Eugene Good Samaritan Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 35 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

EUGENE GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society d/b/a
Eugene Good Samaritan Center and Service Em-
ployees International Union , Local 49, AFL-CIO.
Case 36-CA-2038
June 10, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY
On March 19, 1971, Trial Examiner E. Don Wilson
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with
supporting brief.
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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan So-
ciety, d/b/a Eugene Good Samaritan Center, Eugene,
Oregon, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended order.
' We find no merit in Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner
was biased , prejudiced , and hostile . The record shows that the hearing was
fairly conducted.
2 These findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon the Trial Ex-
aminer's credibility findings, as to which the Respondent excepts. It is the
Board's established policy, however , not to overrule a Trial Examiner's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless , as is not the case here, the
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions
are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188
F 2d 362 (C.A. 3).
191 NLRB No. 14
35
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
E. DON WILSON, Trial Examiner: Upon an original charge
filed on July 8, 1970, and thereafter amended on July 29, and
August 17, and finally on September 14, 1970, by Service
Employees International Union, Local 49, AFL-CIO, herein
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein the Board, issued a complaint dated Octo-
ber 5, 1970, alleging that Evangelical Lutheran Good Samari-
tan Society d/b/a Eugene Good Samaritan Center, herein
Respondent, had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, herein the Act.
Pursuant to due notice a hearing in this matter was held
before me at Eugene, Oregon, on November 23 through 25,
and December 7 and 8, 1970. Briefs were received from the
parties on January 12, 1971, and have been considered.
The parties fully participated at the hearing.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION OVER IT BECAUSE IT IS AN EMPLOYER
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
Respondent contends it is not an "Employer" within the
meaning of the Act, claiming instead that it is a hospital
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and therefore
not subject to the Board's jurisdiction. General Counsel con-
cedes that Respondent is a not for profit corporation but also
contends it is not a hospital within the meaning of the Act
and is subject to the Board's jurisdiction. Respondent prop-
erly points out that the Act itself does not define the term
hospital. I have studied the legislative history of Section 2(2)
of the Act and have not found it to be substantially enlighten-
ing as to the problem presented in this case. I have found
dictionaries to be of little, if any, help. Various decisions of
different state courts have shown a singular lack of uniformity
as to what is a hospital. The Center of Respondent involved
in this case is in the State of Oregon. The State licenses
various classes of institutions at least as health care centers,
including among others, general hospitals, intermediate gen-
eral hospitals, and "convalescent hospitals," et al. According
to one of Respondent's witnesses, whom Respondent offered
as an expert,' Oregon law requires that "any institution keep-
ing two or more patients overnight must be a hospital, [em-
phasis supplied] if these individuals are ill and require care."
I am convinced Congress did not have such type of institution
in mind when it enacted Section 2(2) of the Act. Respondent
urges that "The NLRB by limiting the meaning of the word
`hospital' is perhaps not following the intentions of the legis-
lature.... "
Respondent is "an institution for the reception and care of
sick, wounded, infirm or aged persons.... "2 The State of
Oregon has licensed it partly as a 30-bed "Convalescent Hos-
pital" and partly as a 118-bed "Nursing Home." It has one
administrator, one director of nursing, and a supervising reg-
istered nurse, who supervise, with three registered nurses, all
operations of the approximately 150-bed facility. It is inte-
grated and entirely under the supervision of one pastor, ad-
ministrator. Licensed practical nurses, registered nurses,
nurses' aides, and orderlies work interchangeably throughout
the Center. Acutely ill or injured patients must be removed
Doctor Daniel B. Bond.
Res. br. p. 6.
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to a general or intermediate general hospital from the Center.
Surgical and maternity patients, under Oregon law, must be
excluded.
It should be noted that the patients or residents of the
Center have, if any, their own personal doctors and that the
Center does not provide such for them. I find that the Center
is similar to the establishment involved in Drexel Home, Inc.,
182 NLRB No. 151. It is "an establishment with permanent
facilities that include inpatient beds, and with medical ser-
vices, including continuous nursing services, it provides treat-
ment to patients who require inpatient care, but who do not
require [general or in most instances any] hospital services."
(Emphasis supplied).
The Center is the only division of the Society which is here
involved. The Society operates about 130 nonprofit nursing
homes or homes for the aged or hospitals, etc., in 18 States.
The Society has "basic care units." The Society grossed in
excess of $500,000 in revenue during the year. The, Center
(the Society's facility here involved) grossed at least $700,000
in revenue during that time. It is certified under Medicare as
an "extended care facility." The value of drugs and medica-
tions used at the Center, which originated outside Oregon,
averages between $350 to $400 per month. In 1969 it re-
ceived, at least $27,054, as cost reimbursements, for its par-
ticipation in the Medicare program.
As found in Drexel Home, Inc, supra, the U.S. district
court, in that case held, as the Board noted, that "it may not
refuse to assert [jurisdiction] over an entire class of employers
except as provided in Section 14(c)(1) of the Act." Once the
Board determines that a given class of employers exerts a
substantial impact on commerce, jurisdiction may not be
renounced over an entire category of employers, within that
class and the court concluded that since the Board had as-
serted jurisdiction in University Nursing Home, Inc., 168
NLRB No. 53, on the ground that a class of employers,
proprietary, nursing homes, substantially affect commerce,
the impact on commerce is not necessarily lessened by the
nonprofit nature of nursing home performing the same type
of services as for profit homes, and,the nonprofit nature of a
nursing home performing the same type of services as for
profit homes, and the nonprofit character of part of this class
is therefore irrelevant. The court concluded that such non-
profit employers neither fall within the provisions of Section
14(c)(1) of the Act, nor may be excluded as a class on the sole
ground that they are not operating for profit.
As in Drexel Home, Inc., supra, as noted, Respondent has
no medical staff, per se, but each patient or resident, if he or
she wishes, has a personal physician. The residents and pa-
tients of all, seven wings of the Center have social activities
and religious services available.'
It should be noted that as a "Nursing Home,"4it is licensed
to maintain "facilities providing, convalescent or chronic care
...... (emphasis supplied). All persons who "are acutely ill
or are surgical or maternity cases" are excluded from the
"Nursing Home."5
Residents of the Center come from "anywhere," according
to the testimony of the administrator, Reverend Frederick J.
Juilfs, an ordained Lutheran minister.' At the time of the
' There had been eight-wings but one was closed down because necessary
remodeling was too costly.
Resp's Exh 2
And from the Convalescent Hospital.
I am most loathe to question the credibility to be attached to the
testimony of a clergyman, but I am frankly skeptical of the accuracy of some
of his testimony and note that in many instances corroborating testimony
of supervisors who were readily available to corroborate him and who were,
on occasion , in the courtroom , was not offered.
hearing there were 35 residents or patients or guests, who
were on welfare.' About 60 of the guests of the entire Center
eat regularly in the dining room of the Center. Some leave the
premises to go into town' and some "furnish" their own
rooms.
The convalescent hospital is confined to one of seven wings
of the Center, Wing 700. The wings are contiguous and the
seven wings constitute the "Center."
A brochure for the Center advertises it as a "center for
retired people." Residents or convalescents of the Center are
told in the brochure that they may "go and come as you
please," and that the city bus stops half a block away. Chap-
lain services are provided on a regular basis. There is a par-
ticular "Basic Rule" for an "ambulatory resident." The bro-
chure advertises that the convalescent hospital is a "certified
medicare facility." Part of the Center's resources comes from
"old-age and welfare assistance ." It has a formal lounge for
such of its guests as care to use it. It states it exists for
"retirement living-nursing care and convalescent hospital."
A dietician is available on a consulting basis 1 day a week.
Based on the credited testimony of Karen Roessler,' 75 to 80
percent of the people in the Center were at least 65 years old.'°
In June and July there were approximately 115-120 em-
ployees covering three separate shifts for the entire Center."
The Employer's nonprofit extended care, facility12 ren-
ders essentially the same type of health care facilities as
similar proprietary" and non-proprietary14 extended
care facilities, and clearly is the type of sub-acute facility
over which we have heretofore asserted jurisdiction in
Drexel Hill Home, Inc., 182 NLRB. No. 151, and
related cases.15 Moreover, the impact on commerce gene-
rated by its direct and indirect purchases of goods and
supplies and its participation in various publicly funded,
nationally oriented health care programs is neither in-
fluenced nor lessened by its religious affiliation or its
nonprofit status."
Note that licensed practical nurses were there found to be
employees.
The "Convalescent Hospital" in this case, with its 20-30
beds, is to me the tail that Respondent urges, wags the dog
in this institution. We can't ignore that some patients or
residents or guests are fully ambulatory and that some have
their own furniture and some may go or come "as they
please." This is not what I consider or find to be a "Hospital"
even though the State has authorized or licensed the Center
to have not more than a 30-bed "Convalescent Hospital." An
X-Ray, not used for an unknown, but rather long, time, is in
a dirty room filled with old and dirty files and papers. It has
a room called a "laboratory" which merely holds samples of
blood or urine to be sent to an outside "Laboratory" for
analysis, etc. No surgery, no pathology, etc., is there per-
formed. The Center has nothing but a State License which
would indicate that not more than a small part of it is a
"Convalescent Hospital." At best. Respondent's Center is a
place for retirement, a nursing home, and home for the aged,
' The administrator did not know what percentage of the convalescent
hospital patients were on welfare.
City buses are readily available.
Her demeanor impressed me very favorably and I consider her to have
been an honest witness.
° Most of whom, no doubt, were receiving Social Security.
Without doubt, at lease some , if not many, varied from Wing 700 to
other Wings.
Including its predominately nursing home or old age home activities.
" Citation.
Citation.
" Citations.
's The Martin Luther Foundation, Inc., 186 NLRB No. 16
EUGENE GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER 37
a small part of which, without regular hospital care, is de-
voted to convalescence," and if acute illness illness or injury
should occur there would of necessity be a transfer to a
general or intermediate general care hospital." Many of the
people at the Center are ambulatory even if over 65. Over 75
percent are over 65 years of age and not necessarily nor
proven to be "ill."
While the approximately 30 beds in the hospital out of
about 150 beds in the Center, normally require an "extensive
type of care," registered nurse, Nice," credibly testified. Wing
700 was an extended care facility where patients, from a
hospital came to recuperate before returning to other wings
of the Center or to their homes. In fact, when Wing 800 was
closed, some, although not in need of any kind of hospital
care, were transferred to wing 700, the "Convalescent Hospi-
tal." At full capacity, the hospital did not contain over 20
percent of the residents or "patients," or guests of the Center.
Those in wing 700, except from being closer to the registered
nurse in charge of the Center, received substantially the same
standard of care as the other patients or residents at the
Center. There were none but the incidental services such as
one associates partially with a hospital, bed pans, catheters,
nursing care by nurses' aides, orderlies, supervising registered
nurses," etc. Respondent's witness, Dr. Anderson'21 made it
clear that the convalescent hospital had no "laboratory."22
The adminstrator either deliberately or by mistake attempted
to mislead the Trial Examiner in this regard. As I have said,
I am most reluctant to and do not, impute improper motives
to the reverend. Of course, although required by the law of
Oregon to have same, this small licensed convalescent hospi-
tal had no "portable X-Ray facilities." It may be that some
convalescent hospital, somewhere, is a hospital within the
meaning of the Act. I find that this convalescent hospital, a
very small part of the Center, Respondent herein, does not
make such an institution which is essentially a nursing home
or rest home or home for the aged, a hospital within the
meaning of the Act.
As I understand Registered Nurse Nice's testimony, the
care given in wing 700 was about the same as in other areas
of the Center. The patients in wing 700 were considered in the
extended care facility, "where Medicare patients were al-
lowed so many days to recuperate there. Then they either
went home or to the resident area, the nursing home area."
Dr. Anderson said that it was more than a year since he
had used Respondent's so-called X-Ray facilities and that
there were no laboratory facilities available in the "Hospi-
tal."23 Dr. Anderson further testified that the same nurses
who attended the so-called "hospital" patients attended the
residents of the other areas of the Center. He further testified
that only 13 patients of the 27 whose charts were reviewed
in the convalescent hospital were receiving a level of care that
he "would associate with the convalescent hospital." They
did not require care in a general hospital. The same nurses are
available to all-convalescent hospital or nursing or old aged
or retirement home. He stated the Center has no doctor
stationed at the Center. He testified there would be differ-
ences in the availability of certain facilities and personnel
between Respondent and a general hospital, e.g., special
1' "Gathering strength after sickness." Webster's New Collegiate Dic-
tionary.
18 Bear in mind that the guests had to provide their own doctors.
A wholly honest witness
Three for three 8-hour shifts.
21 Another of Respondent' s experts
22 He testified that but 13 of the 27 patients in the Hospital were receiving
convalescent hospital care
_' Nobody suggested the X-Ray had been used more recently.
treatments for heart diseases or availability for lung treat-
ment.24 In response to Respondent's questions of his own
witness, Dr. Anderson testified that it was very rare that
intravenous medications were administered at the Center or
its "Convalescent Hospital." I find that the Center involved
in this case is within the jurisdiction of the Board; I further
find that the very small part of the Center25 is not a hospital
within the meaning of the Act. I find the Board has jurisdic-
tion of Respondent despite its claims to Section 2(2) exemp-
tion." The convalescent hospital part of the Center may in
some instances extend greater care to some of its patients than
to some other patients in the rest of the Center but such does
not make the Center a hospital within the meaning of the Act.
Respondent, in its brief,27 emphasizes "that the licensing as
a Convalescent Hospital is totally unrelated to the issues
before this Board.... ..
I find the Board has jurisdiction over Respondent since the
operations of the Center affect interstate commerce, and it is
an employer within the meaning of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Union activities began at Respondent around early Febru-
ary 1970.28 Reverend Pauline Shinners, a nurse's aide at Re-
spondent since November 1969, was the first employee active
in the Union. I found her to be an honest and convincing
witness entirely without bias.
She was hired by Dora Moore29 who, I find, was a super-
visor at all material times, within the meaning of the Act. In
early February Shinners talked to Paul Maynard, a union
representative and his assistant. Maynard gave her union
literature, which she showed to some of the employees,
around the middle of February. This was in the halls and
dining room area of the Center. She obtained no signed union
authorization cards. She talked "Union" to the employess in
the latter half of February. Supervisor Dora Moore called her
into the office towards the end of February.3° Moore's assis-
tant was present." Moore asked her if she had any connec-
tions with the "Union activities," to which Shinners replied
she had. Moore inquired how Shinners "could get involved in
such a thing" and Shinners replied it was because of the
employees' wages and there were women there who were
making their own living who could not risk firing in connec-
tion with union activities. Moore replied that was why she
hired her and many of them and if union activities continued
they would have to close the nursing home within 30 days.
Shinners replied the employees should have been told the
facts. Moore asked her to tell the employees Respondent just
could not afford to have union activity at the Center," and
"they" could not afford to organize and whatever else Moore
He was not further examined as to possible differences.
"Convalescent Hospital"
Respondent, in its brief, states that the everyday defimtton of "Hospi-
tal" should be used and then as one definition, says it is "A repair shop for
small objects."
2' P. 13, 11. 25, 26.
Hereinafter all dates refer to 1970 unless otherwise specified
Director of nursing.
30 Shinners had already given a 2 weeks' notice of intention to quit
employment.
Probably Mrs. Strong
32 No suggestion of a difference between the nursing home or old age
home or convalescent center.
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had to say. Shinners agreed so to do and repeated Moore's
threats to perhaps as many as seven of the employees.
I find Moore 's statements , as narrated above, and Shinner's
repetitions of them at Moore's direction to various em-
ployees, Shinner having become an agent of Respondent by
Moore's directions, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
When she was leaving her employment, Shinners con-
versed with Stuart T. Anderson" in the parking lot of the
Center, and gave him (presumably) authorization cards May-
nard had given her and told him to do what he wished with
them. She gave them to to him because he was a "conscien-
tious objector" and she felt he would stand up for what he felt
was right. She told him how to get in touch with Maynard.
She gave him between 20 and 25 cards and told him to
contact Maynard . She identified Maynard , in person, in the
hearing room . She was certain that she was told by Moore to
tell other employees that the Center would have to be closed
down within 30 days if it were organized by the Union.,She
felt under an obligation to so tell them since Mrs . Moore had
so directed her. She gave several names in her testimony,
including Stuart Anderson, as people to whom she had talked
before Supervisor Moore spoke to her. She also talked to
Anderson after she spoke to-Moore , among others , as Moore
had directed. She told them just what Moore had told her to
tell them.
Anderson34 began his employment with Respondent, as an
orderly, on September 7, 1969. He had been certified as a
conscientious objector by his draft board.35 He testified that
when she left, Shinners gave him Maynard's phone number.
Early in June he contacted Maynard and they met. Maynard
gave him 40 to 50 leaflets and arranged a place and date and
time for a union meeting for any interested employees. An-
derson wrote this information on the back of at least some or
many of the leaflets.36 There were 4 or 5 different leaflets,
numbering about 12 each. Anderson handed some of the
leaflets to those fellow employees he thought he could trust,
and other leaflets were placed by him in Respondent 's coffee
or dining room.
Sometime around the middle of June Supervisor Dora
Moore talked to Anderson in the Center 's dining room. In
her hand was one of the union leaflets Anderson had dis-
tributed with the place, date, and time of the planned union
meeting written on it . She showed it to him and asked him
if he had seen it. He admitted that he had and that he had
shown it to others. She asked him what he thought of it and
he replied the Union might be a good thing. She asked him
if he intended to attend the union meeting noted on the back
of the leaflet and he replied he was seriously considering
doing so. She then said she might attend the union meeting
and added that if the Union came in, Respondent would be
forced to go bankrupt and close the doors "and everyone will
lose their jobs." I find Moore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by her interrogation of and threats to Anderson, as found
above.
The union meeting at the Labor Temple was held in spite
of Moore's threats as found above. Few employees showed
up. Anderson and the other alleged discriminatee, Karen
Roessler, were present. I find it unnecessary to name the few
others. But Barbara Reilly, Respondent 's office manager and
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, also was in
attendance . Maynard stated at the meeting it was illegal for
a representative of management to be present at the meeting.
33 An alleged unlawful discriminatee
3° I find he was a completely honest witness who endeavored to tell the
truth at all times.
33 I found him to be an honest and conscientious and sincere witness.
36 A goodly number.
Reilly did not then leave but soon the others and she left.
After she left, the others returned. I find Respondent,
through Reilly, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engag-
ing in unlawful surveillance in attending the union meeting.
While she was at the meeting she took "notes." Reilly saw
one of the employees , Mary Wagner, in particular, in attand-
ance and said, "Not you, too, Mary." Wagner replied in the
affirmative . I find Reilly 's statement to Wagner was substan-
tial interrogation as to Wagner 's union interests , in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. She similarly violated Section
8(a)(1) when all were leaving and she put her hand on Wag-
ner's shoulder and said, "Don't do it, Mary."" The next day
while Wagner was sitting at a desk at Wing 700,38 Reilly again
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by asking Wagner what she
thought of the union meeting . Reilly then told her, that the
administrator39 had directed her to attend the meeting to "see
what grounds Good Samaritan had to stand on, if any."40
The administrator's direction to her to engage in such
surveillance violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
After the union meeting , Anderson and Roessler continued
their union activities at the Center.41 A union meeting was
called at Roessler's home about June 25. Employees were told
of this meeting strictly by word of mouth. It was suggested
to the employees as being a housewarming for Mrs. Roessler
who had just moved into a new home, but it was further
explained it was more or less to discuss the union organizing.
Maynard was present at the meeting. About 15 employees
attended the meeting. Moore had previously asked Roessler
where the union leaflets were coming from or who had been
passing them around.42 She replied she didn't know.
Previous to the union meeting at the Labor Temple, Pas-
tors Juilfs and Peterson43 were present. As Mrs. Moore was
holding the union leaflet in her hand, when they were leaving
the dining room , Moore asked the pastor administrators, if
they had ever seen the leaflet she held, and each pulled a
similar leaflet out of his pocket . Pastor Peterson, who was
then within material times a supervisor administrator, asked
if those were what she meant, and she replied "Yes." Peterson
asked if there were not a regulation about solicitation in the
hospital and she replied, "Yes." Pastor Juilfs stated there
could not be such a regulation because such "things" were all
over the place. Moore asked Roessler where the leaflets were
coming from or who had been passing them around. The
witness said she did not know. Roessler had mentioned the
June 16 union meeting ' to a number of people and had passed
out union literature in,places where they could be seen. She
had a conversation with Supervisor Moore in the dining room
of the Center shortly before the union meeting at the Labor
Temple. Pastors Peterson and Juilfs were at the next table
about 3 yards away. Moore handed her one of the union
leaflets and asked her if she had read it, to which she replied,
"No." Moore told her to read it. She read it and then Moore
asked her what she thought of it.44
31 She obviously meant, don't be active in the Union.
33 "The Convalescent Hospital "
" Pastor Juilfs.
90 I do not credit the administrator 's testimony that he gave her no such
directions . He admittedly knew she was going to attend the meeting and
made no effort to stop or hinder her He should have known the employees'
union meeting was none of Respondent's business . Reilly, though present
in the hearing room, did not testify. I find her failure to testify in support
of the Pastor, destroys the credibility of his testimony.
° 2 Moore asked Roessler where the union leaflets came from. She replied
she did not know.
42 Such interrogation was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
43 Administrators.
° q Such interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
EUGENE GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER
She had never seen a job description for "charge nurse."
She was a licensed practical nurse for level III. She worked
only under, the supervision of a licensed registered nurse or
R.N. She was not, I find, based upon'the credited testimony
in the record, a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. It
would unduly prolong this Decision to set forth all the cred-
ited evidence in this regard. I find, based upon the credited
evidence, that she was not a supervisor but was an employee
within the meaning of the Act.45 The aides and the orderly
were under the LPN to the extent that the LPN told them
when to take coffeebreaks, get bed pans, etc., 'which the LPN
frequently did herself. An orderly would tell an aide to give
a lady a bed pan. An aide could tell an orderly that a man
needed such and such care. A "Charge" nurse, even an
"aide"45 performed perfunctory duties and not at necessarily
those of a "supervisor within the meaning of the Act." Pastor
or Administrator Juilfs testified "that a charge nurse and a
regular LPN, without the fancy title of charge nurse, are paid
exactly the same salary." Roessler did, from time to time, act
as charge nurse.
Respondent's witness, Lucille Boring, testified at first that
she was a "medical nurse" then changed it to LPN. She
obviously did not have the same knowledge or authority as
an RN. She gave directions to nurses' aides and orderlies but
did not assist the doctor in diagnostic or therapeutic meas-
ures. She made out food charts and made recommendations
as to changes in person's diets. She always consulted her
registered nurse. At all times the LPN works under the juris-
diction of the RN. She changed a patient's diet only under
doctor's orders. She testified clearly and distinctly that when
there was no "charge nurse" on a wing, a nurses' aide47 would
carry out the same duties as an LPN and there were no
differences in their duties. I find it obvious that a nurses' aide
was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The
nurses' aide when she was a "charge nurse" gaveto orderlies
and other aides the same medications and directions LPN's
prepared and did for patients, under the supervision of a
registered nurse. Neither was a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act. -
A "Registered Nurse," like Nice is, of course, a "charge
nurse" and a supervisor within the 'meaning of the Act.
LPN's and orderlies and nurses' aides are not, and do what
they are told to do by RN's and doctors and look to the latter
for directions should something other than the regular rou-
tine arise.
The administrator was simply not correct in testifying that
"the charge nurse is a registered nurse."" While a registered
nurse, as a supervisor, is, of course, a "Charge" nurse, merely
because an LPN or nurse's aide was sometimes called a
"Charge" nurse under the direct supervision of an RN, ex-
cepting as to routine matters such as bed pans, etc., did not
make them supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The
administrator admitted that-recommendations of an LPN are
simply accepted and investigated and checked upon and con-
sidered by supervision. The administrator admitted that an
LPN, even though designated for the particular shift asa
"Charge Nurse," if she were to find a nurse's aide drunk or
disoriented or treating a patient violently and called him and
recommended discharge, he would direct the "Charge
Nurse"" to ask such a person to leave and • then proceed
"through channels."
" Perhaps a leadlady.
46 Aides were frequently in "charge" of a wing.
4' Concededly not a supervisor.
48 He testified that when an LPN was a "Charge Nurse" if she found a
patient had a "serious change" she would get in touch with the RN.
" Not RN.
39
Roessler credibly testified that as an LPN she worked only
under the direct supervision of a doctor or RN, and she
received her direct supervision from an RN at the Center. She
was never told she had authority to hire or fire or recommend
such. She was, on occasion, asked to give her opinion of
people who worked under her routine direction. The RN's
made their own evaluation. I find insufficient probative or
credible evidence that she had, been a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, as categorized by Respondent.
Mary Wagner, an LPN, credibly testified, she didn't even
direct the aides as to feeding patients or residents, unless food
had to be forced. She had no authority or, at least, occasion
to discipline an aide or orderly. If she felt discipline was in
order, she reported such to the supervising RN. She gave
routine directions to aides or orderlies. To her, signing in as
"Charge LPN" merely meant she was to write reports of
patients, to keep track of the patients, report to the RN if she
believed there were something the RN should know and to
see to it that the aides correctly fed the residents or patients.
She was never told what "Charge LPN" meant . She helped
evaluate aides. It was rare for her to give aides other than few
and slight directions since at change of shifts one LPN would
report to another and the aides listened in and that is how
they gathered their information. A charge LPN did not have
authority to give permission to an ill aide to leave the Center
and go home; she would have to go the the RN. Nurses' aides
frequently performed the duties of "Charge Nurse" at the
Center, Of course I have not studied the record in Martin
Luther Foundation, supra, but I note that there, the Board
found LPN's to be employees within the meaning of the Act.
On July 1, Juilfs, having been administrator for, a month,
called and held a meeting of the entire staff. He had a new
plan for the Center to announce and explain to the staff. One
important feature of the plan as,he announced it was that the
staff would be reduced in.number. He was shocked and liter-
ally "horrified" by the reaction to his plan by employees. The
administrator used a chart indicating a variety of assign-
ments, a bath team, etc. He was "astounded" by the reaction
he got. This was obviously "employee reaction" to his "new
plan." He considered himself in good faith but there "was a
highly intoned reaction, comments and questions which I
could not fathom within my own mind or justify. I was
shocked literally by it, horrified."50
He continued in his testimony, saying that the employees
stated they did not believe his plan would work and he "could
not understand this line of questioning with the degree of
intense rejection of the plan." When asked by me if there were
any particular individuals who expressed hostility to the plan,
the first two of the five he named were Stuart Anderson and
Karen Roessler. He could recall the names of but two or three
others besides these two.51
90 I had the impression, observing him closely, and listening to his "into-
nations," that Pastor Juilfs considered it to be beyond the realm of even
possibility that employees would not wholeheartedly accept an employee
management plan proposed by him, even though it might affect some -of
them most adversely.
" Note that management had been aware of the union activities of these
"two" for at least several weeks, and had made serious threats in connection
with success of union activities, forecasting closing the Center and bank-
ruptcy should the Center be unionized. Although the five employees named
as being hostile, etc., at the July 1 meeting were all, fired or quit, the
complaint refers only to Anderson and Roessler.
It is not up to me to second-guess the General Counsel as to why the other
three were not named as 8(a)(1) discriminatees. They may have engaged in
gross misconduct or there may have been a variety of other reasons for their
terminating. The Administrator admitted the others and Anderson and
Roessler were discharged because of their hostile reaction to his plan affect-
ing their working conditions
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The pastor admitted it was because of the "violent"" or
strong reaction or hostile reaction of Anderson and Roessler
to his announced adverse plan, which might affect their work-
ing conditions, which caused him to discharge them. Their
discharges were thus violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
because they were engaging in protected concerted activities
at the meeting.
-He admitted he discharged them because they were hostile
to him and what he thought was a good program for the good
of the Center, the plan requiring a reduction in force and
other curtailments in working conditions of the employees.
As soon as he identified them as ones hostile to him and his
program which would adversely affect at least some of the
employees, he decided to discharge them. In a matter of
"hours" he decided to discharge Anderson and Roessler,
because they were openly opposed to his new proposed pro-
gram which would, in their opinion, adversely interfere with
employees ' working conditions.
The pastor testified Anderson was frequently late, but he
admitted Anderson's "evaluation Sheet" of April 6, at which
he had looked before Anderson's termination, showed An-
derson needed little supervision, and he was quick to under-
stand; his personal appearance was average.5i His personality
was good; "his dependability was good"; the quality of his
work , including orderliness , neatness and general efficiency
were ' average. The administrator admitted he was aware and
cognizant of such good evaluation and would not consider an
employee, based upon such evaluation, to be unsatisfactory.
The pastor stated or testified that he was told by the director
of nursing5' "the next day" after the July 1 meeting, that
although Anderson's evaluation had shown his earlier em-
ployment to be acceptable, "it had changed considerably, his
routine of attendance , his attendance was certainly poor."55
According to the pastor, despite Anderson's good written
evaluation report,56 the director of nursing "informed me that
he had not had a good record."57
Consider his last written report which was certainly good,
unless you consider a man a poor employee because he "needs
a haircut." He asked the director of nursing about Ander-
son's work record because Anderson might be one he would
recommend terminating .56 It was because of Anderson's and
Roessler 's reactions to his July 1 talk involving a change in
working conditions that at least , in part, caused him to termi-
nate them . He made his decision within ' a matter of "hours"
or by the next day to discharge those who appeared hostile
to either him or what he thought was a reasonable program
for the good of the Center. They, of course, had been protest-
ing what they honestly believed was an unlicensed intrusion
upon their working and union activities . These discharges, as
they eventuated, for these reasons, violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. He obviously knew from his supervisors59
that these employees had been active union enthusiasts." The
supervisors made plain to these employees their great dislike
for the Union and threatened dire results should union activi-
ties continue or be successful . They were representatives of
management and particularly Reverend Pastor Juilfs, and
their actions and statements bound Respondent and make
evident that Anderson and Roessler were discharged for their
52 I find they were not violent.
Though he needed a haircut . He was a C.O.
90 Moore, who commited a variety of 8(a)(1) violations.
" Coincidental with his union activities , well known to Respondent
36 Not long prior to his discharge for protected concerted -activities.
3' This was patently false
58 The day after he spoke to the employees about working conditions.
39 Particularly Reilly and Moore.
'° Anderson and Roessler.
union and protected concerted activities in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Pastor Juilfs admitted he had examined the evaluation
sheet of Anderson and he would not have discharged him
based on it. He had been told by"the director of nursing,
Moore, that Anderson's attendance became poor.61
Moore, clearly a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
and although available and at the hearing , never testified
about "anything." Her failure so to do, speaks for itself. I find
that if she had testified it would have been adverse to Re-
spondent 's case.
I do not find Mr. Juilfs' wife, who worked 20 to 30 hours
a week at the Center, as did Red Cross volunteers, etc., who
received no pay, to be a responsible spokeswoman for Re-
spondent merely because she was the administrator 's wife. I
do not find sufficient probative evidence that she was an agent
of Respondent and do not find it responsible for her state-
ments , if any.
It has not escaped my attention in finding that Anderson
was discharged, at least partly for union activities, that upon
his discharge, or on July 23, the Paster saw fit to write Ander-
son's Draft Board , advising it that Anderson was no longer
employed because, "of his negative attitude toward his job
which had developed in recent months."62 The Pastor con-
tinued saying that Anderson's "negative63 attitude , spread
throughout the facility as he verbally expressed himself."',
Juilfs, in this letter to a draft board, which, presumably,
would have no concern with a C.O.'s union or protected
concerted activities, advised the Draft Board that on July 20,
Anderson told him "that he was the instigator in contacting
a local union to petition the National Labor Relations Board
for unionization. This may explain the tension factor noticed
among his fellow employees in recent months " (Emphasis
supplied.) Obviously. Anderson's union activities were con-
sidered detrimental to the well being of the Center and of
paranoidal importance to the reverend pastor.65
I find the following, from-the reverend's letter, indicates his
resentment toward and desire to hurt Anderson in any effort
to obtain reemployment under his C.O. status: "This detailed
information concerning [Anderson 's] employment status
here at the Center may be helpful to you in regards to Mr.
Anderson's future employment under your jurisdiction." In
other words, be on the alert, Anderson has been a union
instigator and has thereby caused "tension" among his fellow
employees at this Center. Whether the reverend wore clerical
or mod business garb, he and his top supervisors were antiun-
ion and antiprotected concerted activities . He persuaded me
as seeking the kind of obedience cloistered nuns freely , give.
I find from the -entire record that Donna Stroud was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. She was the
"Supervising Registered Nurse."
After the July 1 meeting, R.N. Nice explained to the Pastor
that resentment among the employees towards management
had been building up for a long time and was not directed at
him in particular , to which he replied the Center had a certain
" No such fact was established by Respondent 's records. It was not
perfect.
63 Note that about 4 months earlier Anderson had gotten what I find was
a good written evaluation of his work . This was before his more recent union
activities
63 I find this a euphemism for "Union."
60 I find this refers not only to his union but protected concerted activi-
ties.
65 I cannot conceive an honest draft board, not suggesting there might be
a dishonest one, being interested in the Reverend 's admission that Ander-
son's protected union activities were a source of disturbance to him or the
Center.
EUGENE GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER
"rebellious element" and things would be stirred up and he
would not tolerate it and would weed it out.66
Juilfs admitted that Anderson and Roessler and perhaps
some others had been terminated, at least in part, because of
their strong or hostile reaction to his newly announced pro-
gram of July 1, which they said would not work. They were
both discharged, at least in part, because of what the reverend
considered their "misconduct" in "objecting to the program
that we were initiating." He felt that the objectors to his
newly announced plan concerning working conditions might
demoralize the rest of the employees. He didn't feel he had
the "wholehearted" support of Anderson and Roessler.61
That Juilfs' supervisors had direct knowledge of the union
activities of Anderson and Roessler has been amply and sub-
stantially proved by the probative evidence. Based upon the
entire record, I find that Juilfs had the same knowledge,
particularly in the light of his close association with Moore
and his direction to Reilly that she attend the first union
meeting. I do not credit his sworn testimony that he had no
concern whether 2 or 130 of his employees attended the union
meeting." He found the activities of Roessler and Anderson
caused "tension" among the employees, having "reference to
their questioning of [his] new program." He was concerned
about the "rebellious" element.69
I do not close my eyes to the fact that Anderson and
Roessler were the prime union instigators and that particu-
larly through Reilly and Moore, Respondent knew this and
had great hostility to it. Reilly, although present at the hear-
ing, never denied her surveillance nor her conversations with
Wagner. Donna Stroud, told R.N. Nice that if it had not been
for Anderson and Roesller, "with their staying with this
darned union, you'd have gotten your raise before this time."
Wagner credibly testified, without contradiction, that
Stroud told her, after the raises were granted to the other
employees, after the discharges of Anderson and, Roessler,
"You know darned well what it means; if it hadn't been for
this bit with Karen and Stuart, with their staying with this
darned union, you'd have got your raise before this time."
Such statements by Stroud violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
and demonstrate Respondent's resentment toward their
union activities.
After Anderson received his 2 weeks' termination notice,
Moore asked him if he were ready to lose his job over the
union issue. This violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Note
should be made that Moore, though readily available, and at
the hearing, never was called to testify. Respondent appar-
ently tried, unsatisfactorily to me, to cloak its case with the
administrator's clerical garb. I have utmost respect for such
garb but it does not supplant the absence of testimony of
available corroborating witnesses where necessary.
Juilfs testified that before he discharged Roessler, he con-
sidered an evaluation sheet of her prepared by Nice and
Stroud which stated Roessler needed little supervision for
accuracy or correctness of work performed; she needed little
supervision; was alert in ability to grasp instructions and
solve problems; was quick to understand; was suitable for her
job and had a good attitude; was average for personal appear-
ance, cleanliness, neatness, and body odor; was average in
dependability, faithfulness to report to work on time and do
her job, and was "good" in 'quality of work, orderliness,
66 See Nice's testimony.
Since when is this a requirement of employment?
" The substance of his entire testimony and the record is to the contrary.
69 I find no evidence that any employee was "rebellious." His supervisors
had knowledge of and great animosity toward the Union. I am convinced
he was not ignorant of this and that he, the Reverend, bore such and shared
such animosity.
41
neatness, and general efficiency. I do not substitute my judg-
ment for that of management, but that evaluation of Roessler
reveals her as a satisfactory employee. It was noted in the
"evaluation" that "at times" she lacked "professionalism,"
but has "improved." It was noted particularly that she was
"interested and kind to patients." The pastor, after Roessler's
union activities and his July 1 meeting, discussed Roessler
with Moore. They simply decided she was opposed to his new
program and antagonistic to at least some employees. They
decided Roessler was not a top LPN.70This was obviously a
mere pretext such as they had used in the discharge of Ander-
son. She exercised union and protected concerted activities
and for these reasons she and Anderson were discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Respondent
discharged them at least, in part, because they had "nega-
tive"71 reasons based upon his prime decision. The pastor
testified Roessler expressed herself "freely" at the July 1
meeting. He admitted that he was told by Nice that the
dissatisfaction or "tension" among the employees, obviously
including Anderson and Roessler, was not because his new
plan affecting them was not favorably received by some of the
employees. Nice apologized to Juilfs for the conduct of the
group of employees at the meeting.
I credit Roessler's testimony that Anderson, from her ob-
servations, "was a good worker and a good employee." He
was much better than another orderly who was retained after
Anderson's discharge, Robert Corrigan.72
In connection with any contention as to Roessler's "Super-
visory" capacity when she signed in as "Charge Nurse," note
should be made of the fact that in the absence of a "Charge
Nurse," "the nurses aide" who first signed the chart for a
particular wing, performed the same duties as a "Charge
Nurse."73 The nurse's aide did everything Boring did as
"Charge Nurse."
Rosewood, Inc., 185 NLRB No. 87, is distinguishable on
its facts from the instant case, as to the supervisory status of
LPN's. There, unlike here, the LPN's had authority to
recommend wage increases, enforce the employer's rules, dis-
cipline employees, and relieve ill employees from duty. They
also effectively recommended, hiring and in emergency situa-
tions could discharge.74
That Roesller may have used the word "damn" at the July
1 meeting is -a frivolous pretext for her illegal discharge.
Statements protected by the Act are not always "in a courte-
ous, cooperative and reasonable manner." The same is true
as to any speculations Anderson may have made at the July
1 meeting about the pastor's salary. I do not find that Ander-
son engaged in insubordination or disrespect beyond the
confines of protected concerted activity when he made re-
marks about the Pastor's possible salary. He was definitely
not proven by the record to be "contumacious" as claimed by
Respondent in its brief. There was no probative evidence of
"outright disrespect, hostility and insubordination" by either
Roessler or Anderson.
Aside from numerous violations by Respondent of Section
8(a)(1), including the discharges of employees Roessler and
Anderson for engaging in protected concerted activities at the
July 1 meeting, the probative and substantial evidence also
establishes that the latter were discharged because of their
union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
° She was prounion and hostile to his new working program.
" Union and protected concerted activities
He was a "terrible orderly."
Respondent's witness, Lucille Bonng:
7' Respondent led his witness, Boring, on direct, on many occasions. See
Tr. 553-558.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with its operations described in sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation-
ship to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputesbuiklening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow ofcommerce.
V THEiREMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
To remedy the unlawful discharges of Anderson and Ro-
essler, Respondent will be required to offer them reinstate-
ment and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the
manner set forth in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest on backpay computed in the manner de-
scribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Company, 138 NLRB
716.
Respondent's unfair labor practices strike at the heart of
the rights guaranteed employees by the Act. I therefore
recommend an Order requiring Respondent to cease and de-
sist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed
employees by Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. By discharging Anderson and Roessler because of pro-
tected concerted activities and because of their union activi-
ties, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. By various acts ofmanagement, surveillance , interroga-
tion, and threats, etc., Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:75
ORDER
Respondent , its administrators , officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating or threatening its employees with respect
to their membership in, or sympathies for, or other concerted
activities on behalf of this or any other labor organization, or
merely with respect to their protected concerted activities.
(b) Permitting or directing surveillance of any union activi-
ties of employees, particularly and especially where the per-
son conducting the surveillance is a supervisor ' within the
meaning of the Act, or, indeed , merely a fellow employee.
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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.
(c) Discouraging membership in the Union or any other
labor organization by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against them with respect to any term or con-
dition of employment, except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act. This particularly refers to Anderson and Roessler
as well as all other employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to join
or assist the Union herein, or any other union , or otherwise
engage in protected concerted activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Anderson and Roessler immediate and full
reinstatement to their former jobs, or if they no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them
whole for any loss of pay because of Repsondent 's discrimina-
tion against them in the manner set forth in "The Remedy"
section of this Decision for any loss of earnings , with the
required interest.
(b) Notify immediately Anderson and Roessler if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
rights to full reinstatement , upon application after discharge
from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents all records necessary to determine the
amount of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under
this Order.
(d) Post at its Eugene , Oregon, Center, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after
being duly signed by Respondent 's representative , shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not
altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith."
6 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 be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." I
" In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively ask you anything about your
activities in or sympathies for the Service Employees
International Union, Local 49, AFL-CIO, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you in any way or manner
with respect to your activities in or sympathies for the
above-named or any other union.
EUGENE GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER
WE WILL NOT, particularly, threaten you that we will
go bankrupt or that you will lose your jobs if the above
named or any other union becomes your bargaining rep-
resentative or "comes in" to the Center.
WE WILL NOT either permit or direct a supervisor, or
anyone else, to keep your union meetings or other activi-
ties under surveillance, nor will we, in any manner, make
you think we are spying on your union or otherwise
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with any economic repris-
als if a "Union comes in" to the Center.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce you
because you engage in concerted activities protected by
the Act.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment, or in any
term or condition of employment, of our employees, or
any one of them, because of their membership in or
activities on behalf of the above named or any other
labor organization or because they engage in concerted
activities protected by the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights
guaranteed to you by the National Labor Relations Act.
Since it has been found that we unlawfully discharged
Stuart T. Anderson and Karen P. Roessler because they
engaged in union and otherwise protected activities un-
der the Act, WE WILL offer to give them back their regu-
43
lar jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, we will give them
substantially equivalent jobs. WE WILL pay them for the
earnings they lost because of our discrimination against
them, plus 6-percent interest.
WE WILL notify the above-named if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right
to reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal` Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
Dated By
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
GOOD SAMARITAN
SOCIETY D/B/A EUGENE
GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 310 Six
Ten Broadway Building, 610 SW Broadway, Portland, Ore-
gon 97205, Telephone 226-3361.