Eskaton Health Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 370 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lassen Community Hospital , a Division of Eskaton
Health Corporation , Division of Eskaton and
Engineers & Scientists of California , Marine
Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO.
Case 20-CA-19588
31 January 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 30 October 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in opposition.
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, findings, I and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the, administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Lassen
Community Hospital, A Division of Eskaton
Health Corporation, Division of Eskaton, Susan-
ville, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cit. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
We note that subsequent to the judge 's decision, the Board issued a de-
cision (not included in Board volumes) adopting the hearing officer's
report in Case 20-RC-15850
Lucile L. Rosen and Christine Rails, Esqs., for the Gener-
al Counsel.
Paul Shanley, Esq. (Hubbert, Shanley & Lee), of Sacra-
mento, California, for the Respondent.
Debbie Silva, of San Francisco, California, for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D . TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried in Susanville, California, on August
22, 1985, The charge and the first and second amended
charges were filed respectively on April 11 and 26, and
on June 25, 1985, by Engineers & Scientists of California,
Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO (the
Union). The complaint, which issued on June 28, 1985,
and was amended at the hearing, alleges that Lassen
Community Hospital, a Division of Eskaton Health Cor-
poration, Division of Eskaton (Respondent or the Hospi-
tal) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
The original complaint alleges that a number of the
Hospital's statements and actions that were directed to
registered nurses violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The
alleged statements and actions could only have been vio-
lative of the Act if the registered nurses were employees
within the meaning of the Act. Prior to the opening of
this case the employee status of those registered nurses
was litigated in representation Case 20-RC-15850. In
that case the hearing officer found the registered nurses
to be employees. That issue is presently pending before
the Board on exceptions to the hearing officer's report.
At the outset of the hearing in the instant case all parties
entered into, and I approved, a conditional settlement
agreement that resolved all the issues involving the regis-
tered nurses. The settlement agreement is to become ef-
fective if the Board in the representation case finds the
registered nurses to be employees. The General Counsel
has agreed not to pursue those issues further if the Board
finds that the registered nurses are not employees. Para-
graphs 6, 9, 10, and 12 of the complaint were severed
from the complaint and resolved in the conditional settle-
ment agreement. In addition, the General Counsel suc-
cessfully moved to delete paragraph 7 from the com-
plaint. There are now only two issues raised by the com-
plaint as amended.
Issues
The primary issues are
1. Whether the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by restricting employee use of hospital bulletin
boards.
2. Whether the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by coercively interrogating an applicant for em-
ployment concerning her union sympathies.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent.
On the entire record of the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a California corporation, is a health care
institution which operates an acute care and nursing fa-
cility and provides inpatient and outpatient medical and
professional care services in Susanville, California.
During 1984 Respondent derived gross revenues in
excess of $250,000 and purchased and received at its
California facility goods valued in excess of $5000 which
originated from points outside of California. The com-
plaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It is
278 NLRB No. 53
LASSEN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 371
also admitted and I find that the Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Bulletin Boards
1. The sequence of events
For many years Lassen Memorial Hospital (Memorial)
provided hospital, nursing, and other health care services
in the Susanville, California area. On July 1, 1982,
Lassen Community Hospital leased Memorial's facilities
and changed the name to Lassen Community Hospital.
At the time of the'lease Memorial maintained a personnel
manual which contained the following provision:
Bulletin Boards
Official notices initiated by the Administrator are
placed on the bulletin board next to the time clock.
Notices of training programs, In-service education
and continuing education are posted on the bulletin
board in North Hallway of the Acute hospital. Per-
sonal notices, ie; items for sale, and miscellaneous
invitations, are not to be placed on these two (2)
bulletin boards. These notices may be placed on the
bulletin boards in the dining rooms of both the
Acute hospital and the Annex.
Though there were, about 12 bulletin boards throughout
the hospital and nursing facility, most of the notices that
were posted by employees were placed on the bulletin
boards in the nurses lounge, the cafeteria, and the cof-
feeroom. These were all nonpatient care areas. The prac-
tice was for the employees to post whatever they saw fit
and there were no restrictions placed on the postings.
Notices were posted concerning baby showers, birthday
parties, softball practice, free kittens, cars for sale, houses
for rent, church activities, and other matters.
On August 9, 1984, more than 2 years after Respond-
ent leased the premises, Respondent issued a new em-
ployee handbook which changed the rules with regard to
bulletin boards and provided that ' all material for posting
had to be approved by the administrator.1
Some employees knew of the August 9, 1984 change
in the rules regarding bulletin boards and other employ-
ees did not. However, in December 1984 Respondent put
a notice, on the bulletin boards saying that nothing could
be put up or removed from the bulletin boards without
Respondent's approval. Prior to that time Respondent's
rules regarding prior approval had not been enforced
and employees had put notices on the bulletin boards
whenever they desired.
Respondent began enforcing its rule that notices had
to have prior 'approval within months after the Union
began an organization drive. In September 1984 a
number' of Respondent's employees formed an organiza-
tional committee. Sometime in September or October
1984 the organizational committee notified Respondent
of its organizing effort. In December 1984 Respondent
posted a notice'stating that employee notices had to be
1 The employee handbook was revised once again on October 26,
1984, but the provisions regarding bulletin boards remained unchanged.
approved by Respondent prior to posting. In effect Re-
spondent was revitalizing a prior rule that until then had
been dormant. The Union filed a petition for an election
in Case 20-RC-15850. An election was held in January
1985.
Even before December 1984, when Respondent posted
the notice requiring employees to get prior permission
before placing notices on the bulletin board, some of the
employees knew about that rule. Charlene Darlington, a
registered nurse for Respondent, was on the employees'
organizing committee. That committee arranged to have
union representatives talk to the employees. During the
first part of December 1984 Darlington asked John
Loftus, the chief executive officer of Respondent,2 if she
could post a , notice on a nonpatient care area bulletin
board which would tell the employees when the meet-
ings were to take place. Loftus told her that she could
post such a notice and that if she brought it to him, he
would take care of it. Darlington prepared a list showing
when the meetings would take place in Susanville and
took that list to Loftus' office. Loftus accepted the list
and said that there' would be no problem with ' posting.
Loftus then walked into his office, crumpled the list, and
threw it in his wastebasket. The list was not posted.3
During December' 1984 the rule requiring advance ap-
proval for employee postings was not uniformly fol-
lowed. Respondent had a stamp indicating that notices
had been approved. It appeared on some notices and not
others. Sometime in December a notice was posted with-
out the -approval stamp which asked for the names of
families who needed food baskets for the Christmas
season . On one occasion before December 1984 Darling-
ton had written out a proposed notice dealing with her
need for child care. She took the notice to Loftus' secre-
tary, who told her that there was no problem and that
she could post it'without the need for the "approved for
posting" stamp. After the rule was reactivated, registered
nurse Linda Frost Wagner talked to Respondent's repre-
sentative Linda French about the posting of a wedding
announcement. French told her that she did not need to
have it stamped and that she could post it whenever she
wanted to.
Sometime in December the Union and the Employees
Association decided to sponsor a contest in which a $100
prize was to be awarded for the best union logo. Regis-
tered nurse Dennis Franks; who was co-chairman of the
organizing committee, placed a notice on the bulletin
boards in the nurses lounge and the nurses dining area
announcing the contest. On December 19, 1984, Re-
spondent's chief executive officer, Loftus, in the presence
of patients and employee Joyce, Clayton, asked ,Franks if
the committee, had put up the signs out of ignorance or
2 The complaint alleges, the answer as amended admits, and I find that
John H. Loftus was the administrator of Respondent and an agent within
the meaning of Sec 2(132 of the Act
these findings are based on the credited testimony of Darlington.
Loftus testified that he did not recall the incident. Darlington was a fully
credible witness That was not so with regard to Loftus. His evasive an-
swers when asked about Respondent's policies on the posting of union
material, combined with his demeanor when he was espousing those eva-
sions, conymced me that he was an-insincere witness who could not be_
relied on.
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out of stubbornness. Franks answered that she was un-
aware of any prohibition against the posting because pre-
viously they had been allowed to post. The following
morning Franks was called into Loftus' office. Regis-
tered nurses Linda Frost Wagner and Cinda Ware were
also called into the office. Loftus told them that it was
his hospital, that the bulletin boards were his, that they
could not post union information or anything else on the
bulletin boards without prior approval, and, that if they
did post without prior approval they could be fired.4
John Loftus became chief executive officer of Re-
spondent on November 28, 1984. That was a month or
two after the union organizational drive began and about
3-1/2 months after Respondent changed its rules to re-
quire approval before employee postings on the bulletin
board. The change of rules occurred about a month
before the Union began its organizational drive.
Loftus' predecessor, at least with regard to a full-time
administrator, was Paul Smith, whose employment with
the Hospital ended in mid-1984. From then until Novem-
ber 28, 1984, when Loftus, assumed his new position,
there was an interim administrator named Jim Hoss who
worked about 1 day a week. Loftus testified that he
became aware of the need for prior approval before post-
ing about the first week in December 1984, which was a
week after he became administrator. He testified that it
was his duty to enforce the policies of the personnel
handbook, that it was a small hospital with small bulletin
boards that were so cluttered that pertinent information
needed on a day-to-day basis for running the Hospital
could not be posted, and that he enforced the prior ap-
proval requirement for employee posting so that perti-
nent hospital information could be posted. He averred
that there was no room for posting anything that did not
relate to the hospital's operation. He acknowledged that
Respondent did post a good deal of material that reflect-
ed Respondent's attitude toward the Union. Loftus con-
ducted eight meetings with the employees where the
subject of the union campaign was discussed and he
posted notices on the bulletin boards showing the sched-
ule of those meetings. He also posted material that re-
flected Respondent's antiunion position.5
Loftus' testimony to the effect that there was no room
on the bulletin boards for prounion material was unsup-
ported by any other evidence. As indicated above, I be-
lieve that Loftus was an unreliable witness whose testi-
mony was not worthy of credence. His attitude toward
union literature was reflected by the incident involving
employee Darlington, in which he told her that there
would'be no problem with posting a notice concerning
where union representatives would talk to employees,
and how he then crumpled the notice and threw it in the
wastebasket. It is also illustrated by Loftus' threat to fire
employees after they posted a notice concerning a com-
petition for a union logo. In short, I reject Respondent's
contention that it had a legitimate business reason for
4 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Franks which
was supported in substantial part by the testimony of Wagner. Franks'
testimony was not contradicted by Loftus.
5 This material was posted by Respondent There is no contention that
Respondent permitted the employees to post antiunion material while de-
nying permission to other employees to post prounion material
limiting employee access to the bulletin boards. There is
no credible evidence to support that contention.
2. Analysis and conclusions with regard to the
posting
The controlling law was summarized in Honeywell,
Inc., 262 NLRB 1402 (1982), enfd. 722 F.2d 405 (8th Cir.
1983),6 where the Board held:
The legal principles applicable to cases involving
access to company-maintained bulletin boards are
simply stated and well established. In general,
"there is no statutory right of employees or a union
to use an employer's bulletin board."3 However,
where an employer permits its employees to utilize
its bulletin boards for the posting of notices relating
to personal items such as social or religious affairs,4
sales of personal property, 5 cards, thank you notes,
articles, and cartoons,6 commerical notices and ad-
vertisement,7 or, in general, any nonwork-related
matters,8 it may not "validly discriminate against
notices of union meetings which employees also
posted."9 Moreover, in cases such as these an em-
ployer's motivation, no matter how well meant, is
irrelevant. 10
8 Container Corporation of America, 244 NLRB 318, fn 2 (1979)
Accord. Union Carbide Corporation-Nuclear Division, 259 NLRB
974 (1982); Axelson, Inc, 257 NLRB 576 (1981); Arkansas-Best
Freight System, Inc, 257 NLRB 420 (1981)
4 Axelson, Inc., supra at 579
5 Arkansas Best, supra at 423, Midwest Stock Exchange, Incorpo-
rated; et al., 244 NLRB 1108, 1116 (1979), Container Corporation of
America, supra at 321.
6 Vincent's Steak House, Inc, 216 NLRB 647 (1975).
7 Container Corporation of Amenca, supra at 321
Continental Kitchen Corporation, 246 NLRB 611, 613 (1979)
Axelson, Inc, supra at 579, and cases cited therein
10 Arkansas-Best, supra at 423-424
In the instant case Respondent did not permit employees
to post some notices relating to personal items. Indeed
the Respondent's requirement that notices receive prior
approval indicated that permission would sometimes be
granted and sometimes withheld. Such a requirement
would have been meaningless if either all or no employ-
ee notices were to be allowed. Respondent did discrimi-
nate against certain types of notices. Respondent's chief
executive officer, Loftus, told employee Darlington that
there would be no problem with the posting of a notice
concerning employee meetings with union representa-
tives and then Loftus threw the notice in the wastebasket
and failed to post it. He threatened to fire employees
when a notice was posted concerning a competition for a
union logo. A violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act may
be found even in the absence of antiunion motivation. As
the Board held in Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 748 (1984):
Union animus is an element in 8(a)(3) cases, but gen-
erally is not an element in 8(a)(1) cases. "It is too
well settled to brook dispute that the test of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion under Section
6 See also Gertz, 262 NLRB,985, 989-991 (1982).
LASSEN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 373
8(a)(1) of the Act does not depend on an employer's
motive nor on the successful effect of the coercion.
Rather, the illegality of an employer's conduct is
determined by whether the conduct may reasonably
be said to have a tendency to interfere with the free
exercise of employee rights under the Act."' 2 Ac-
cordingly, the absence of union animus on the part
of the Respondent, assuming this to be shown by
the record, would be irrelevant to the issue of
whether the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1)... .
12 Daniel Construction Co., supra [264 NLRB 569 (1982)]
In the instant case Respondent's reactivation, mainte-
nance, and enforcement of its rule requiring prior ap-
proval of employee notices for posting on bulletin boards
could be reasonable said to interfere with the free exer-
cise of employee rights under the Act. In Waco, Inc.,
supra, an employee posted on a wall a notice inviting
other employees to begin discussions concerning the pos-
sibility of forming a union. In that case the company re-
quired the employee to remove the notice from the wall
even though other employees had been permitted to post
notices there. The Board held that the removal had the
effect of interfering both with the person who posted the
notice and also with the employees whom that employee
was attempting to reach . Such disparate denials of the
use of a bulletin board to employees violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Webb Furniture Enterprises, 275
NLRB 1305 (1985); Gertz, supra; Vincent's Steak House,
216 NLRB 647 (1975).
As indicated above, a violation of Section 8(a)(1) can
be found even in the absence of antiunion motivation. In
the instant case the facts set forth above establish that
Loftus reactivated, maintained, and enforced the prior
approval requirement for employee postings for the pur-
pose of thwarting union activity. A restriction on the use
of a bulletin board for that purpose is also violative of
the Act. Predicasts, Inc., 270 NLRB 1117, 1119 (1984); G.
H. Bass & Co., 258 NLRB 140, 142-143 (1981).
Respondent has failed to substantiate its claim that
there was a legitimate business need for its rule requiring
prior approval of employee notices.7 Respondent's con-
tention is that employee notices would crowd out neces-
sary hospital information on the bulletin boards. Loftus'
testimony to that effect was not substantiated by any in-
dependent evidence and Loftus was not a credible wit-
ness . In similar cases the Board has rejected such conten-
tions. In Predicasts, Inc., supra at 1119, the Board reject-
ed a "legitimate business purpose" defense where the em-
ployer claimed that it restricted use of the bulletin board
because employees might spend worktime reading no-
tices on the board. In NLRB v. Honeywell, 722 F.2d 405
(8th Cir. 1983), enfg. 262 NLRB 1402 (1982), an employ-
7 In Peck, Inc., 269 NLRB 451, 458 (1984), the Board adopted the find-
ing of an administrative law judge that an employer revealed its motive
to discourage union activity by requiring prior approval for employee no-
tices on a bulletin board, when there was no demonstration of a legiti-
mate business reason for the rule For other cases where "prior approval"
rules were found to be invalid see Predicasts, Inc, supra; G. H. Bass &
Co., supra
er contended that it had an interest in preserving the
boards as an effective means of communication free from
inundation by employee notices. The court held that the
Board under the circumstances present in that case:
"may reasonably conclude that no legitimate employer
interest in limiting access to its bulletin boards outweighs
the employees' Section 7 rights of communication."8
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by discriminatorily maintaining and enforcing a rule
requiring employees to obtain prior approval from Re-
spondent before posting notices on Respondent's bulletin
boards.
As found above, Respondent threatened to discharge
employees for posting employee notices on the bulletin
board without prior approval from Respondent. As I
have found Respondent's maintenance and enforcement
of that rule to be unlawful, it follows that the threat to
discharge employees for failure to follow the rule was
also unlawful. Those threats constituted violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. East Texas Motor Freight, 262
NLRB 868, 869 (1982); G. H. Bass & Co., supra at 143.
B. The Interrogation-Facts and Conclusions
Lisa Mojan Hogan is a licensed vocational nurse. In
January 1985 she submitted an application for employ-
ment with Respondent. She followed up on the applica-
tion by calling Constance M. Nugent, Respondent's di-
rector of nursing services.9 Nugent told her that the
Hospital would accept her application but was not inter-
viewing because there were no openings at that time. In
the latter part of January, Nugent called Hogan, asked
her whether she was still interested in the job, and ar-
ranged for an interview. Hogan was interviewed by
Nugent in Nugent's office at the Hospital on February 5,
1985. Hogan said that she was surprised that she heard
from Nugent because she understood that the Hospital
was well staffed. Nugent replied that she supposed
Hogan heard about their difficulties. Hogan said, that she
had read about a union election in the newspapers and
she asked whether Nugent meant union problems.
Nugent replied that she did. Nugent then asked Hogan
how Hogan felt about the Union. Hogan replied that she
was more or less noncommittal and did not know
enough about it. Nugent told her that that was good and
that the situation could go on for 'years.
About a week after the interview, Hogan called
Nugent about the job and Nugent said that she still had
to talk to the administrator about it. About a week after
that Nugent called Hogan and offered her the job. At
that time Hogan had already accepted a position at the
Veterans Hospital in Reno. She rejected Nugent's offer.
These findings are based on the credited testimony of
Hogan. Nugent, in her testimony, denied that she asked
Hogan about Hogan's union sympathies or her feelings
toward the Union. She averred that she was advised by
Respondent's attorney that she could not ask such ques-
tions. She also averred that Hogan did say something
8 See also Liberty House Nursing Home, 236 NLRB 456, 461 (1978).
9 The complaint alleges, the answer as amended admits , and I find that
Nugent was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about being noncommital toward the Union but that
Hogan volunteered that information and that Nugent did
not ask any questions about union activities. There was
nothing in the demeanor of either Hogan or Nugent to
detract from their credibility. Both testified in a direct,
convincing manner. There were no internal inconsisten-
cies in the testimony of either witness and nothing inher-
ently improbable about their testimony. Respondent
argues that Nugent interviewed about 22 applicants for
nursing positions and' that Hogan's testimony is suspect
because she was the only applicant who testified that she
had been interrogated concerning union sympathies. I
find that argument unconvincing. The General Counsel
did not have to show a pattern of interrogation to estab-
lish that the interrogation in issue took place. The com-
plaint as amended alleges the interrogation "on or about
February 5, 1985," and the General Counsel properly ad-
dressed herself to that allegation. Even assuming that
"habit of routine practice" evidence would have been
admissible to support Nugent's contentions, no such evi-
dence (other than Nugent's bare claim) was offered by
Respondent. Respondent did not call any of the other in-
terviewees as witnesses. The General Counsel, on the
other, hand, argues that the interrogation should be
viewed in the light of the other unfair labor practices.
That argument also is not persuasive. The only other
unfair labor practice found related to Loftus' actions was
with regard to the bulletin board. That was too narrow
in scope to warrant any inferences with regard to Nu-
gent's credibility or her interviewing techniques. Howev-
er, the General Counsel need only establish her case by a
preponderance of the credible evidence. Hogan appeared
to have no interest whatsoever in this proceeding. There
was no showing that she had any connection with the
Charging Party; there was no showing that-she had any
animosity toward Respondent; there was no indication of
bias; and there was no indication that she had any reason
to deviate from the truth. In addition, she appeared to be
an intelligent person with a good memory. There is little
reason to doubt that she had an accurate recollection of
what was said. Nugent, on the other hand, did have an
interest in this proceeding. She is director of nursing
services and a supervisor for Respondent. She reports to
Loftus, who was the chief executive officer of Respond-
ent, and his actions indicated a strong antiunion bias. In
short, her testimony served her own interests while
Hogan's testimony appeared to be completely disinterest-
ed. While that is not a particularly strong basis, for a
credibility resolution, in the absence of a better means of
evaluating credibility, it is sufficient to tip the balance in
favor of crediting Hogan over Nugent.
In determining whether interrogation of an employee
by a supervisor violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, an
evaluation must be made whether, under the totality of
circumstances, the interrogation reasonably tended to re-
strain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed in the
Act. Silver State Disposal Co., 271 NLRB 486 (1984);
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. 760 F.2d
1006 (9th Cir. 1985). In the instant case the interrogation
was done by Respondent's director of nursing services. It
took place in her office which, from Hogan's perspec-
tive, was the situs of authority. Even more important, it
took place in the course of an employment interview. In
Service Master, 267 NLRB 875 (1983), the Board held:
The test to determine a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating an employee
about his or her union sympathies is whether, under
all the circumstances, the interrogation reasonably
tends to restrain or interfere with employees in the
exercise of their statutory rights. Lippincott Indus-
tries, 251 NLRB 262 (1980), enfd. 661 F.2d 112 (9th
Cir. 1981). The Board has long recognized that
questions involving union membership and union
sympathies in the context of a job interview are in-
herently coercive and thus interfere with Section 7
rights. See Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air
Brake Co., 161 NLRB 789 (1966); McCain Foods,
236 NLRB 447 (1978), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v.
Eastern Smelting Corp., 598 F.2d 666 (1st Cir. 1979).
See also Semi-Alloys, 260 NLRB 992, 995 (1982); A & A
Ornamental Iron, 259 NLRB 1019, 1021 (1982); Quality
Drywall Co., 254 NLRB 671, 621 (1981); Smith Auto Serv-
ice, 252 NLRB 610, 613 (1980).
Under the circumstances described above, I find that
the interrogation was coercive and constituted a viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
discriminatorily prohibiting employees from posting
union campaign literature or union notices on its bulletin
boards; by maintaining and enforcing a rule which discri-
minatorily prohibited employees from posting such litera-
ture on its bulletin boards; by discriminatorily requiring
employees to obtain permission before posting such liter-
ature on its bulletin boards; and by threatening employ-
ees with discharge for posting such literature without ob-
taining prior permission.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating an applicant for employment concerning
her union sympathies.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I recommend - that it be ordered to
cease and desist, and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed10
ORDER
The Respondent, Lassen Community Hospital, a Divi-
sion of Eskaton Health Corporation, Division of Eska-
ton, Susanville, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
10 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 Sea 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
LASSEN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 375
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily prohibiting employees from post-
ing union campaign literature or union notices on its bul-
letin boards.
(b) Maintaining or enforcing any rule which discrimin-
atorily prohibits employees from posting such literature
or notices on its bulletin boards.
(c) Discriminatonly requiring employees to obtain per-
mission before posting such literature or notices on its
bulletin boards.
(d) Threatening any employee with discharge for post-
ing such literature or notices without obtaining prior per-
mission.
(e) Interrogating any applicant for employment con-
cerning his or her union sympathies.
(f) 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 policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its Susanville, California places of business
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being signed by the Re-
spondent'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 customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) 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 discriminatorily prohibit employees
from posting union campaign literature or union notices
on our bulletin boards.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any rule which dis-
criminatorily prohibits employees from posting such lit-
erature or notices on our bulletin boards.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily require employees to
obtain permission before posting such literature or no-
tices on our bulletin boards.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employee with discharge
for posting such literature or notices without obtaining
prior permission.
WE WILL NOT interrogate any applicant for employ-
ment concerning his or her union sympathies.
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.
1 i 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 Nation-
al 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."
LASSEN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, A DIVI-
SION OF ESKATON HEALTH CORPORATION,
DIVISION OF ESKATON