why another postponement was necessary. Accordingly,
the judge properly denied the Respondent's motion for postponement.
2 Asserting that 10 out of the 12 members of its board of directors had
resigned from the board as of 20 May 1983, the Respondent contends
that the board could not transact business under New York state law and
therefore that the board could not lawfully have accepted the collective-
bargaining agreement. Even assuming, arguendo, that that constitutes a
correct statement of the law, we reject the Respondent's contention be-
cause its factual premise is not supported by the evidence. Thus, there is
simply no record evidence that 10 of the 12 board members had resigned
as of 20 May. Indeed, there is no record evidence specifying when resig-
nations occurred or the number of vacancies on the board at any given
time. Accordingly, the Respondent's contention lacks merit.
Member Hunter agrees with the judge's finding that the Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act on the limited facts presented. Member Hunter notes
that no party contested the Board's jurisdiction over the Respondent.
s We shall modify the recommended Order so that it will require the
Respondent to make available to the Board all company records neces-
sary to compute the amounts of backpay due the employees. We shall
also modify the Order to require that the notice be posted immediately
upon receipt and remain posted for 60 consecutive days.
271 NLRB No. 137
1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(c) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs.
"(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d).
"(d) Post at its place of business in Bronx, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." 12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being
signed by the Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material."
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STEVEN B. FISH, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant
to charges filed by District 1199, National Union of Hos-
pital and Health Care Employees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO
(the Union or District 1199), the Regional Director for
Region 2 issued a complaint and notice of hearing on
August 11, 19 83,t alleging that Massive East Bronx
Community Comprehensive Health Center, Inc. (Re-
spondent), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section
8(d) of the Act, by failing and refusing to execute a writ-
ten contract embodying an agreement reached between
the parties. The hearing was held before me with respect
to the issues raised by the complaint in New York, New
York, on January 4, 1984.
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a New York nonprofit corporation lo-
cated in the Bronx, New York, where it is engaged in
the operation of an ambulatory health care center.
During the past year, Respondent in the course and
conduct of its business, derived gross revenues in excess
of $250,000. During the same period, Respondent caused
to be transported to its Bronx, New York facility, goods,
supplies, and materials valued in excess of $10,000 direct-
ly from suppliers located outside the Sate of New York.
Respondent is now and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
It is admitted and I so find that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
All dates herein are in 1983 unless otherwise indicated.
898
EAST BRONX HEALTH CENTER
11. FACTS
On July 8, 1982, subsequent to an election held as a
result of a stipulation for certification executed by the
parties, the Board certified the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in a
unit of:
All full-time and regular part-time employees, in-
cluding medical assistants, bookkeepers, dental hy-
gienists, medical record assistants, laboratory techni-
cians, receptionist/appointment clerk, maintenance
employees, x-ray technicians, secretaries, and nurse
practitioner, excluding all other employees, watch-
men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement
began in January 1983. The parties met on four occasions
between January and early April. All of the sessions took
place at Respondent's facility located at 1675 Westchest-
er Avenue, Bronx, New York.
At each meeting, Howard Williams, an organizer, and
Ana Rivera, a delegate were present on behalf of the
Union. Respondent was represented at each session by
Joseph Erazo, its attorney, Tony Colon, chairman of its
board of trustees, and Nilsa Benitez who was a member
of the Board. Erazo was introduced to Williams as coun-
sel for Respondent and engaged in virtually all of the
discussions with the union representatives. As noted,
Colon and Benitez, chairman and member of the board
of trustees of Respondent, were present at each session,
but they said very little if anything to the Union. How-
ever, it was made clear to the Union that the board of
trustees was being kept informed of the matters discussed
at negotiations, that the governing authority of Respond-
ent vested in the Board, and that the Board would make
the ultimate decision concerning any collective-bargain-
ing agreement that may be reached.
At the first meeting Williams presented Respondent's
representatives with two documents, which comprised
the Union's proposals. They were a copy of District
1199's standard form agreement (the master agreement),
which is a 98-page document, plus a 2-page document
entitled "Massive E. Bronx Health Center Proposals,"
which encompassed certain additions to or changes from
the master agreement in areas such as contract duration,
wages, vacations, classifications, and minimums. Williams
went through at the first session all of the items con-
tained in the Union's proposals and gave to Respondent
the Union's rationale for each demand. Erazo responded
on behalf of Respondent that it was not prepared to offer
a response at that momemnt, but would get back to the
Union.
A second negotiation session was held 2 weeks later.
Erazo began the meeting by stating that Respondent was
opposed to the union-shop clause proposed by the
Union. The parties then discussed this issue but no reso-
lution resulted. It was decided to table that item and go
through the other sections of the master agreement.
Agreement was reached on approximately 80 percent
of the proposals offered by District 1199, with some
modifications. The modifications in the master agreement
which were agreed to at the second meeting were, a re-
duction in the steps of the grievance clause from a three-
to a two-step procedure; a maternity leave clause provid-
ing for a 45-day leave with pay; a paternity leave clause
providing for a 5-day leave with pay; and a holiday
schedule of 10 holidays and 2 personal days. In addition,
during the course of this meeting, Respondent objected
to the hiring hall proposal included in the master agree-
ment, stating that it was a community based center and
wished the opportunity to hire from the community first.
Accordingly, the Union agreed to withdraw its proposal
for a hiring hall which was included in the master agree-
ment. At the end of this meeting, there remained five
issues that were still outstanding and unresolved. They
were wages, union security, welfare, pension, and educa-
tion benefits.2
The third negotiating session was held during the
second week of March. Williams began the meeting by
indicating that if Respondent were flexible on the union-
shop clause, that the Union would be a little more flexi-
ble on the other outstanding issues, such as wages, wel-
fare, pension, and education benefits. Erazo replied that
he would have to discuss this with the board of trustees,
but that Respondent viewed the Union's position as
movement.
Erazo also brought up the issue of sick days at this
meeting, but the record is not clear as to what he said
about it.
Erazo asked Williams how flexible the Union would
be with respect to the educational benefits clause. Wil-
liams replied that he would be willing to withdraw the
contract requirement of Respondent paying I percent
into the training and upgrading plan, and replace it with
a program of reimbursement to employees of 50 percent
of tuition paid, for those employees who attend school
and receive a passing grade of C. Erazo responded that
he felt this was an acceptable term and added that he
was going to discuss the status of negotiations with the
board. The parties then set up another meeting for early
April.
The fourth and final negotiation meeting was held as
scheduled in early April. Williams proposed that if Re-
spondent agreed to a union-shop clause, that the Union
would withdraw its demands for the inclusion of the
pension and welfare provisions in its master agreement.
Respondent accepted this proposal, and it was agreed
that the employees would be covered by the Responent's
existing welfare fund. There was no provision for a pen-
sion fund, and the Union agreed to forgo such a clause,
since Erazo had continually stated that cost was a major
factor in the negotiations.
In connection with the issue of cost savings, the par-
ties also discussed and agreed on minimum salaries and
wage increases. The Union agreed to reduce its minimum
salary proposals to the current salaries of the existing in-
cumbent employees. The parties also agreed to an 8-per-
cent wage increase for all existing employees, retroactive
to August 1, 1982, and again on June 30, 1983. In regard
to this matter, however, Williams did indicate at both the
2 Education benefits refers to art. XXII of the master agreement enti-
tled "Training and Upgrading."
899
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
third and fourth meeting that, if necessary, the Union
might be flexible on the effective date of the agreement.
However, Respondent did not question the effective date
proposed by the Union during the negotiation sessions,
and had agreed on such dates by the close of the fourth
meeting.
The subject of vacations was also discussed at this
meeting, and the parties agreed upon a clause that pro-
fessionals would receive 3 weeks' vacation for the first
year and 4 weeks for the second year of employment.
They also agreed that professional positions would in-
clude dental hygienists, lab technicians, and x-ray tech-
nologists. Respondent indicated that the nurse practition-
er had resigned and that it did not intend to fill that posi-
tion. The Union did not dispute or oppose Respondent's
position in that regard.
Once again Williams reminded Erazo that the Union
would be flexible on the effective date of the contract
and the initial wage increase. Erazo replied that he felt
that there was a package that he could sell to the board
of trustees, and that he would present it to them.
On April 12, Erazo spoke to Williams on the tele-
phone and told him that the board had not yet consid-
ered the contract package, but that he was hopeful of
scheduling a special meeting to discuss the issue. During
this phone conversation Erazo raised the issue of sick
leave, again emphasizing the cost problems of Respond-
ent. He suggested that the parties continue Respondent's
present policy of 10 sick days, rather than the 12 con-
tained in the Union's proposals. Williams agreed to this
change.
Erazo then stated that again to reduce costs, it would
be helpful to extend the effective date of the agreement. s
Williams then suggested changing the August 1, 1982
date to December 31. Erazo replied that would be fine,
adding that he would submit the package to the board
and that he was certain that the board would approve.
Williams told Erazo that he would send him a letter con-
firming their telephone conversation.
On April 14, Williams sent a letter to Erazo. The letter
confirms the Union's agreement to alter the effective
date of the increase,4 and to reduce their demand on sick
time to 10 days. The letter concluded by stating that this
was the final move the Union will make, and that it be-
lieves that this move should be satisfactory in obtaining a
settlement.
During another telephone conversation sometime in
April or May, the parties agreed that the dental hygienist
should be placed on a par with all other professionals,
with regard to minimum salaries.
On May 18, Erazo and Williams again spoke on the
phone. They again talked about the two items which had
been agreed to on April 12, the change in effective date
to December 31, and the reduction in sick time to 10
days. Erazo reiterated that he was going to submit the
package to the board, and that he saw no problem with
obtaining board approval of the agreement.
3 I note that Williams at the prior sessions had indicated that the Union
might be flexible on this issue.
4 Although the letter reads December 1, 1982, as the agreed-on date,
Williams credibly testified that this was a typographical error, and the
agreement was December 31.
On May 20, Erazo telephoned Williams and informed
him that the board had met and approved the agreement
presented to it. Williams replied that he would prepare a
written agreement for signature and send same to him.
Erazo responded, "Fine, I'll be waiting for it." Erazo did
not indicate that anything else needed to be done to get
the agreement approved.
Williams then prepared a 3-page document, entitled
"Massive East Bronx Terms of Agreement." The docu-
ment reflects that all the terms of the master agreement
are agreed to, with the exception of a number of dele-
tions and additions. The document provides for a con-
tract duration of December 31, 1982, to June 30, 1984,
with wage increases of 8 percent payable on 12/31/82
and 7/1/83. Additionally, the document reflects the
other items which were agreed to orally by the parties,
such as vacations, minimums, sick time, grievance proce-
dure, education expenses, holidays, and maternity and
paternity leave. Accompanying this document, Williams
sent Erazo a cover letter dated May 24, stating that the
terms of the agreement were enclosed, and requesting
that authorized signatures be affixed and returned.
After not receiving a copy of the executed contract,
Williams called Erazo on a date between 5/24/83 and
6/9. Williams asked what was holding up the agreement
being signed. Erazo replied that Mr. Colon had not
signed it as of yet. Erazo did not deny at that or any
other time that the proposal agreement sent by Williams
to Erazo correctly reflected the agreement reached be-
tween Respondent and the Union. Williams then advised
Erazo that he was sending a letter threatening to file an
unfair labor practice charge with the Board if the agree-
ment was not signed.
On June 9, Williams sent such a letter to Erazo, with a
copy to Colon, stating that the Union has negotiated a
contract with Respondent, and had not received a copy
of the signed memorandum sent to Respondent on May
24. The letter further adds that the Union considers the
failure to sign to be a refusal to bargain, and unless the
document is signed by June 17, the Union will file an
unfair labor practice charge against Respondent.
Shortly thereafter Williams spoke to Jeff Lattman,
who had recently been appointed administrator of Re-
spondent. Williams asked Lattman if he knew anything
about why the contract was not signed. Lattman replied
that he did not know about it, but would look into it and
get back to Williams. Lattman never got back to Wil-
liams, and Williams had no further discussions about the
matter with any of Respondent's officials. The contract
was not executed, nor was the Union ever informed as to
why it had not been signed by any of Respondent's offi-
cials.
The Union filed the instant charge on July 9.
The above recitation of the facts is derived from the
credible testimony of Williams, which was supported by
various documents, and which was not contradicted, re-
futed, or challenged by any witness or evidence present-
ed by Respondent. Indeed, neither Erazo, Colon, nor any
other witness who might have been in a position to dis-
900
EAST BRONX HEALTH CENTER
pute any of Williams' testimony was called to testify by
Respondent. 5
The only witness called to testify by Respondent was
Antonio Nin, Respondent's present project director or
administrator. However, Nin was not employed by Re-
spondent until November 7, 1983, and he furnished no
testimony or evidence which in any way challenges Wil-
liams' assertions that in fact the board of trustees had
agreed to the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement
reached as a result of negotiations between the Union
and Erazo acting on behalf of Respondent.
Nor did Nin furnish any direct testimony as to why
Respondent declined to execute the collective-bargaining
agreement which it was sent by the Union.
Nin did testify, however, that Respondent is funded by
the Department of Health and Human Services, an
agency of the Federal Government (HHS). He further
testified that about July 5, 1983, HHS issued a notice of a
grant award to Respondent, which attached a number of
special conditions to Respondent's ability to continue
being funded by the agency. Some of these conditions
were an expansion of the board of trustees, recruitment
of a full-time project director, update of board bylaws, a
board training session, and the development of proce-
dures for grievances, hiring, firing, and performance ap-
praisals. Additionally, a revised operational budget was
ordered to be submitted for review by HHS. Nin was
told by HHS officials, which is confirmed by the grant
award that HHS considered Respondent to be a "high
risk" grantee. This meant, according to Nin, that the
Center would be under more direct supervision by HHS
than other similar programs.6
Pursuant to these special conditions mandated by
HHS, a new board of trustees was elected which was ap-
proved by the agency. The Board was expanded from 12
to 25 members.7 An update of the bylaws as well as pro-
posals for grievance procedures, hirings, and job descrip-
tions were prepared by the board and submitted to HHS
for approval.
Nin further testified that HHS must approve Respond-
ent's purported compliance with the special conditions
imposed by the agency, in order for it to be funded for
the next fiscal year. Respondent was at the time of the
hearing herein being funded at current levels on a tem-
porary basis. Finally, Nin testified that he was involved
in negotiating with HHS pertaining to next year's grant,
and if HHS does not issue a grant, Respondent will not
be funded and would not be able to operate.
Ill. ANALYSIS
It is well settled that an employer's failure to execute a
contract embodying terms previously agreed on with a
union constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain. H. J.
Heinz Co. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941); Diplomat Enve-
lope Corp., 263 NLRB 525, 535 (1982); Golin Block &
Supply Co., 243 NLRB 350, 353 (1979).
5 As noted above, Erazo was available to do so, since he tried the in-
stant case on behalf of Respondent.
6 The reason for the "high risk" designation as set forth in the Grant,
was due to Respondent's "recent history of administrative and board dis-
sension . and threats of violence."
I A new chairman of the board was also selected.
The record herein conclusively establishes, by virtue
of Williams' unrefuted testimony, that Respondent and
the Union reached agreement on terms of a collective-
bargaining agreement. Thus, on May 18, after four nego-
tiation sessions, and a number of telephone calls between
Williams and Erazo, Respondent's authorized negotia-
tor, 8 full agreement was reach between the parties on all
items, subject only to approval of Respondent's board of
trustees, which Erazo felt would no problem.
On May 20, Erazo reported to Williams that the board
had met and approved the contract as negotiated by him
and the Union. This statement by Erazo, an agent of Re-
spondent, constitutes an admission against Respondent, 9
and establishes, particularly where no contract testimony
was presented, that in fact the board of trustees of Re-
spondent did approve the agreement negotiated on its
behalf by Erazo.
It is also clear and undisputed that the written docu-
ments submitted by the Union to Erazo and Respondent
embodied the terms agreed on by the parties. I note in
this connection that at no time did Erazo or Respondent
ever contend that the documents submitted to it incor-
rectly reflected the terms which had been agreed to.
Indeed Respondent has not presented any testimony or
evidence as to why it failed to execute the contract
which it had agreed on. The only witness called by Re-
spondent, Antonio Nin, its present administrator, fur-
nished ro direct testimony on this subject, and was un-
aware as to the status of negotiations.
Although his testimony suggests two possible defenses
to Respondent's failure to sign, these purported and un-
articulated defenses have not been established by the
record, and are in any event insufficient as a matter of
law to justify Respondent's refusal to execute the agree-
ment.
Nin testified that at some point subsequent to July, a
new Board of Trustees was elected, and that the new
board comprised a majority of new members. Nin did
not even testify that the new Board had met and rejected
the collective-bargaining agreement, which had been ne-
gotiated on Respondent's behalf, and approved by the
prior board of trustees. Even if one could infer from Re-
spondent's failure to sign the agreement, that the new
board had in fact rejected the contract, this would not be
a valid defense to its obligation to execute said agree-
ment.
When agreement was reached, there is no question
that the board of trustees in existence at that time was
authorized to and did in fact approve the terms of the
agreement negotiated on Respondent's behalf by its ne-
gotiator. Respondent therefore remained under a duty to
sign such contract, notwithstanding the fact that a suc-
cessor board may have found the agreement not accepta-
ble. Fisk University, 237 NLRB 1164, 1171 (1978).
Nin also testified concerning the fact that HHS had
imposed certain conditions on Respondent's operations,
which, if not complied with, could result in Respondent
I See Jackson Sportswear Co., 211 NLRB 891, 903 (1974).
9 Bohemia Inc., 266 NLRB 761, 764 (1983); Injected Rubber Products,
258 NLRB 687, 693 (1981); Rubber Workers Local 878 (Goodyear Tire),
255 NLRB 251 (1981).
901
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not being funded for the next fiscal year. Clearly such
speculative testimony does not establish what it appears
Respondent is suggesting by introducing such evidence,
i.e., that Respondent is or will be financially unable to
comply with the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement which it bound itself to follow. In any event,
the Board has consistently rejected attempts of employ-
ers to raise financial hardship as a defense to repudiating
or modifying the terms of a collective-bargaining agree-
ment.1 0 This holding is unaffected by the fact that Re-
spondent's potential economic difficulties may be due to
its inability to be funded by a Government Agency, such
as HHS. The fact that possible funding problems from
HHS may make it difficult for Respondent to fulfill its
obligations under the contract which it agreed to, war-
rants no different treatment than that accorded employ-
ers in other industries whose ability to comply with con-
tractual terms is hampered by an unexpected decline in
revenues. Sun Harbor Manor, 228 NLRB 945, 947 (1977);
Nassau County Health Facilities Assn., 227 NLRB 1680,
1685 (1977).
Accordingly, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to execute the
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union, the
terms of which it had previously agreed on, and I so
find.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein, the Union has been and
still is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of Respondent's employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act. The appropriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time employees, in-
cluding medical assistants, bookkeepers, dental hy-
genists, medical record assistants, laboratory techni-
cians, receptionist; appointment clerk, maintenance
employees, x-ray technicians, secretaries, and nurse
practitioner excluding all other employees, watch-
men, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. By refusing to sign and comply with the collective-
bargaining agreement agreed on between it and the
Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The above-described unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
1o Oak Cliff Gorman Baking Co., 207 NLRB 1063 (1973); Arco Electric
Co., 237 NLRB 708, 709 (1978); Phoenix Air Conditioning Co., 231 NLRB
341, 342 (1977).
cease and desist therefrom and take certain action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered,
on request, to execute the collective-bargaining agree-
ment agreed on with the Union, and to comply retroac-
tively to its effective date with its terms. Additionally,
Respondent shall make whole the employees in the bar-
gaining unit for losses, if any, which they may have suf-
fered by Respondent's refusal to sign the agreement, in
the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), plus interest as prescribed in Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis
Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed"1
ORDER
The Respondent, Massive East Bronx Comprehensive
Health Center, Inc. of Bronx, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to execute the collective-bar-
gaining agreement agreed on by the Respondent and the
Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
(a) On request by the Union, forthwith execute the
contract, on which agreement was reached with the
Union.
(b) Give retroactive effect to the terms and conditions
of employment of said contract, and make whole its em-
ployees for any losses they may have suffered by reason
of Respondent's failure to execute the agreements in the
manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Post at its place of business in the Bronx, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' 2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
I 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 pur-
poses.
12 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
902
EAST BRONX HEALTH CENTER
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
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 the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to execute the collective-
bargaining agreement agreed upon between us and the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, forthwith execute
the contract, on which agreement was reached between
us and the Union.
WE WILL give retroactive effective to the terms and
conditions of employment of the contract, and make
whole our employees for any losses they may have suf-
fered by reason of our failure to execute the agreement,
with interest.
MASSIVE EAST BRONX COMPREHENSIVE
CENTER, INC.
903