Guardian Medical Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 12, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1264 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Guardian Medical Services, Inc., Trading as Guardian
Care of Petersburg-Walnut Hill and Retail Clerks
International Association, Local Union No. 157,
AFL-CIO
Guardian Medical Services, Inc., Trading as Guardian
Care of Portsmouth and Retail Clerks International
Union, Local Union No. 233, AFLCIO. Cases 5-
CA-9577 and 5-CA-9700
January 12, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS MURPHY
AND TRUESDAI.E
Upon a charge filed on June 19, 1978,' as amended
on July 21, by Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 157, AFL-CIO (herein called
Local No. 157), and a charge filed on July 28. by
Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union
No. 233, AFL-CIO (herein called Local No. 233),
and duly served on Guardian Medical Services, Inc.,
trading as Guardian Care of Petersburg-Walnut Hill,
and Guardian Medical Services, Inc., trading as
Guardian Care of Portsmouth,2 respectively, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 5, issued
complaints and notices of hearing on July 25 and
August 18, in Cases 5-CA-9577 and 5-CA 9700, re-
spectively, against Respondent, alleging in each case
that Respondent has engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charges, complaints and no-
tices of hearing before an administrative law judge
were duly served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices in Case
5-CA-9577, the complaint in that case alleges in sub-
stance that on April 3, following a Board election in
Case 5 RC-10324, Local No. 157 was duly certified
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of Respondent's employees in the unit therein found
appropriate; 3 that the certification was amended on
All dates herein are 1978. unless otherwise indicated.
2 Guardian Care of Petersburg-Walnut hlill and (iuardian ('are of Ports-
mouth are herein called the Respondent.
)Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceedings.
Cases 5 RC 10324 and 5 RC 10397, as the term "record" is defined in
Sees. 102.58 and 102.6 9(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as
amended. See LTV Elecirosvster, Incr,. 166 NI.RB 938 (1967). enfd 388
F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968).: Golden 4ge Beverage (i'. 167 Nl.RB 151 (1967).
enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969). Ilnerlrpe (o. v. P'enclo. 269 F Sup,. 573
(D.C.Va., 1967): Follel (Corp., 164 NL RB 378 (1967). enfd 397 : 2d 91 (7th
Cir 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended
May 22; and that, commencing on or about June 16,
and at all times thereafter, Respondent refused, and
continues to date to refuse to bargain collectively
with Local No. 157 as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative, although Local No. 157 has requested and
is requesting it to do so.
With respect to the unfair labor practices in Case
5- CA 9700, the complaint in that case alleges in sub-
stance that on June 5, following a Board election in
Case 5-RC-10397, Local No. 233 was duly certified
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of Respondent's employees in the unit therein found
appropriate; and that, commencing on or about July
21, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has re-
fused, and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively
with Local No. 233 as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative, although Local No. 233 has requested and
is requesting it to do so.
On August 4 and 9, Respondent filed its answers
to the complaints in Cases 5-CA-9577 and 5-CA-
9700, respectively, admitting in part, and denying in
part, the allegations in the complaints and stating
certain affirmative defenses.
On September 13 and 21, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board Motions for
Summary Judgment in Cases 5-CA-9577 and 5-CA-
9700, respectively.
In the meantime, on September 5, Respondent
filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge a mo-
tion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to consolidate
the above-captioned cases for hearing.4 On Septem-
ber 18 and 25, Respondent filed in Cases 5-CA-9577
and 5 CA 9700, respectively, motions to quash Gen-
eral Counsel's Motions for Summary Judgment or, in
the alternative, to defer consideration of said mo-
tions until its earlier motions had been ruled upon.
Subsequently, counsel for the General Counsel filed
an opposition to Respondent's motions to dismiss
and motion to transfer to the Board and a separate
motion to the Board to consolidate cases in this mat-
ter.
On September 29, the Board issued an Order
transferring proceeding to the Board and Notice To
Show Cause why the General Counsel's and/or Re-
spondent's motions should or should not be granted 5
and further ordering that Cases 5 CA-9577 and 5-
CA- 9700 be consolidated for determination by the
Board. On October 12, Respondent filed a response
to Notice To Show Cause and thereafter filed two
supplemental responses.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
4 On Septernbhr 13. Respondent's rmotion was forwarded to the Board.
Respondent's motions to dismiss and to quash the General Counsel's
Motions for Sumnlary Judgment in Cases 5 ('A 9577 and 5 CA 9700 are
hereby denied as lacking in merit.
1264
GUARDIAN MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment
In its answers to the complaints in Cases 5 CA
9577 and 5-CA-9700 and its responses to the Notice
To Show Cause, Respondent, in substance, admits
that Local No. 157 is the certified collective-bargain-
ing representative of certain employees at its Peters-
burg facility; that Local No. 233 is the certified bar-
gaining representative of certain employees at its
Portsmouth facility; and that it has refused the de-
mands for bargaining by Local No. 157 and Local
No. 233.6 Respondent, however, attacks the validity
of the aforementioned certifications on the grounds
that the Board improperly overruled its objections to
the elections in the underlying representation pro-
ceedings and failed to direct hearings on substantial
and material issues raised by those objections. The
General Counsel, on the other hand, argues that all
material issues have been previously decided and
that there are no litigable issues of fact warranting a
hearing.
Review of the record herein, including that in the
representative proceedings, Cases 5-RC-10324 and
5-RC-10397, establishes that pursuant to a Decision
and Direction of Election issued by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 5 in Case 5-RC-10324, 7 an election
was conducted on February 22, which Local No. 157
won by a vote of 37 for and 28 against that Local,
with 7 challenged ballots. The record also establishes
that, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion issued by the Acting Regional Director for Re-
gion 5 in Case 5-RC-10397, an election was con-
ducted on May 19 which Local No. 233 won by a
vote of 34 for and 14 against that Local, with no
challenged ballots. Respondent filed timely objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the elections,
alleging in both cases that licensed practical nurses
(LPNs) and registered nurses (RNs) were improperly
In denying the refusals to bargain in its answers to the complaints.
Respondent asserts that its responses to the Union's letters demanding bar-
gaining "speak" for themselves. In each response. Respondent stated that it
was "declining to enter into negotiations."
On February 8, Respondent filed a request for review of the Regional
Director's Decision and Direction of Election which on Februar) 16 was, in
pertinent part, denied by the Board as raising no substantial issues warrant-
ing review. (The Board did amend the Regional Director's decision to per-
mit the social service director, activities coordinator, and physical therapy
aide to vote subject to challenge.)
sRespondent subsequently filed a request for review of the Acting Re-
gional Director's Decision and Direction of Election which on May II was
denied by the Board as raising no substantial issues warranting review.
Respondent's concurrently filed request for oral argument was also denied
by the Board.
excluded from the unit. Additionally, in Case 5-RC-
10324, Respondent alleged that Local No. 157, by
circulating to employees prior to the election a letter
purportedly authored by Coretta Scott King and en-
dorsing Local No. 157, 9 improperly influenced the
employees' free choice of bargaining representative,
in that the letter, inter alia, constituted fraud and
trickery and deceptive campaign practices, called
upon racial pride or prejudice, and misrepresented
the United States Government as a partisan of Local
No. 157. After investigation of the objections in each
case, the Regional Director for Region 5 issued, on
April 3, a Supplemental Decision and Certification
of Representative in Case 5-RC-10324 and on June
5, a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Rep-
resentative in Case 5-RC-10397. In substance, he
concluded that none of Respondent's objections war-
ranted setting aside the elections in either case. Re-
spondent thereafter filed timely requests for review
with the Board in both cases, reiterating therein its
objections and contentions and requests for a hear-
ing. The Board denied review in each case on the
ground that the Employer's requests for review raised
no material or substantial issues warranting such re-
view.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or special
circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging
a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to reliti-
gate issues which were or could have been litigated in
a prior representation proceeding.'
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding
were or could have been litigated in the prior repre-
sentation proceedings, and the Respondent does not
offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence," nor does it allege
The stiatonery tn which the letter was typed was captioned "The Martin
Luther King. Jr.. Center of Social Justice" and listed "Congressman Walter
E Fauntro) Chairman. Board of Directors" and "Congressman Andrew J.
Young Chairman. Advisors Council."
"See Plttsburgh Plate l/ass (Co ,. Nh.L.RB. 313 U.S. 146. 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board. Secs. 102.67(f) and 102
6 9(c)
1l In its first supplemental response to Notice To Show Cause. Respon-
dent cited Pine Manor Nurring Home, 238 NLRB No. 217(1978). as authori-
ty for its contention that I PNs were improperly excluded from the units
found appropriate in Cases 5 RC 10324 and 5 RC 10397 and that the
General Counsel's Motions for Summars Judgment should not therefore he
granted. The instant case. however, is distinguishable from Pine Manor
Nursing Home, supra There the Board found, inter alia. that either a sepa-
rate unit composed of l.PNs as technical employees or a service and mainte-
nance unit including the LPNs could be appropriate because the L.PNs
shared a community of interest among themselves as technical employees
and also had a strong community of interest with the nurses aides who were
part of the service and maintenance unit. Accordingly. a self-determination
election was directed which, depending on the outcome, would determine
the unit issue In Cases 5 RC 10324 and 5 RC- 10397 the Regional Direc-
tor found that the LPNs did not have sufficient community of interest with
the service and rm3intenance employees to warrant including them in the
units herein
In its second supplemental response to Notice To Show Cause. Respon-
dent cites Columbia Tanning (' orporation. 238 Nl.RB No 125 (1978). In
Continued
1265
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that any special circumstances exist herein which
would require the Board to reexamine the decisions
made in the representation proceedings. We there-
fore find that Respondent has not raised any issue
which is properly litigable in this unfair labor prac-
tice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the Motions
for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a North Carolina corporation, is en-
gaged in the operation of nursing homes in Peters-
burg and Portsmouth, Virginia. During the preceding
12 months, a representative period, Respondent ad-
mits it had gross revenues in excess of $100,000. Dur-
ing the same period, Respondent admits it purchased
and received, in interstate commerce, materials and
supplies valued in excess of $2,000 from points locat-
ed outside the State of Virginia. 2
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Retail Clerks International Union, Local Union
No. 157, AFL-CIO, and Retail Clerks International
Union, Local Union No. 233, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
support of its contention that, with respect to Case 5-RC- 10324. Local No.
157 engaged in objectionable conduct by distnbuting a letter to employees
prior to the election which misrepresented the United States Government as
a partisan of Local 157, and that the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment should not therefore be granted. In Colwnbia Tanning Cor-
poration, supra, the letter found objectionable was written by the Commis-
sioner of Labor of the State of Massachusetts on his official stationery in
Greek and sent to Greek employees, approximately 50 percent of whom did
not speak English. Here, unlike there, the letter in question was neither
written on government stationery nor signed by an official of the Govern-
ment.
12 In its answers to the complaints in Cases 5 CA-9577 and 5-CA-9700
Respondent denied that it is an "employer" within the meaning of Sec. 2(2)
of the Act and that it is engaged in operations "affecting commerce" within
the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act. However, inasmuch as Respon-
dent has admitted that it is engaged in commerce, that it had gross annual
revenues in excess of S100.000, and that it has purchased and received, in
interstate commerce, materials and supplies valued in excess of $2.000. and
has offered no evidence with respect to said denials, we find no basis not to
assert jurisdiction over Respondent.
A. The Representation Proceeding
I. The units
The following employees of Respondent constitute
separate appropriate units for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
A. All full-time and regular part-time service
and maintenance employees employed by the
Employer at its Petersburg, Virginia, facility,
but excluding all office clerical employees, ad-
ministrator, director of nursing, executive
housekeeper, food service supervisor, licensed
practical nurses, registered nurses, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
B. All full-time and regular part-time service
and maintenance employees including nurs-
ing assistants (aides and orderlies), dietary
employees, maintenance employees, house-
keeping and laundry employees, social service
director and social service aide employed by
the Employer at its Portsmouth, Virginia, fa-
cility, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, licensed practical
nurses, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. The certification
On February 22, 1978, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in the unit identified above as "A," in
a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervi-
sion of the Regional Director for Region 5 designat-
ed Local No. 157 as their representative for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining with Respondent. Local
No. 157 was certified as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in unit "A," on April
3, 1978, as amended on May 22, 1978, and Local No.
157 continues to be such exclusive representative
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
On May 19, 1978, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in the unit identified above as "B," in a
secret-ballot election conducted under the supervi-
sion of the Regional Director for Region 5, designat-
ed Local No. 233 as their representative for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining with Respondent. Local
No. 233 was certified as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in unit "B" on June
1 It is noted that the physical therapy aid, social services director, and
activities coordinator are neither included in nor excluded from the bargain-
ing unit covered by the certification inasmuch as the Board, in denying
review of the unit determination. "excepted to the unit placement of the
above classifications, and ordered those individuals to be voted subject to
challenge."
1266
GUARDIAN MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.
5, 1978, and Local No. 233 continues to be such ex-
clusive representative within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
B. The Requests To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusals
Commencing on or about June 9, 1978, and all
times thereafter, Local No. 157 has requested Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in unit "A" as described above. Com-
mencing on or about June 16, 1978, and continuing
at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has re-
fused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and to
bargain with Local No. 157 as the exclusive represen-
tative for collective bargaining of all employees in
unit "A."
Commencing on or about July 14, 1978, and all
times thereafter, Local No. 233 has requested Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of all the
employees in unit "B" as described above. Com-
mencing on or about July 21, 1978, and continuing at
all times thereafter to date, Respondent has refused,
and continues to refuse, to recognize and to bargain
with Local No. 233 as the exclusive representative for
collective bargaining of all employees in unit "B."
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
June 16 and July 21, 1978, and at all times thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with Local No. 157
and Local No. 233, respectively, as the exclusive sep-
arate representatives of the employees in units "A"
and "B," respectively, and that, by such refusal, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
Ill, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, 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.
v. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon
request, bargain collectively with Local No. 157 and
Local No. 233 as the exclusive representatives of all
employees in the respective appropriate units herein,
and, if understandings are reached, embody such un-
derstandings in signed agreements.
In order to insure that the employees in units "A"
and "B" will be accorded the services of their re-
spective selected bargaining agents for the period
provided by law, we shall construe the initial period
of certifications as beginning on the date Respondent
commences to bargain in good faith with Local No.
153 and Local No. 233, respectively, as the recog-
nized separate bargaining representatives in said
units. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB
785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel,
140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th
Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett
Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964),
enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Guardian Medical Services, Inc., trading as
Guardian Care of Petersburg-Walnut Hill and as
Guardian Care of Portsmouth, is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Retail Clerks International Union, Local Union
No. 157, AFL-CIO, and Retail Clerks International
Union, Local Union No. 233, AFL-CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute separate appropriate units for collective-bargain-
ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
A. All full-time and regular part-time service
and maintenance employees employed by the
Employer at its Petersburg, Virginia, facility,
but excluding all office clerical employees, ad-
ministrator, director of nursing, executive
housekeeper, food service supervisor, licensed
practical nurses, registered nurses, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act."
B. All full-time and regular part-time service
and maintenance employees including nurs-
ing assistants (aides and orderlies) dietary em-
ployees, maintenance employees, housekeep-
ing and laundry employees, social service
14 II s noted that the ph)sical therap) aid. s)clal services director. and
activities coordinator are neither included in nor excluded from the bargain-
ing unit covered hb the certification.
1267
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
director and social service aide employed by
the Employer at its Portsmouth, Virginia, fa-
cility, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, licensed practical
nurses, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
4. Since May 22, 1978, Local No. 157 has been
and now is the certified and exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit identified
above as unit "A" for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. Since June 5, 2978, Local No. 233 has been and
now is the certified and exclusive representative of all
employees in the appropriate unit identified above as
unit "B" for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
6. By refusing on or about June 16, 1978, and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with Local
No. 157 as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all the employees of Respondent in unit "A," Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
7. By refusing on or about July 21, 1978, and at all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with Local
No. 233 as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all the employees of Respondent in unit "B," Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
8. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Guardian Medical Services, Inc., trading as Guard-
ian Care of Petersburg-Walnut Hill and as Guardian
Care of Portsmouth, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment with Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Union, Local Union No. 157, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time service and
maintenance employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its Petersburg, Virginia, facility, but ex-
cluding all office clerical employees, administra-
tor, director of nursing, executive housekeeper,
food service supervisor, licensed practical nurs-
es, registered nurses, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.' 5
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment with Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Union, Local Union No. 233, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time service and
maintenance employees including nursing assis-
tants (aides and orderlies) dietary employees,
maintenance employees, housekeeping and
laundry employees, social service director and
social service aide employed by the Employer at
its Portsmouth, Virginia, facility, but excluding
office clerical employees, professional employ-
ees, licensed practical nurses, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with Retail Clerks In-
ternational Union, Local Union No. 157, AFL-CIO,
as exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit as described in paragraph l(a)
above with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request, bargain with Retail Clerks In-
ternational, Local Union No. 233, AFL-CIO, exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit as described in paragraph l(b)
above with respect to rates of pay, wages, hour and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(c) Post at its Petersburg-Walnut Hill and Ports-
mouth, Virginia, facilities copies of the attached no-
It is noted that the physical therapy aid, social services director, and
activities coordinator are neither included in nor excluded from the bargain-
ing unit covered by the certification.
1268
GUARDIAN MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.
tice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
5, after being duly signed by Respondent's represen-
tative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
16 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a t nired
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted bh Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collective con-
cerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Retail
Clerks International Union, Local Union No.
157, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of the employees at our Petersburg-Walnut Hill
facility in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Retail
Clerks International Union, Local Union No.
233, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of the employees at our Portsmouth facility in
the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
WE WILL. upon request, bargain with Retail
Clerks International Union, Local Union No.
157, AFL-CIO. as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described
below. with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time service and
maintenance employees employed by us at
our Petersburg. Virginia, facility, but exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, administra-
tor, director of nursing, executive housekeep-
er, food service supervisor, licensed practical
nurses, registered nurses, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act. (It is noted that
the physical therapy aid, social services direc-
tor, and activities coordinator are neither in-
cluded in nor excluded from the bargaining
unit covered by the certification inasmuch as
the Board, in denying review of the unit deter-
mination, excepted to the unit placement of
the above classifications and ordered those in-
dividuals to be voted subject to challenge.)
WE WILL.. upon request, bargain with Retail
Clerks International Union, Local Union No.
233, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described
below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time service and
maintenance employees including nursing as-
sistants (aides and orderlies), dietary employ-
ees, maintenance employees, housekeeping
and laundry employees, social service director
and social service aide employed by us at our
Portsmouth, Virginia, facility, but excluding
office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, licensed practical nurses, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
GUARDIAN MEDICAL SERVICES. INC., TRADING
AS GUARDIAN CARE OF PETERSBURG-
WALNUT HILL AND GUARDIAN CARE OF
PORTSMOUTH
1269