Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 775 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

EVERGREEN NURSING HOME 775
Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center,
Inc. and Service Employees International Union,
Local 50, AFL-CIO. Cases 14-CA-6374 and
14-RC-6811
August 8, 1972
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On May 8, 1972, Trial Examiner William W.
Kapell issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respon-
dent filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and
Respondent also filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt his
recommended Order with the modifications indicat-
ed hereinafter.
In recommending that the election be set aside and
a new election directed, the Trial Examiner relied,
inter alia, on findings that Hunter unlawfully
interrogated Bunton and created an impression of
surveillance to Dixon, while Abrams created an
impression of surveillance to Suggs. The record
indicates that Hunter's conduct occurred outside of
the "critical period,"2 and the finding relative to
Abram's conduct is not supported by the evidence.
We find, however, that the remaining findings of the
Trial Examiner describe conduct of the Respondent
which occurred during the "critical period." This
conduct included interrogation of unit employees,
threats of discharge for union activities, and creation
of an impression of surveillance, all in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and it clearly interfered
with the exercise by employees of a free and
untrammeled choice in the election. Such conduct
warrants setting aside the election and directing a
new election.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilitation
Center, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
198 NLRB No. 101
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on September 27, 1971, in Case 14-RC-6811 be, and
it hereby is, set aside, and that Case 14-RC-6811 be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 14 for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems the circumstances
permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
' We find that the Trial Examiner's conclusion with respect to the
"special circumstances" which justified Respondent's prohibition against
its nurses' wearing of union buttons to be in accord with the views set
out in United Parcel Service, Inc., 195 NLRB No. 77.
2 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: These cases
consolidated for hearing were tried at St. Louis, Missouri,
on February 8 and 9, 1972, with all parties participating.
The complaint' in Case 14-CA-6374, issued by the
General Counsel on September 29, alleges, in substance,
that in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) Evergreen
Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center, Inc., hereafter
referred to as Respondent or the Home, threatened
employees with discharge for supporting the Union,
promised employee benefits to discourage union activity,
interrogated employees about the Union, created an
impression of surveillance of employee union activities,
prohibited the wearing of union buttons on employee
uniforms, precluded employees from working while wear-
ing union buttons and suspended them, and discharged
employees for wearing union buttons. Respondent in its
amended answer denied engaging in any of the alleged
violations, stated that the employees allegedly suspended
for wearing union buttons were advised that they could not
work while wearing slogan buttons on their nursing
uniforms, and alleged that said employees chose to
temporarily cease working rather than remove said
buttons.
In representation Case 14-RC-6811, pursuant to a
petition filed on July 29, an election (directed by the
Regional Director) was conducted on September 27, to
which Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of an
Election were filed by the Petitioner (Union) on October 1.
On November 2, the Regional Director ordered a hearing
therein with respect to alleged employee interrogation,
employee discharges because of union activity, threats of
reprisals to employees wearing union buttons, discharges
of employees who disregarded the Employer's directive
against wearing union buttons, and creation of an
impression of surveillance of union activities, and further
ordered that such hearing be consolidated with the hearing
I Based on charges filed by Service Employees International Union,
Local 50, AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to as the Union , on August 2, 10,
and 16 and September 8. 1971 (All dates hereafter refer to the year 1971
unless otherwise noted).
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Case 14-CA-6374 before a Trial Examiner and that his
rulings and decision therein be transferred to and contin-
ued before the Board.
All parties were represented and were afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to file briefs . Briefs received from
the General Counsel and Respondent have been duly
considered . Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and
from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
At all times material herein, Respondent, a Missouri
corporation, has operated a nursing home at 12705 Olive
Boulevard, Creve Coeur, Missouri, where it provides
nursing and custodial care and related services. During the
year ending January 31, 1972, Respondent in the course
and conduct of its business operations derived revenues in
excess of $100,000 from the operation of its nursing home
facility and purchased and caused to be transported and
delivered to its facility goods and materials valued in
excess of $10,000, of which goods and materials valued in
excess of $10,000 have been transported and delivered to
Respondent's facility directly from points located outside
the State of Missouri. Respondent admits, and I find, that
it has been engaged in commerce as an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find , that at all times material
herein the Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether Respondent interrogated employees about
the Union, made threats and promises of benefits to
employees to discourage union support, created the
impression of surveillance of their activities, and prohibited
the wearing of union buttons on their uniforms in violation
of Section 8(a)(1).
2. Whether Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
suspended three employees from work for as long as' they
refused to remove union buttons from their uniforms.
B. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
Several former employees called by the General Counsel
testified as to alleged incidents as follows:
2 Hunter did not recall this conversation but denied asking any
employees about their union sympathies or the sympathies of other
employees
3 Abrams denied telling her he had been in a union or asking whether
she had ever been in a union
4 Hunter denied having the conversation or threatening any employees
with discharge for supporting the Union
5 Kramer testified that after two employees informed him they had heard
of a walkout and asked whether they could continue working, he became
concerned and advised a number of employees, including Suggs and Dixon.
Jacqueline Suggs, a nurses aide, stated that: about the
end of July she overheard Irene Hunter, director of nurses,
tell Sandra Serra, a licensed practical nurse, that she would
have to get rid of Doris Null, a nurses aide, because of the
confusion with the Union; that, about the end of July or
August 1 she also overheard Hunter ask Jeanette Bunton, a
nurses aide, how she felt about the Union; 2 about August
1, Maurice Abrams, Respondent's administrator, called
Suggs to his office and, after questioning her as to whether
she had placed a union contract on Respondent's bulletin
board and receiving an answer in the negative, he asked
whether she had ever been in a union and told her that the
Union was after her money, that he had been in a union,
and that she did not know what she was getting into; 3 and
on or about August 1, Hunter called her to her office and
asked how she felt about the Union, and, after she replied
she didn't have to answer, Hunter told her that with or
without a union she could get rid of her if she wanted.
Elizabeth Dixon, a nurses aide, testified that about July 1
Hunter told her that she (Dixon) was for the Union, as
were nurses aides Jacqueline Suggs and Clara Hays, and
then asked her whether she realized that if the Union got in
they would get rid of hero and that about a week later
Assistant Administrator Kramer told her and Suggs that he
had heard they were going on strike and asked them about
it. He then told them all the Union wanted was a big
initiation fee and dues of $23 or $24 a month, and, when
she replied that she would not have wanted a union if it
hadn't been for Hunter and what Hunter had said.about
getting rid of her, Kramer assured her she did not have to
worry about being gotten rid of.5 Dixon also stated that on
July 30 Abrams, after calling her to his office and
questioning her as to who had placed a union contract on
the bulletin board, something she denied doing, then
informed her that he did not want any of them to place
anything on the bulletin board, and that he had heard that
she and Suggs were for the Union which only wanted a big
initiation fee and dues.6
Doris Null, a nurses aide, testified that about the end of
July, while in the presence of two other nurses aides,
Kramer, after asking, and discussing, whether they had any
gripes and what medical supplies were needed, inquired
why they wanted the Union, what they thought about it,
where they had gotten the union cards, and where they had
attended a union meeting.?
Jerry Bulah, a nurses aide, testified that, in early July,
Hunter asked whether she was for or against the Umon
and what she thought about it; after she responded that she
had not heard both sides, Hunter discussed the pros and
cons of unionism, stating that it would not better them if
they joined and a lot of girls would lose theirjobs over the
Union; about a week later in another conversation, Hunter
again brought up the subject of the Union and asked
of their rights to continue working in the event of a strike
6 Abrams denied telling her he had heard that she and Suggs were for the
Union or talking about union dues and fees
7 According to Kramer , he met with the night-shift employees to
ascertain what problems they were having, after a discussion along that line,
he mentioned the discussion he had with the day-shift employees about the
Union, and Null then stated her strong prounion feelings, and he told her
she could vote that way He denied asking why they wanted a union, where
they got their union cards, or how they felt about the Union
EVERGREEN NURSING HOME 777
whether she was going to join, who was for it, and if Suggs,
Dixon, Null, Zimerly, and Street were for the Union; and
when she replied that they were, Hunter discussed the
advantages and disadvantages and stated that the Union
could not deliver what it promised.8 She testified further
that about the third week in July, Kramer called an
employee meeting and asked them to voice their com-
plaints; when they complained about being understaffed,
yelled at by Abrams, and underpaid, Kramer replied that
they had been in business only a short while and could not
afford wage increases; when she then remarked that the
Union told them they could get higher wages with a union,
Kramer asked why they needed a union, and, when she
replied they needed someone to speak up for them, he said
she was doing a good job herself .9
Cordelia Florian testified that when interviewed for a job
as a nurses aide by Hunter at the end of August, she was
asked how she felt about unions and if he had ever
belonged to one. When she replied that she was in favor of
unions, Hunter told her she had a couple of girls who were
instigators for the Union but that she was free to join or
not to join. She was hired but worked only a few days
before quitting. to
Conclusions
Based on the demeanor of the witnesses and the
plausibility of their testimony, I credit the testimony
related above indicating that (1) Suggs, Dixon, Bunton,
Null, Bulah, and Florian were each interrogated about the
Union; (2) Hunter voiced threats to discharge Null
because of the confusion over the Union, impliedly
threatened to discharge Suggs when the latter refused to
answer questions concerning the Union, asked Dixon
whether she realized that if the Union got in they would get
rid of her, and told Bulah lots of girls would lose their jobs
over the Union; and (3) an impression of surveillance of
employee union activities was created by Hunter when she
told Dixon that she, Suggs, and Hays were for the Union
and told Florian she had a few girls who were instigators
for the Union, and by Abrams when he told Dixon he had
heard she and Suggs were for the Union.
I accordingly conclude that in a context of union
opposition, and within the meaning of and in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, Respondent interrogated
employees concerning the Union, threatened to discharge
employees because of the Union, and created an impres-
sion of surveillance of the union activities of employees.
C. Promise of Benefits
The General Counsel contends that about the middle of
July, during the Union's organizing campaign, Respondent
distributed a written personnel policy booklet to employees
with their paychecks, which contained application cards
a Hunter admitted having a conversation with Bulah but did not recall
the specifics of the conversation and denied interrogating her about the
Union or threatening any employees with discharge for supporting it
9 According to Kramer, this was a regularly scheduled meeting called to
ascertain what problems the employees were encountering and he asked
them to state their complaints, and he then expressed the Company's
position on unionization, mentioning that, if there were an election, the
for a Blue Cross membership plan, in order to discourage
union support,
It is undenied that Respondent began operating its
nursing home in January. In February, Respondent
contacted the local Medicare officials for the purpose of
obtaining Medicare certification and was advised by one of
its representatives who visited the Home that certain
requirements had to be met , including the issuance of a
written personnel policy to its employees. In March, the
Medicare representative reviewed the personnel policy
drawn up in draft form by Kramer and gave him further
instructions for its final form.
Meanwhile, in mid-March, Respondent decided to enroll
in a group health insurance plan, which was not a requisite
for Medicare certifications, and contacted a Blue Cross
enrollment representative. Following a meeting with this
representative to discuss the various plans available,
Kramer compiled the necessary employee information
required for such plans and on March 22 gave it to the
enrollment representative when he visited the nursing
home. Early in April, the enrollment representative
returned to the home and presented Kramer with three
alternate group insurance plans. In May, Kramer selected
a plan and made provision in its personnel policy for
inclusion of information concerning the plan with applica-
tions for membership. In June, arrangement for the Blue
Cross plan and a description prepared by the enrollment
representative were completed. Kramer then typed the
final form of the personnel policy and included the Blue
Cross plan with applications, all of which was put into a
booklet form. In July, the booklets were distributed to the
employees with their paychecks on a regular payday.
Although Kramer testified that he first heard of the
union organizing campaign in July, Hunter stated that she
told him on June i about the termination of nurses aide
Barbara Tecurmera who had refused to sign a union card,
and Abrams in his pretrial affidavit stated he knew of the
Union's campaign in June, despite his contention on the
stand that it was in July. Nor does it appear that the
employees were advised of an impending group health
insurance plan prior to the distribution of the personnel
policy booklet.
CONCLUSIONS
The General Counsel contends that the timing of the
distribution of the Blue Cross plan during the union
organizing campaign was intended to discourage union
activity and support. Respondent claims that the plan had
been explored and decided upon well prior to the advent of
the organizing campaign and that it was legally obligated
to proceed with it as if no union had appeared on the
scene, citing The Gates Rubber Company, 182 NLRB 95,
and Danadyne, Inc., 182 NLRB 74. In the Gates case, the
company announced the withholding of increases which
employees could decide whether or not they wanted a union He denied
asking them why they needed a union or promising any benefits
10 According to Hunter, she told Florian that a union was trying to
organize the Home and that she could do as she wished , but denied asking
her how she felt about the Union or mentioning that she knew who were the
instigators for the Union
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
normally would have been granted because of the
pendency of an election, while at the same time granting
increases to members of another union. The Board held
that the company failed to maintain its neutrality by
granting the increases to one group of employees and not
to another and that the withholding of the increase was
violative of the Act. I find that situation wholly inapplica-
ble to the instant case. In the Danadyne case, which I also
find inapposite, an employee, prior to the filing of an
election petition, requested the company to change its
health insurance plan to a better one. The company
announced its agreement to consider the matter during the
critical period prior to the election and so advised the
employees. The Board held that a refusal to consider the
change would have made it appear that the company was
punishing the employees because of their organizational
efforts and that it would have violated Section 8(a)(1).
The underlying issue is whether Respondent timed the
distribution of the Blue Cross plan to influence the
employees to withdraw their support of the Union.11
Inasmuch as Respondent was required to issue a personnel
policy for its certification, I find that the inclusion of the
Blue Cross plan in its personnel policy booklet was both
logical and reasonable because it constituted another
benefit conferred on employees in addition to those
already included in the personnel policy. Had it been
issued separately or related to a specific union matter, its
impact would have been greater and it would have
commensurably strengthened the General Counsel's con-
tention. Considering the fact that these events occurred so
soon of ter the nursing home began operating with all of the
problems attendant to such operation, I find that the
personnel policy booklet was processed expeditiously with
reasonable speed. I conclude that the circumstances
relating to its processing and issuance adequately explain
the timing of its distribution and that the preponderance of
the evidence does not support an inference that Respon-
dent timed it to adversely affect the union support. I
therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that the issuance and distribution of the
Blue Cross plan violated the Act.
D. The Ban on Wearing Union Buttons
There is no substantial dispute in the evidence which
would affect the results reached herein concerning the
wearing or banning of union buttons by employees on their
uniforms while working. Nurses aides Suggs, Hays, and
Dixon were advised about the middle of August by
Kramer that they could not wear the union buttons on
their uniforms while working. In reply to their inquiry
about carrying ballpoint pens bearing a union inscription,
he told them they could take the pens with them while
working. Suggs then called the Union and, after being
advised that she had a right to wear the button, she so
informed Kramer. Kramer, however, insisted that they
could not wear the buttons, and they removed them and
resumed working. About 9 a.m. on September 1, Kramer
again observed that Suggs was wearing a union button
11 The distribution took place prior to the filing of the representation
petition and, accordingly, may not be considered in determining whether to
set aside the election.
while working, and he ordered her either to remove the
button and continue working or to stop working. She
thereupon left the premises. A few days later she received a
letter from Respondent advising her that, if she failed to
report for work by September 8, she would be regarded as
having voluntarily resigned. She returned to work on
September 5, apparently without the button. Her button,
bright yellow and 1-3/4 inches in diameter, had the name
of the Union displayed prominently in bold black printing.
On September 4, nurses aides Hays and Dixon were told
by Abrams to go home and take off their union buttons
and come back to work. Hays understood his remark to
mean that she could have taken the button off and
continued working. Both of them, however, left but
returned to work the following day. The button worn by
Dixon was about one-half inch larger in diameter than the
one worn by Suggs.
Respondent's home caters primarily to elderly patients,
many of whom are in various stages of senility. The nurses
aides and the licensed practical nurses are required to wear
white uniforms with no adornments, including jewelry,
other than their nametags and graduation or school pins
related to their nurses training. Their work brings them
into close physical contact with the patients. According to
Hunter, who has had 25 years of nursing experience, much
of it in geriatrics , it is important for a nursing home to
present a professional appearance, especially in dress and
deportment, by adhering to strict rules of dress.
Contradictory evidence was presented to the effect that
one elderly senile patient, who apparently was difficult to
handle, as indicated in his medical record, had become
greatly agitated at breakfast one morning when he
observed a union button being worn by a nurses aide,
identified as Clara Hays. He allegedly stated that he would
not eat in a union hall and had to be given a tranquilizer
that night to quiet him down. Hays denied being involved
in the incident . Based on the record evidence , I am not
convinced of the occurrence of this isolated incident. Nor
would such an incident affect my findings in the matter
made herein.
CONCLUSIONS
The right of employees to display union insignia on their
person while at work has long been recognized as a
reasonable and legitimate form of union activity.12 An
employer's prohibition of such display in the absence of
"special circumstances" is an unwarranted interference
with the employees' right to engage in organizational
activities.I3
In Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 137 NLRB 1484, cited
by both parties and involving hotel employees, the Board,
following a remand by the court of its prior decision,
reiterated the right of employees to wear union insignia at
work as a protected activity in the absence of "special
circumstances." The Board found in that case that the
union button was smaller than a dime , neat , inconspicuous,
and unprovocative with respect to its legend and did not
detract from the dignity of a hotel or cause any diminution
12 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 801-803.
13 Mayrath Company, 132 NLRB 1628, enfd. 319 F.2d 424 (C.A. 7).
EVERGREEN NURSING HOME 779
of its business and that maintenance of discipline did not
necessitate a ban on wearing buttons. The Board held the
ban was violative, on its face, of Section 8(a)(1) and
reaffirmed its original order.
In Davison-Paxon Company, 191 NLRB No. 10, sales
personnel having direct contact with customers in a retail
store were discharged for refusing to remove union buttons
the size of a half dollar. The Board rejected the store's
defense that the violation of the store's dress code
constituted a "special circumstance," or that a button the
size of a half dollar was large and conspicuous, noting that
in other cases it approved the wearing of much larger
insignia, citing Fabri-Tek, Incorporated. i4
Since its formation and prior to any union organizing
efforts, Respondent has enforced a rule regulating employ-
ee dress and prohibiting employees from wearing any
attachments to their clothing while working, except for
nametags and pins relating to nursing service.15 Respon-
dent's rule on dress must be viewed in the nature of its
business in determining the proper balance between the
rights of the employees to engage in organizing activities
and the rights of the employer in operating its business.
The employees are constantly in direct contact, frequently
in very intimate contact, with elderly ill patients, many of
whom are confused and disoriented. Their reactions to
outside stimuli of any sort are unpredictable and could
cause severe agitation, upsetting Respondent's operations
and control.
The bright yellow union buttons worn herein were 1-7/8
and 2-1/4 inches in diameter, far greater than the five-
eighths-inch diameter button in the Floridan case, supra, or
the half dollar size (1-1/8 inches in diameter) button in the
Davison-Paxon case, supra. Such buttons are not inconspic-
uous, and their size did detract from the dignity of the all-
white uniform worn by the employees. The neat and
professional appearance of the nurses is an important part
of Respondent's image both to its patients and the public.
Based on the foregoing considerations, especially the fact
that Respondent's rule on dress was promulgated when it
started operating, long antedating the Union's organizing
efforts, I conclude that the "special circumstances" found
herein justified Respondent's rule on dress, implemented to
ban the wearing of the union buttons used herein. I
accordingly recommend that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges 8(a)(I) and (3) violations based on the
buttons.
IV. THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING;
THE OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT
AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF AN
ELECTION
an election, it is necessary to establish that during the
critical period-beginning with the filing of a representa-
tion petition and the holding of the election-the employ-
ees were subjected to the influences specified in the
Regional Director's order which interfered with the
exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the election;
As determined above, the following violations were found
to have occurred during the critical period: interrogation
by Hunter of Bunton and Florian, by Abrams of Suggs and
Dixon, and by Kramer of Null; and the giving of an
impression of surveillance of employee union activities to
Dixon and Suggs by Abrams and to Dixon and Florian by
Hunter.16
The Board has consistently held that conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) a fortiori interferes with the exercise of a
free and untrammeled choice in an election.17 I, therefore,
find merit in and sustain the Union's objections to the
extent found during the critical period as indicated above
and recommend that the election be set aside and a new
election ordered;
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein, Respondent has been
engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2, At all times material herein, the Union has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interrogating employees about their union senti-
ments and the union sentiments of fellow employees, by
creating the impression that employee union activities have
been kept under surveillance, and by threatening to
discharge employees because of their union support,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged in
any unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
As related above, the Regional Director ordered a
hearing in connection with certain objections to conduct
affecting results of the election herein; In order to set aside
14 148 NLRB 1623 , reversed 352 F 2d 577 (C A 8), on the ground that
the unusual and large insignia worn by the employees distracted or tended
to distract the concentration of the employees in their precision defense
work However, it should also be noted that the button wearers were factory
workers who did not come in contact with the public or customers
15 The ballpoint pens , despite their union inscription, were not
prohibited presumably because their use was required in the performance of
the employees' work,
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
16 Although threats of reprisal against employees during the critical
period because of their union support have been found violative of Sec
8(a)( I). they have not been considered as a ground for setting aside the
election The objection based on that ground was overruled by the Regional
Director and therefore not referred to the Trial Examiner
17 Oleson's Foods, No 4, Inc, 167 NLRB 543, 551 , and Irving Air Chute
Company, Inc. 149 NLRB 627,629
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed: Is
ORDER
Respondent, Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilita-
tion Center, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union
activities and those of their fellow employees within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) Creating the impression of surveillance of employee
union activities within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
(c) Threatening to discharge employees because of their
union support.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
enforce the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices in Creve Coeur, Missouri, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by its representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.20
I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that Respondent has engaged in any
unfair labor practices other than those found herein.
ix In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
ie 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 "
20 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 14, 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
The National Labor Relations Board, having found after
trial that we violated Federal law by interrogating
employees concerning the Union, creating the impression
of surveillance of employee union activities , and threaten-
ing to discharge employees because of their union support,
has ordered us to tell you:
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union
sentiments or the sentiments of your fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT create an impression of surveillance of
your union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you because of
your union support.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
EVERGREEN NURSING HOME
AND REHABILITATION
CENTER, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210
North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri
63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.