Haven Manor Health Related Facility

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 39 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

HAVEN NMANOR HIEAI t R:IAII D) FA(CILII-Y
Haven Manor Health Related Facility and l)istrict
1199, National Union of Hospital and Health ('are
Employees, RWDSU,. AFI-CIO
Haven Manor Health Related Facility and leisure-
Time Recreation Service, Inc., a/k/a In-Service In-
stitute of New York and District 1199, National
Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees,
RWDSU, AFL-CIO
Haven Manor Health Related Facility and District
1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care
Employees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO and Local 1115.
Joint Board, Nursing Home and Hospital Employ-
ees Divisions
Haven Manor Health Related Facility and Israel
Elbaz. Cases 29-CA-5489, 29-CA 5911, 29-CA
5659, 29-CA.-5745, 29-CA 5746, and 29 CA 5777
June 25. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMHERS PENEI.I.O, MIRPHY. ANI) TRt:ESI)AI.i
On September 29, 1978. Administrative Law Judge
Elbert P. Gadsden issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Local 1115, Joint Board.
Nursing Home and Hospital Employees Divisions,
the Party in Interest, herein called Local 1115, filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed limited exceptions and a 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings. findings.' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative l.aw Judge.'
I Loc.al I 15 has excepted to certain credibiliht findings Iade hs the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established plic n to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credihilh. unless
the clear preponderance ol all of the relesant eidence coninces us hat the
resolutions are incorrect Standard De- Ilsi/l Podwl is. lh( . 91 N lRB 544
119501. entid 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carctull examined the
record and find no basis ltr resersing his findings
The General Counsel has excepted to the Adrllllstsratlle law Judges
reference to Stanley Israel as the (Charging Part wuhen. n lact. Israel servedl
only as an rganizer for istrict 1199. National It nion ofI li spiral and
Health Care Imployees. RWI)St.S AI:l ('1() herein called )listric 199
We herebN correct the Administrative Law Judge's nadierient error Ir this
regard. We fuirther note that In his Decilsin the Admililslrattie Iaw .u Idge
found that Supervisir (hervr I Btmrr) hd shclited 13 authorlizalll, crds on
behalf of local I 1 15 prior t March 4. 1977. the iate It demandedr rec.gsil-
tionn Examination of the rccord indicates thal it sic i t l lll an tlnide-
termined number ot the 11 cards s'Igned on behalt ilt I socal Ills tI he error I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section iO(c) of the National abor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Ihabor Rela-
tions Board herebh orders that Respondent l eisure-
Time Recreation Service. Inc.. a/k /a In-Service Insti-
tute of New York. Queens New York. its officers,
agents. successors. and assigns. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Entering into or giving effect to a subcontract-
ing agreement or arrangement between it and Haven
Manor Health Related Facility. herein called Hlaven
Manor, where a purpose of' such subcontracting ar-
rangement or agreement was to discourage the em-
ployees of the vocational and recreational depart-
ments or other employees emplo\ed at Itav;en Manor
from becoming or remaining members of I)istrict
1199. National Union of Hospital and Health ('Care
Employees, RWDSU. AFL-CIO. or an other labor
organization.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their
membership in. activities on behalf of. or sympath in
or for District 1199. or any other labor organization.
(c) Threatening its employees ith discharge or
other reprisals if they become or remain members of
District 1199, or any other labor organization. or if
they give any assistance or support to it.
(d) Announcing to its employees emplo)ed in the
recreational and vocational departments at Hlaven
Manor that said emploNees are ineligible to join Dis-
trict 1199, or an) other labor organization, because
the operations of said departments had been subcon-
tracted, or warning said employees to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of District 1199. or
any other labor organization, or to refrain from giv-
ing any assistance or support to [)istrict 1199 or
other labor organization.
(e) Promising its employees job securitN or other
benefits and improvements in working conditions if
the A\dministlatie l.a, Judge's findings. however does not aflecl olr agree
ment with his ultimate conclusions herein.
2 Inasmuch as the collechtie-hargaining agreement executed hs Respon-
dent Halen Manor and i)istrict 1199 on Ma 27. 1978. remledies the illeged
Sec 8(a(2) and (5) violatlions we grant l)lstrict 1199'- and (iener.al ('oin-
,el's request to withdra'l these allegasions from the clmpilainl
'We note that the Adnlinislratire l.aw Judge ound that fr the period t
their subcontracting arranigement. :e between March .allld Ma 21. 1177.
Respondents lteli Mlanor nd I .esure-Tillle ere jllill enlp s ixv wlth
resplect to the violations flosnd it have heen con mmillted We agree Ve tur
ther note. however. that in his recommended Order directed toward Resrpn-
dent I eisurc- I lle the Adnlintrtlive law Judge relerred o tintair lhaor
practice h? Repondeint Ilaxen Mano i.r that were coitlltted hetre the silh
cointracllng arrangeenll hegan ll itordlg. .we hlae revised the ()rdel d
reted twsard Respondent liure- line t t sltlide o
1
l those nlllr labhor
practices which wrere conitted during the perxl I the Iollnl-nlploser
relltionship We his e ilso-added a Iliccel to t1 t(lss h eec. s hli the \dlitls-
traIlse I .hl Judge Otlllied, rexpecting thie sl Iosonii tfound gliirxt Respon
dent leisurc- I ime
243 NLRB No. 9
39
I)I (ISI()NS ()O NAIONI. I.ABOR Rl)AI.AIIONS BOARI)
they refrain ronm becoming or remaining meblhers of
District 1199. or from giving any assistance or sup-
port to said labor organization.
(f) Discouraging membership to District 1199, or
any other labor organization, by discharging or rel'us-
ing to reinstate or by reducing the working hours of'
any of its employees, or in any other manner discrimi-
nating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any other term or condition of employment.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of' the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Haven Manor make
employees Bonnie Weiss, Sheldon Friedman, and
JoAnn Goldberger whole for any loss of' earnings
they may have suffered by reason of their discharges
in May 1977. with interest.
(b) Rescind any and all subcontracting agreements
with respect to the recreational and vocational de-
partments at Haven Manor.
(c) Post at its facility in Queens, New York. copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 ('opies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by its
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it fir 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily 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 fr Region 29 in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order.
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
4 In the event that this Order s, entorced bh a Judgmentl of I nited Slilt's
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted hb Order ot the
National L.abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgmetnl
ofl' the United States Court of Appeals Inlrcing an Order o the National
Labor Relations Board
APPENI)IX
NOTI(E To EMII.(o\r.Y:S
POSTIl:) BY ORDI)R O() I 111
NAIIONAI. LABOR Rtl:.AII()NS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Wi WI.I. NI enter into or give effeect to a
subcontracting agreement or arrangement be-
tween ourselves and Haven Manor Health Re-
lated Facility, where a purpose of such a subcon-
tracting arrangement or agreement is to
discourage the employees of' the ocational and
recreational departments or other employees em-
ployed at Haven Manor from becoming or re-
maining members of IDistrict 1199. National
linion of' Hospital and Health ('are Employees.
RW )SU, AFL ('10. or any other labor organi-
zation.
WI: \WII.I. NO)I interrogate our employees con-
cerning their membership in, activities on behalf
of' or sympathy in or for [)istrict 1199, or any
other labor organization.
Wi: W1I. NOI threaten our employees with
discharge or other reprisals if' they become or re-
main members of District 1199, or any other la-
bor orga nization, or if they give any assistance or
support to it.
Wl: \vII.. N()I announce to our employees em-
ployed in the recreational and vocational depart-
ments at Haven Manor that said employees are
ineligible to join District 1199. or any other labor
organization, because the operations of said de-
partments had been subcontracted, and \\i: wll I
No( warn said employees to refrain froil becom-
ing or remaining members of IDistrict 1199 or
any other labor organizition. or to reftrain from
giving any assistance or support to [)istrict 1199,
or any other labor organization.
Wi. wi5v.l NOI promise our emploeesjoh secu-
rity or other benefits and improvements in work-
ing conditions if they refrain from becoming or
remaining members of' [)istrict 1199, or from giv-
ing any assistance or suipport to said labor or-
ganization.
WiL \vII NOtl discourage membership in Dis-
trict 1199, or any other labor organization by
discharging or refusing to reinstate or by reduc-
ing the working hours of' any of our employees,
or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to hire or tenure of employment or any other
term or condition of employment.
WtE wll 1 NOI in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
WI; Wl.I. jointly and severally with aven
Manor make employees Bonnie Weiss Sheldon
Friedman. and JoAnn Goldberger whole for any
loss of' earnings they may have suffered b rea-
son of' their discharges in May 1977. with inter-
est.
Wi \vii1i. rescind ainy and all suhcontracting
agreements with respect to the recreational and
vocational departments at Haven Manor.
Lt:istlRI-TIMI: RIA RAIION SiR\ I: , IN(.
401
HAVEN MANOR HIIEALTH REIATED FACII.ITY
DECISION
SIAI EMtNT ()I: tiE CASE
ElB.ERT D. GAD)SI)DN, Administrative l.aw Judge: Pursu-
ant to charges filed in Cases 29 (CA 5489 on May 3. 1977:
29 CA-5659 on May 19. 1977: 29:CA 5745 on July 5S
1977; 29-C('A 5746 on July 5. 1977; and 29-CA-5911 on
September 14. 1977. by District 1199. National Union of
Hospital and Health Care Employees. RWDSU,. AFL-
CIO, herein called District 1199. against Haven Manor
Health Related Facility. herein called Respondent Haven
Manor. and Leisure-Time Recreation Service. Inc.. herein
called Respondent Leisure-Time. and Case 29-CA 5777 on
July 19. 1977, by Israel Elbaz. herein called Elbaz or the
Individual Charging Party, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 29 issued a complaint in Case 29-CA 5489 on April
25, 1977: a consolidated complaint in Case 29 CA-5659
5745 on August 4. 1977: a complaint in Case 29 CA 5777
on August 30. 1977: an amended complaint in Case 29
CA-5746 on September 21, 1977: and a complaint in Case
29-CA 5911 on September 30. 1977.
In substance, the above-described complaints alleged
that on February 24. 1977. Respondent Haven Manor dis-
charged employee Texidor Ortiz because of his activities on
behalf of and in support of District 1199: that on February
20. 1977. Respondent Haven Manor changed the work shift
of all kitchen employees so as to discriminate against them
because they joined and/or supported District 1199: that
on or about March 15. 1977. Respondent Haven Manor
entered into a subcontract for vocational and recreational
services with Respondent l.eisure-Time in order to discour-
age the membership in and support for District 1199: that
since March 15, 1977. Respondent Haven Manor and Re-
spondent eisure-Time have refused to bargain with Dis-
trict 1199 on behalf of their vocational and recreational
service employees, even though District 1199 is the legal
representative of said employees; that Respondent's refusal
to so bargain with District 1199 constituted discrimination
against said employees for joining and supporting District
1199 and was intended to undermine the majority status of
District 1199; that during February-April 1977 Respon-
dent Haven Manor threatened Individual harging Party
Israel Elbaz with discharge unless he discharged certain
employees supporting District 1199. and on May . 1977.
Respondent Haven Manor constructively discharged Israel
Elbaz for his refusal to discharge said employees and has
since refused to reinstate him; that Respondent threatened
its unit employees with layoff if they voted for District 1199
and unlawfully interrogated employees prior to the sched-
uled representation election of its unit employees; that it
discharged an employee (Bonnie Weiss) and three other
employees and terminated the subcontract for said services.
all for the purpose of discouraging membership in and sup-
port for District 1199: that Respondent Leisure-Time made
statements to its employees why they could not join a labor
organization and interrogated employee Robin Ginsberg
about her membership in and activities on behalf of District
1199; that Respondents laid off six employees and modified
the employment status of three other employees by reduc-
ing their hours of work because of their joining and/or sup-
port of District 1199; and that Respondent Haven Manor
and/or Respondent Leisure-Time unlawfully assisted l.ocal
I 115 by hiring its members in order to enable them to vote
in a representation election and to promote the organiza-
tional activities on behalf of Local I 115, with the purpose
of defeating the selection of District 1199.
Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended. the Regional Director
for Region 29 ordered the consolidation of' the ahove-cap-
tioned cases and issued a complaint for hearing.
Respondent Haven Manor and Respondent Leisure-
Time timely filed answers denying that they committed any
violations of the Act as alleged in the consolidated com-
plaint.
This case was heard before me on various dates in the
months of December 1977 and February. April. and May
1978. The hearing was closed on May 31, 1978. Upon the
stipulations and settlement agreements described herein
and the entire record, including my obser ation of' the wit-
nesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDIN(GS ( F I
I. J RISI)I( II()N
Respondent Haven Manor is an individual proprietor-
ship duly organized under. and existing by virtue iof laws of
the State of New York. At all times material herein. Re-
spondent Hlaven Manor has maintained its principal office
and place of business at 1441 Greenport Road in the county
of Queens, ('ity and Slate of New York, were it is. and has
been at all times material herein, continuously engaged in
the operation of a health relaled fllcilitv and related ser-
vices.
I)uring the past ;lar, ia represcnltlive period. Respon-
dent ;las en Manllr. in the course of its business. derived
gross revenues in excess of $ I().(XK). During the past year.
also a representative period of annual operations. Respon-
dent, in the coursel-c and conduct of its business, purchased
and caused to he transported and delivered to its place of
business goods and materials valued in excess of $50.000
which were transported and delivered to its place of busi-
ness and received fr)om enterprises located in the State of
New York. each of hich other enterprises had received
said goods and materials in interstate commerce directly
from States of' the United States other than the State of
New York.
The complaint alleges. Respondent admits. and I find
that Respondent Haven Manor is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
11. ilt I AlOR (IRANIZA^I(ONS IN) (I vt1)
The complaint alleges. Respondent Haven Manor ad-
mits. and I find that District 1199. National Union of Hos-
pital and Health Care Employees. RWDSU, AFL CIO.
and Local 1 115., Joint Board. Nursing Home and Hospital
Employees Divisions, herein called Local 1115. are, and
have been at all times material herein, labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
41
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ill. THE RESI)UAI. AlILF.(itI ) UNFAIR L.ABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent Haven Manor is engaged in the opera-
tion of a health-related facility and related recreational and
social service operations at its principal office and place of'
business, located at 1141 Greenport Road in the county of
Queens, City and State of New York.
On October 13, 1976, the Board issued a Decision in Ha-
ven Manor Health Related Facility, 226 NLRB 329 (1976).
of which, upon request of counsel for the General Counsel,
I take administrative notice. The respondent in the above-
cited case is the same Respondent Haven Manor herein.
There the Board found that Respondent had violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by rendering, inter alia, un-
lawful assistance to Local 1115 by soliciting employees to
sign Local 1115 authorization cards, by threatening em-
ployees with the loss of their jobs if they did not sign Local
I 115 cards, by promising employees job security if they did
sign such cards, by extending recognition to Local 1 15 and
executing and maintaining a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Local 1115, and by deducting initiation fees and
dues from the employees' paychecks and paying the same
to Local I 115.
As a result of the above-recited findings, the Board issued
an Order setting aside the contract between Respondent
Haven Manor and Local 1115 and ordered Respondent Ha-
ven Manor to ithdraw and withhold recognition rom Local
1115 unless and until it had been certified bhv the Board, to
reimburse all emploYees or Local 115 dues and initiation
fees paid to or withheld hy Respondent Haven Manor, and to
post copies of the Board's notice to emplovees, in Spanish and
English. Respondent Haven Manor did not fully comply
with the Board's Order until June 30, 1977. In fact. Respon-
dent's piecemeal compliance with the Board's October 13.
1976, Order unfolded with Respondent Haven Manor fi-
nally terminating some recognition of Local 1115 as the
representative of its employees on December 16, 1976. and
complying with the requirement to post copies of the notice
in English and Spanish on December 8, 1976; and. finally,
Respondent Haven Manor did not forward the sums of re-
imbursement for initiation fees and dues to the Regional
Office in satisfaction of the Board's Order until April 12,
1977.
At the hearing the parties stipulated that a unit consisting
of all full-time and regular part-time aides, orderlies, li-
censed practical nurses, and dietary employees, and exclud-
ing all other employees, including registered nurses, the di-
rector of nursing services, and nursing supervisors and on-
call employees, is appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
The parties also stipulated that the following employees
constituted the only regular part-time employees employed
by Respondent Haven Manor during the period March 4-
7:
Josephine Francis
Grace Harleston
Phyllis Houston
Jacqueline Sylvia
Jessy Bateau Clement
Sally McCullough
Alise Carr
Katherine Featherman
Constance Johnson
Eileen O'Brien Schlieper
Barbara Wells
Jeanette Everson
Howell Reynolds
Irene Holmes
Lydia Arce
Yvonne C. Andrews
Elizabeth Johnson
Conchita Ramsaran
Vanessa Williams
Leila Venture
Susan Semandoff
Sarah C'ruz
Ruth Rubin
Cleopatra Burton
Dennis Rice
Claudia Barnett
Ingrid M. Elie
Linda Lee Staton
Eunice Hare
Mudica Phillips
Elizabeth Tapper
Jacqueline Bascum
Merle Shakespeare
Pecola White
David Patrick
Sheila Malka
Texidor Ortiz
Nelson Figueroa
Anthony Buscaglia
Mary louise Faust
Anthony Stanley
Melvin laskins
Steve Black
Louis Perez
Rita Morris
Rosemary Smalls
Yvonne Lindsey
Brenda Williams
Deborah McFarland
Joyce Johnson
Yolleta Etiene
Roberta McLean
Enid Thompson
Mattie Smith
Carmen Mendez
Edward Porzelt
Kathlean Satchell
Josephine Valmyr
Dennis Murphy
Marie Montes
Billy Quaterman
James McLauria
Patricia O'Toole
l.uis Vargas
Thomas Handy
Carolyn Hopkins
Lawrence Wilson
Dominick Pacettra
Gerald Bouey
Marie Williams
The parties further stipulated that there were 14 licensed
practical nurses. 41 aides and orderlies. and 15 dietary em-
ployees, for a total of 70 employees.
They also stipulated that the following employees were
on call and therefore not eligible to be included in the stipu-
lated unit hereinabove described:
('ora King
Betty Reed l)avis
Henry Osibogun
Banna McDaniels
Joseph I enry Brown
Cynthia Brown
Yolanda Padmore
Jeanette Hopkins
Michael Marshall
The parties further stipulated that the Administrative
Law Judge should determine whether the social service de-
partment, vocational department, and recreational depart-
ment employees could appropriately be included in the
prior stipulated unit.
With respect to the above determination. the uncontra-
verted evidence of record shows that Sheldon Friedman. Jo
Ann Goldberger, Bonnie Weiss. Nancy Aaronoff, Robin
Ginsberg. Cynthia Alexander, Anita Smalls and Sarah Hal-
pert were the only employees in the vocational, recreation-
al, and social service departments on March 4. 1977.'
A. The Organizing Eftbrts of District 1199
T'he uncontraverted and credited testimony of several
witnesses established that starting sometime in January
1977 Stanley Israel, organizer for District 1199, stood in
I The facts set forth above are undisputed and are not in conflict in the
record.
42
lAVEN N1MsN()R IAl 111 R.l l l) IA('It 11Y
front of Respondent Haven Manor's facility on arioius
dates during JanuIar and Fehruar. at which times he
spoke with numerous employees as they entered and exited
from Respondent Haven Manor's facility. Isreal's conversa-
tions with the employees involved his distribution of I)is-
trict 1199 authorization cards to the employees and his so-
liciting their signatures thereon fr membership. oinciding
with the organizing eflforts of Israel (District 1199). the un-
disputed and credited testimony of several witnesses estab-
lished that Lucille Buskey. a nurse's aide, asked cook Texi-
dor Ortiz whether he wanted to join District 1199 and if he
would help solicit people in the kitchen to sign up for mem-
bership. On a Saturday in January Ortiz solicited signatures
for District 1199 from all of the kitchen employees except
Gerald Bouey and Marie Williams.
B. Actions TAeni bv Respondenl laen fluior (otriding
wilh Organi:alional flforis o/ its Emlolvece
It was further established by the undisputed and credited
testimony of dietary employees as well, as by firmer Super-
visor and Food Services Director Israel Elbaz, that on Feb-
ruary 17. 1977. the dietary employees were inlfrmed of
changes in their work shifts (working hours) in order to
facilitate making performance evaluations as to who would
be kept on and who would be terminated in the event Re-
spondent Haven Manor instituted financial cutbacks. For-
mer Supervisor lhbaz testified that the real purpose of
changing the work shifts was to cause the l)istrict 1199
adherents to quit or be tired. In other words. he further
testified, the changes were made with the intent of causing
as much inconvenience as possible t;)r the various District
1199 supporters so that they would voluntarily quit or pro-
vide Respondent Haven Manor with grounds foir terminat-
ing the employees who were unable to adjust to their new
shift assignments.2
On Monday. February 21. and Tuesday, February 22.
the administrator for Respondent Haven Manot. Aron
Cuitryn, held meetings of groups of dietary employees dur-
ing which a number of such employees were interrogated
by management concerning their membership in and activi-
ties on behalf of District 1199. A number of said employees
were threatened by Respondent Haven Manor with layoff
and discharge for having membership in or engaging in ac-
tivities on behalf of District 1 199.
It is further established by the credited testimonial evi-
dence that District 1199 made its demand to Respondent
Haven Manor for recognition on March 4. 1977, and the
Respondent, by its failure to respond thereto and by its
activities on behalf of ocal I 1 15, refused to recognize [)is-
trict 1199 on March 4 and thereafter. At that time District
1199 produced (as entered in evidence) signed membership
cards which, when tabulated against Respondent Haven
Manor's employee roster, established that it enjoyed a ma-
jority status for the following employees in the various de-
partments:
i credit the testimonial account of Israel Elbaz not only because I was
persuaded by his demeanor that he was testifying truthfully hut also because
his account is in accord with the logical consistenct of all of the credited
evidence of record
Licensedl practical nurses.
Josephine r;ancis
Ph5lis louston
Jacqueline Sl ia
Jessy Bateau C(lemenl
Barbara Wells
Irene Holmes
Aides and orderlies:
Lydia Arce
Conchita Ramsaran
Leila Venture
Ruth Rubin
Cleopatra Burton
I.ouis Perez
Rosemary Smalls
Deborah McFarland
Enid Thompson
('armen Mendez
Maudica Phillips
J.lacqueline BascurLi
Merle Shakespeare
Pecola White
Dietary employees
Texidor Ortiz
Sheila Malka
Anthony Stanley
Dominick Pacetta
l.awrence Wilson
Saill Mlc('llough
Alise C'arr
( onstaince Johnsonll
Eileen O'Brien Schlieper
Howell Re,nolds
Elizabeth Johnson
Vanessa Williams
Sarah Cruz
DIennis Rice
(laudia Barnett
Rita Morris
Brenda Williams
Jovce Johnson
Mattie Smith
Kathlean Satchilell
Josephine Va;lllr
Marie Montes
Bill Quaterilan
Mar ILouise I aust
I honas I and\
/\tihon,N Buscaglia
elclvin Ilask ins
Vocational. recreationa . and social services depart-
menIs:
Robin (insherg
Sheldon Friedman
('vnthia Alexander
.loAnn (ioldberger
Bonnie Weiss
Na nc Aaronoff
At the hearing a dispute iarO e oxer one card which w;as
different from the majorit ofI the authorizaltion cards used
by District 1199 and challenged b Respondent la\,en
Manor and local I 115. he card in dispute referred to Dis-
trict 1 199 as the (iuild of Professional, Technical and Office
Employees. District 1 199. National Union of Hospital and
Health C(are mplosees. Division of RWDSU/AFI CIO.
However. the General Counsel was able to show that the
constitution of District 1199. (G.C. Exh. 66) provided in
article IV that the Guild is merel\ a subdivision of District
1199 which was created. along with other subdivisions, to
facilitate the proper administration and effective operation
of District 1199. The General Counsel established. without
dispute, that the Guild was not an independent or separate
labor organization but rather, in fact. a part of I)istrict
1199.
The essentially undisputed and credited estimon3 of vo-
cational. recreational, and social service worker employees
Robin Ginsberg and Sheldon Friedman clearly established
that their duties and work relationship were so commingled
and intertwined with those of unit employees that they had.
and I so find. a mutual community of interest with unit
employees.
It was further established bh the corroborated and essen-
tiallI undisputed testimony of Robin (iinsberg. Sheldon
Friedman. JoAnn (ioldberger. and Bonnie Weiss, as well as
41
I)DE('ISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR R:lATIONS BOARDI
the unconlroverted admission of' Dr. Ilivman Zamf't to
Charging Party Stanley Israel. that Respondent Haven
Manor entered into a subcontract with Respondent Lei-
sure-Time and that the latter was to operate the vocational
and recreational departments of Respondent Haven Manor
with the purpose of destroying District 1199's majority sta-
tus. apparently under an assumption that a collective-hbar-
gaining agreement involving the vocational and recreation-
al employees would not be executed. On Monday, March 7.
the recreational and vocational department employees were
informed of' the subcontract to Respondent Leisure-lTime.
They were also told that the only change in their employ-
ment condition would be the receipt of' their paychecks
from Respondent Leisure-Time instead of Respondent Ha-
ven Manor.
The undisputed and credited testimony of Bonnie Weiss
also established that in a meeting on March 9. Mr. Aron
Cuitryn, administrator of Respondent Haven Manor. told
her and Nancy Aaronoff that they were being subcontract-
ed to Respondent Leisure-Time and that their new boss was
going to be Dr. Hyman Zamlt. Weiss asked Mr. Cuitryn
whether the union activity precipitated the change. and Mr.
Cuitryn said Aaronoff would not have been able to join the
Union. since she was a supervisor. A meeting of the recre-
ation and vocational employees was held on March 27, at
which time Dr. Zamft, owner and operator of Respondent
Leisure-Time, told the employees that he had received a
petition from the Board which he did not understand, and
he asked them why the employees were doing this to him
and told them that the employvees could not join a union and
that they' were putting their jobs on the line hb filing the peti-
tion. Dr. Zamft further questioned the employees as to who
signed for the Union.
During the operation of the subcontract between Re-
spondent Haven Manor and Respondent Leisure-Time. the
credited testimony and records or evidence establish that
Pat Weiss, consultant to the recreational department. was
on Respondent Haven Manor's payroll at all times and
even after the subcontract agreement: that Weiss was re-
sponsible for program compliance with state regulations:
and that Fink was also on the payroll of Respondent Haven
Manor. even though he was the consultant to the vocational
department. Both of these employees reported directly to
Respondent Haven Manor's Administrator Cuitryn. More-
over, these two persons, Weiss and Fink, directed the daily
activities of the other recreational and vocational employ-
ees.
After a short and turbulent subcontractor's relationship
with Respondent Haven Manor, Respondent Leisure-Time
terminated its subcontractual arrangement with Respon-
dent Haven Manor. effective May 23. District 1199 orga-
nizer Stanley Israel testified that Dr. Zamft admitted being
approached by Respondent Haven Manor on March 6 to
consummate an agreement with the purpose of keeping the
employees out of the Union. and as a way of making some
quick money. he assented to do so. Israel further testified
that Zamft told him he ultimately would up losing money
because Respondent Haven Manor refused to pay more
money. Coinciding with the termination of the subcontract
with Haven Manor. all of the employees for Leisure-Time
were terminated effective May 23.
The credited evidence of' record further established that
approximately 13 cards solicited on behalf of' Local 1115
prior to March 4. 1977. were solicited by Cheryl Boue.
The food service director for tHaven Manor, Israel Elbaz,
and Mary Louise Faust. dietary aide. credibly testified that
C(hernl Bou'i: was a low-level supervisor who possessed au-
thority to direct employees in their work, assigned them
work, and disciplined employees and that she had access to
employer records. C'heryl Bouey testified that her title was
assistant dietitian from sometime in 1976 until August 26,
1977. She admitted that it was her job to open the kitchen
and "see that the work was done" and that she assigned the
dietary employees to do the various tasks inside the kitchen.
Bouev was examined as an adverse witness, and as I oh-
served her testily, she was considerably hostile and obvi-
ouslN partial in her testimony in favor of' Respondent Ha-
ven Manor. I therefore discredit C('heryl Bouey's denial of'
her supervisory status and credit the testimonial versions of'
Israel lbaz and Mary Louise aust. because not only was
I convinced the latter were testifying truthfully, but also the
logical consistency of all the evidence of' record clearly sup-
ports their version.
Based upon the foregoing credited evidence. I conclude
and find that prior. and for a short time subsequent. to
March 4. Cheryl Bouey was a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act.
At my request the parties. during various stages of this
proceeding, engaged in efforts to achieve a settlement of the
issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence. On May 8.
1978. Henry C. Woicik. Esq., of Portnoy, Missinger & As-
sociates, of' Jericho, New York, joined this proceeding as
"of Counsel" for Respondent Haven Manor in furthering
the efforts of' the parties to achieve a settlement.
Neither Respondent Leisure-Time nor Respondent Ha-
ven Manor assumed any effort to put on evidence in the
defense of the evidence against Leisure-Time's involvement
in the allegations in this proceeding. Consequently, based
upon the foregoing credited testimony and evidence of rec-
ord. I conclude and find that Respondent Leisure-Time and
Respondent Haven Manor violated the Act in the following
respects:
I. By knowingly entering into a subcontractual arrange-
ment designed to discourage employees from joining or
supporting District 1199 and encouraging employees to
support Local 1115.
2. By telling employees they' did not need a union and
could not join a union (District 1199).
3. By telling employees they were laying their jobs on the
line by joining a union (District 1199).
4. By threatening employees with the loss of their jobs if
they joined a union (District 1199).
5. By being a part of the whole scheme as an integrated
employer with Respondent Haven Manor, in discharging
employees. reducing their hours of work. giving them differ-
ent work assignments, and establishing a new and more
stringent system of performance evaluations and warnings,
all for the purpose of causing employees to resign or provid-
ing a basis upon which they could be discharged by Re-
spondent Haven Manor.
6. By threatening employees with loss of their jobs if
they joined a union (District 1199).
44
IIA\V N MANOR IIAI.IF R A II) fA(ll.l I Y
7. By being a part of' the whole scheme. as an integrated
employer with Respondent Ilaven Manor. in discriminator-
ily discharging employees. reducing their hours of work.
giving them different work assignments. and estahlishing a
new and more stringent system of job pertfirmance evalu-
ations and warning, all for the purpose of causing employ-
ees supporting District 1199 to resign their jobs or prook-
ing them into providing an evidentiary basis for
Respondents to discharge them.
In short, Respondent l.eisure-'ime is an integrated em-
ployer with Respondent Haven Manor and is jointly and
severally responsible with Respondent ilaven Manor for
violations of the Act found herein.
Settlement agreements executed by Respondent Haven
Manor and District 1199
Respondent Haven Manor and District 1199 entered into
settlement agreements (G.C. Exh. 81 and 82) executed near
the conclusion of this proceeding, which provided a corm-
plete remedy of all of the 8(a)(l) and (3) violations that
were alleged in the complaint and essentially substantiated
at the hearing. The agreements provide that all alleged
8(a)(3) discriminatees waived reinstatement and agreed to
accept full hackpay plus 7 percent as computed b the Re-
gional Office.'
The order portions of the two settlement agreements pro-
vide that Respondent Haven Manor cease and desist rom:
discouraging membership in District 1199, or anyr other la-
bor organization: directly or indirectly interrogating em-
ployees concerning their concerted activities: threatening
employees with layoff, discharge or other reprisals because
of their protected concerted activities; changing work
schedules or working hours of the dietary employees or as-
signing them to less desirable work shifts in olrder to dis-
courage membership in District 1199. or any other labor
organization: threatening to close its facilities if District
1199 becomes its employee representative: subcontracting
the social service department to S & R Consulting Corpora-
tion or the recreational and vocational departments to Re-
spondent Leisure-Time. or any other subcontractors. where
an object of such subcontracting is to discourage member-
ship in District 1199 or any other labor organization: an-
nouncing to various employees that they were unable to
join a labor organization: and reducing hours of its employ-
ees or issuing poor evaluation reports, where the object of
all the above activity is to discourage membership in Dis-
trict 1199. or any other labor organization.
Respondent Haven Manor, in addition to making whole
the various discriminatees. affirmatively agreed to rescind
its subcontract agreements. offer its dietary employees the
opportunity to return to their original shifts of employment.
and excise the false evaluation reports and warning notices
from personnel records of certain employees. Respondent
Haven Manor further agreed to post appropriate notices to
employees, as appended to the record, for 60 days. The
above settlement agreements were not entered into by Lo-
cal 1115 or Respondent Leisure-Time.
Discriminatee Bonnie Weiss was offered and accepted a lump sum pay-
ment of $6,000. which is the equivalent to approximately 85 percent of the
backpay, plus interesl, that was actual due her
I agree with counsel for the General Counsel, that inas-
much as ocal I11 I was not a parlt in interest to the
X(a(I) and (3) allegations. hut only to the (a)(5 allega-
tions. its joining or becoming a parts to the agreements is
unnecessary.
'T'he record notes that to date Respondent Leisure-Time
has ftiled to come forward and execute a settlement agree-
ment involving the allegations against it. even though Re-
spondent laven Manor. bh withdrawing its answer. admit-
ted to being a joint employer with Respondent Leisure-
'ime and has agreed to be jointly and severally liable for
the backpay. Since the individual charging part\ discrimi-
natee and the other dicriminatees herein were made whole,
even without Respondent I.eisure-Time entering into the
agreement I find that the settlement agreements provide a
full remedy for the discriminatees and provide tor appropri-
ate remedies of the unfair labor practices committed by
Respondent Haven Manor. and I hereby approve said
agreements. I further lind that both settlement agreements.
though lacking nonadmission clauses, provide sufficient
stipulationls. as cotunsel for the (General ('ounsel contends.
for enforcement of the orders bh a United States Court ofl
Appeals, should entiorcement of such orders be sought by
the Board.
Israel Elbat's withdrawal of' the charge in C('se 29 ('A
5777 based upon a non-Board settlement
On the last day of this proceedings (May 31. 1978X) Israel
Elbaz moved to withdraw his charge. based on a non-Board
settlement with Respondent Haven Manor, tor $3.500. with
a waiver of reinstatement. No party to the proceeding op-
posed the motion, and it was subsequently reduced to writ-
ing.
Whether )istrict 1199's demand lir recognition on March
4. 1977. was ait valid demand
The essential and unrebutted evidence of record clearly
established. as previously indicated. that the Board in its
Decision of October 13. 1976, fund that Local I 115 had
been unlaw fully assisted by Respondent Haven Manor in
its organizational eflbrts. in violation of Section 8(a)12) of
the Act: that the Board ordered. among other things, that
Respondent Haven Manor cease and desist from executing
a contract with Local 1115 or any other labor organization
which did not represent an uncoerced majority of employ-
ees in the contract unit. deducting dues and initiation fees
from employees' wages pursuant to employee checkoff au-
thorizations and paying the same to Local 1115. giving ef-
fect to or enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement ex-
ecuted with Local 1115 about January 1975. and
suspending or terminating employees or otherwise discrimi-
nating against them in order to encourage their member-
ship in Local 1115: and that the Board affirmatively, or-
dered that Respondenl, Haven Manor should wirhdraw and
withhold recogtnilion from Local 1115 until said labor organi-
zation had been duly certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as tile exclusive representative t'.vsuch enployees,
that it should reimburse all employees (including employees
4 Ilavn tfanor Health Retalud ectit,. 226 NLRB 329 ( 1976)
45
I)l ( ISIONS ()O NA I IO)NAI. I H()OR Rl.A II()NS BOARI)
who signed l.ocal II 15 cards or the first lime aflcl Res pon-
dent Haven Manor lconlm cndj i.s nlt/il ti/ llccl to Lo-
cal I 11I 15. rcimrhrsc all ,tnplov'c' i I ( lltrc I f fo[i du/ot
Wid intiioion l/ee pai I Tl rhem o Local 1 15. a;nd iprot op-
lroprriael nolic i f/ hi. Order in olh p.soh oi d b'ig/i h.
The credited evidence further established that in spite of
the above-described (October 13. 1976) directives and pro-
hibitions of the Board against Respondent Ha'sen Manor.
at all times prior and subsequent to March 4. 1977. the
latter nevertheless had not fully complied with the Board's
Order to reimburse the unit employees for dues and initi-
ation fees deducted from their wages and paid to .ocal
1115. to post the Board's notice in Spanish and nglish to
withdraw and withhold recognition from ocal 11 Is unless
and until it was certified exclusive representative by the
Board, and to cease and desist from soliciting employees to
sign authorization cards on behalf of L.ocal 1115 or anN
other union. threatening to discharge emplosees ift' they so-
licited signatures for membership in District 1199)., and co-
ercively interrogating employees about their activities on
behalf of District 1199 or any other labor organi/ation.
More specifically, the evidence shows that Local 11 15
solicited and obtained signed authorization cards on behalf
of Local 1 115 from employees Betty E. Reed on January 3.
1977: Supervisor l.ucille Buskey on January 2 1977:
Carolyn Hopkins on February 8, 1977: Patricia O'Toole on
March 3. 1977: and Nelson Figueroa on April 2. 1977. Su-
pervisor l.ucille Buskey also solicited authorization cards
from the employees of' Respondent Haven Manor on behalf
of Local 1115 during the concurrent organizing period.
January March 3. 1977. During said organizing period Lo-
cal I115 presented union authorization cards signed by 13
employees dated prior to March 3, 1977. and 7 such autho-
rization cards signed in the month of April 1977. I)uring
the same period and up to March 4. 1977. the date on
which District 1199 made telegraphic demand for recogni-
tion upon Respondent Haven Manor. District 1199 undis-
putedly presented evidence that it had a minimum of I I
cards out of 14 licensed practical nurses. 27 cards out of' the
41 aides and orderlies, 9 cards out of' the 15 dietary aides.
and 6 cards out of the 8 employees in the recreational. o-
cational, and social service departments.
There was no probative evidence introduced at this pro-
ceeding which indicated that any' of the authorization cards
for District 1199 were not authentically executed. However.
my comparative examination of the signatures on District
1199 cards with the corresponding signatures on the indi-
vidual employees' W-2 forms, obtained from the business
records of Respondent Haven Manor, convinced me that
all of the signatures on District 1199 cards were genuine.
and the cards were validly executed. This is so in spite of
the unlawful climate of opposition to District 1199's orga-
nizing efforts incited by Respondent Haven Manor. Aside
from the organizing efforts of Local I 11 5. which were found
by the Board (10-13 76) to have been unlawfully assisted
by Respondent Haven Manor. the record does not show
that District 1199 was competing with any labor organiza-
tion other than Local 1115.
Although the Board's Order of October 13. 1976. was
issued upon Respondent Haven Manor. the credited evi-
dence of record does not show that I.ocal 1 I 15 at any time.
rejected the receipt of employees' dues and initiation fees
paid to It pursuant to emnployee checkoff authorizations and
tile expired 1975 collective-hargaining contract. Nor does
the e idence show that ocal I I 15 ever ofttered to tender or.
in fact, tendered such dues and initiation fees to the lespec-
live employees. advised Respondent Haven Manor to dis-
continue the pay ment of such dues and initiation fees to it.
or advised Respondent Haven Manor to remove the liteia-
lure from its bulletin board which recognized L.ocal I 15 as
the bargaining representative of' its employees and pro-
moted its organizing efforts.
Nor did Local 115 request Respondent Haven Manor to
preclude its employees or supervisory employees from solic-
iting membership on its behalf. Instead, the evidence clearly
shows that I.ocal I15 silently accepted. received. and be-
came beneficiary (of signed authorization cards) of such un-
lawful assistance from Respondent Hlaven Manor, which
was alreads forbidden by the Board to render such assist-
ance. nder such circumstances lIocal I 1 15 cannot be con-
sidered an innocent and eligible competitor with District
1199 for recognition as representative of Respondent Hta-
sen Manor's employees. Prior and subsequent to March 4.
1977. I.ocal 1115 not only received such assistance but also
coercively opposed the organizing efforts of' District 1199:
such unlawful assistance rendered to Local I1115 was itself
unlawful and in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of' the Act. as
well as the Board's Order of' October 13, 1977: I.ocal I 15
silently accepted and received arid became beneficiars sev-
eral signed authorization cards) of' such unla\wful assist-
ance: and, thereifre. Local I115 could not have been and
cannot be deemed an innocent and eligible competitor with
District 1199 for recognition of Respondent Haven Manor's
employees.
('ounsel for Local I 1 5 contends that for years it has had
an interest in representing the employees of Respondent
Haven Manor and that in January 1977. when it learned
District 1199 was engaged in a solicitation campaign. it too
proceeded to solicit on behalf of lIocal I 115 in an effort to
prevent L.ocal 1115 from being precluded from participat-
ing in any representation proceeding which might have
eventuated. (Counsel for Local 11 15's argument seems to
contend that since it engaged in an organizing campaign
before District 1199 presented its demand for recognition
on March 4 Local I 115 made an eligible showing of inter-
est. so as to become a competitor for recognition along with
District 1199, even though l.ocal 1 115 continued to receive
unlawful assistance from Respondent Haven Manor. In
support of this argument, counsel for Local I 115 cites Com-
munio Medical Services of Clearfiell. Inc., d/bla Clear ltCI-
yen Nursing Holme, 236 NLRB 853 (1978). However, an
examination of that case reveals that there the Administra-
tive Law Judge permitted as a part of a settlement of the
proceeding the withdrawal of charges alleging violations of
Section 8(a)( 1). (5). and (3) of the Act. without any evidence
that the unfair labor practices were remedied by reinstate-
ment. backpay. or notice to cease and desist from violating
Section 7 rights of the employees. Here. unlike the unfair
labor practice charges in the above-cited proceeding. the
settlement agreements provide for remedying the unfair la-
bor practices b reinstatement or waiver of reinstatement
with backpay. as well as the posting of a notice designed to
remedy all unfair labor practice charges, prior to District
1199's motion for withdrawal of the charges.
46
HAVEN MANOR HEAIT1H REIAFI) FACILIFY
Counsel for Local I 115 also argues unfairness of the Re-
gional Director for Region 29's approval of withdrawal of
the petitions for election In this regard. I simpl 5 point out
that the propriety of approval or disapproval of withdrawal
of petitions in the representation proceedings is not a sub-
ject presented for determination in this proceeding. More-
over, counsel for Local Il15 further argues that Respon-
dent Haven Manor's compliance with the posting
provisions of the Board's Order was completed on Januars
17. 1977. even though neither Respondent llaxen Manor
nor Local I 1115 had reimbursed the emplosees with dues
and initiation fees as Respondent had been ordered t do,
Respondent Haven Manor had not removed frorm its hulle-
tin board recognitional and promotional literature on be-
half of Local I 1115. and some of Local I I 15's authorization
cards obtained during January April 1977 were solicited hx
supervisory personnel of Respondent Htaven Manor. in vio-
lation of the prior Board Order. It is noted that bh its objec-
tion to the scheduling of the representation hearing com-
menced on April 7. 1977, counsel for Local Ills admllitIeL
that it knew that Respondent Haven Manor had not fully
complied with the Board's Order of October 13. 1976. and
that it intervened in that representation proceeding which
resulted in a withdrawal of the petitions. Suhsequenls . the
complaint in the instant proceeding was issued against Re-
spondent lHa\,en Manor with l.ocal I115 joined as a parts
in interest.
I cannot comprehend how counsel for L.ocal I 115 can
contend that the Local's collection of 13 or more authoriza-
tion cards during the period January April 1977 can consti-
tute a proper showing of' interest when the ecidence of rec-
ord clearly shows that such sho ilng las tinllt'ed itlh the
continued unlawful assistance of Responden t Haven Man-
or. ('ounsel further contends that .ocal I 1 15 could not he
held responsible for Hlaven Manor's fatlire to full comnpls
with its Order. I do not agree with such contention. because
the evidence of record shows that l.ocal I 115 knoa ingl\
accepted and received such unlaxful assistalnce without
making an} effort to reject or request discontinuance of
such assistance. In any, event. since l.ocal I 15 WSas unlaw-
fully assisted. innocently or with conscious antd encouragilng
knowledge. its showing of interest is nevertheless tainted
with the unlawful assistance and cannot constitute a proper
and independent showing of interest. C'onsequentls I con-
clude and find that Local 1115 has no standing as an eligi-
ble competitor with District 1199 for recognition as the rep-
resentative of' the employees of' Respondent [taleln Manor.
and District 1199's motion for withdrawal of the charge is
hereby granted, and the settlement agreements approved.
In view of the foregoing evidence. I further conclude and
find that Respondent Haven Manor's and Respondent Lei-
sure-Time's unlawful conduct constituted the commission
of independent, substantial. and pervasive unfair labor
practices disruptive of election conditions and processes.
which prevented a free election and caused or would cause
the dissipation of District 1199's majoriot showing of inter-
est, thereby warranting the issuance of a collective-hargain-
ing order. N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co. .. 395 U.S. 75
(1969).
Moreover. having found that Local 1199 enjo ,ed mi jor-
it\ shou ing o(f interest on and before \larch 4. 1977. Re-
spondent lax en Manor and Respondent l.eisurc-lim l
were therel re ohbligated to bargain \ ith I)istrict 1 199 prior
to and at least on the latter's demand on March 4, 1977.
Therefore, the settlement agreements and collectlice-bar-
gaining agreement Respondent il:\en Manor entered into
with District 1 199 and Charging Part Israel [-lhai dluitg
the pendenc of this proceeding were proper a d are herehb
approted hb' me. I.coal I 15 is not prejludiccd bh tIis dIci-
sionl hbecause ailtIIough it preseInted C\ Iidenc of a s1hou Iilgc
of' interest during this proceeding. that er interest \\as
established to e tainted bh the unla ifuil assistance it re-
ceived lrolll Respondent Haxen Manor i and Respondent
l eisure- I ime during the period Januar\ March 1977. In
tiolation of Section 8(a) I ). (2). and (3) of' the Act .nId tilhe
Board 's ()rder of October 13, 1976.
RespondenII I.es ure-ime's in \olenient ith Rspolndenl
[Iaell n lailr in the collllllissiol of unlair labor practi es
, TIhi llldancc ot the credited ICSt11inOil of sC \Ct.l lit-
nesses clc,rl establishes that Respondent laxen M\anlor
aiLd Respondent I.eisure- l'imc entered Inllt a subcontracl-
inc arranllniieint on March 6 , ith the principle ohiecti\e of
destros in Ithe nina lorit? tatus of) District 1 199 id sel ttlig
the fuldltilon for the termina;ltionl ol arious Di)lstrict 1 199
s11 pportelrs rllspticd nd credited tetnll on! f Robin
(iinisbe . 1lid Sliclo I 1lll;ll rid ICn 1\ cleas ctibliShed lhtA
the reclcitllilll 1ridl \xtioal dlepuitrnllis NcereL sulhcoii-
Iracted I citru- I nlle ()r. Il\mlan Zanift). .lch sub-
jected hl 11ll 1o Crcl .C IlllCl't C llUlo ti ,ll tolt tnl tile\
could ltl 1 1 ;ili 1111unio1. li creillted cs idleTce a;il si1o)xs
llhat Xdliulltlrllmlt, r (' llun. )il t eisS. ai; Ill ) Dr. Zan il' in-
terrogitel inl luretleind .rIOls nIrc .l lplo } s xili loss f
their job, l the\ did not bailndon their support for D)istrict
1199. 111Can l li pOilliCLd other enlploxeCs benefits if such
empniploscs .IhndonCd their support or )istrict 11 99
Counsel Ior Respondent l isure- linie established th;lt the
onIs chliice in the ernploecs' status after the subconitract
took etlect a'its that the emplos es ere paid hs Ileisure-
Time. I all otlher respects. the emplosees reported to the
same su per sors. PhIhs Howard or Mr. :rank. hoth ol'
whonm rCli:niiCed oni the pa roll of Respondent Haxen Man-
or. and their sal;lries. pai period. pa; dateiL. ail health plan
rem;ined the same as heftre the suhcoltract took effect. It
is particulal!, noted that the record shows that neither Re-
spondent I l;xven Manor nor Respondentt I.eisure-lime
elected to put on a defense hb was of lirect evideice alid
that Respondent ha;len Manor reflrred to Respondent Lei-
sure-Time as a coemploser or joint emploser with Respon-
dent la cin Mlanor. to lhich Respondenlt I.eisure-TilleC did
not respondi
Based upoll the oregoing credited c idence I conclude
and findl Ih.l Respondent laven Manor and Respondent
l.eiscure- I 1tn were engaged i ain tegrated emnploer ar-
rangement during which the Jointl \iolaed Sections
8(a)( 1 ),(2), and (3) of the Act.
47
I)I(4lISIONS O)1 NAIIONAI I.ABOR RELI.AIIONS BOARI
Order ruling on ('harging Party Israel lbah's motion to
withdraw charges brought against Respondent Haven
Manor
Charging Party Israel Elbaz moved that the charges tiled
against Respondent Haven Manor. based upon a non-
Board settlement of $3.500. he withdrawn. There were no
objections to the motion, and. it appearing i'rom the record
that the purposes of the Act have heen satisfied. said mo-
tion is hereby granted.
Order ruling on motion to approve the settlement
agreements executed by Respondent Haven
Manor and District 1199
Upon consideration of' motions hy District 1199 and
counsel for the General ('ounsel to approve the settlement
agreements executed bh Respondent I;Haven Manor and
District 1199, 1 find that said agreements provide a ull aMnd
fair remedy for all violations of Section 8(;1)( ) and (3) of
the Act and that such agreements satisty the purposes alnd
spirit of the Act and are herebh approved.
I\. M11-1 I:- I 1 I111 lNl AIR I AtU)R PRV( Il IS I'ION
( ONItMi I
The activities of Respondent set forth above. occurring in
connection with its operations, have a close, intimiate. and
substantial relationship to trade. traflic. and colnmmerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the ree low ot
co merce.
V. III1 RIMI-I)Y
Having found that the Respondent I.eisure-l'ilme. as aLn
integrated employer with Respondent Ilaven Manor has
engaged in certain unfa;ir labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) (2), and (I ) of the Act, it will be recomlmended
that Respondent cease and desist therefrom aild take cer-
tain affirmative action designed and found necessar' to e-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent l.eisure-lTime as an inte-
grated employer with Respondent ilaven Manor. coer-
cively interrogated employees about their union interest
and activities on behalf of I)istrict 1199: that it threatened
employees with discharge if they supported l)istrict 11 99
and told them they did not need a union and could not join
a union: and that Respondent l.eisure-lime was part of all
agreement with Respondent Haven Manor to undermine
the organizing efforts of I)istrict 1i99 anld promote Ille union
eJlrt.s ,/ I.ocal 1115 by engaging in the aforedescribed con-
duct and by discriminating against said employees by re-
ducing their working hours. changing their job assignments.
issuing them warning slips, and issuing work evaluation and
warning slips in an efliort to orce said employees support-
ing ocal 1115 to voluntarily terminate their employment
with Respondent Haaven Manor. in violation of Sections
(a)( l). (2). and (3) of the Act. I'he recommended Order
will provide that Respondent Leisure-lime. as a jint em-
ployer or an integrated employer with Respondent aven
Manor. cease and desist from engaging in such conduct and
make the emplo sees whole for any loss of' earnings within
the meaning and in accord with the Board's decisions in
I' 1 '. Wl'oo/lworlh (o,,p//v'. 90 N LRB 289 (1950) and /,,or-
iuln Sleel (orporri,on. 231 NLRB 651(1977). except as spe-
cificalls modified bh the wording of such recommended Or-
der
('N It I I SIONS ( I. AV,.
I. Respondent l.eisure-Tim.e an integrated employer
witli Respondent Haven Manor herein. is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of' Section 2(61 and
(7) of the Act
2. District 1 199, National Jnion of I1ospital and Icalth
('are El mplosees. RWDSLJ. A (10(). and l.ocal 1115.
Joint Board. Nursing lome and 1 lospitl lmployees I)ii-
sions herein cailled l.ocal IllS. are. and have been at all
times mnaterial herein. labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of' the Act.
3. B coercivel, interrogating its employees about their
union interest and activities on behalf of' listrict 1 199. Re-
spondent eisure- lime iolated Section Xla I) of' the Act.
4. B entering into sbhstantial arrangement with Re-
spondelnt Ilaveln Manor with the pri mary objective of de-
stroying )istrict 1199 's majorits status and with the further
object of terminating various I)istrict 1199 supporters by
discharging them or causing them to voluntarily resign. Re-
spondent I laven M;anor and Respondent l.eisure-'l'ime vio-
lated Section 8X;I)) ). (21, m;lld (3) of' ite Act.
5. By telling enplohvees they did not need a union and
could not join hl I ion (I)istricl 1i 99), Respondent l.ei-
sure-' inle iolited Sectioin 8(a ( I of the Act.
6. BI ililng Respondent Ilasen Manor ill a meeting
during vihich Resplondenlt l;tven Manor and Respondent
I.eisure-'itle interrogated a nd threatened various enm-
ployee supporters of' )istrict 1199, as well as promised
some employees benefits i they abandoned their support
for )istrict 1199. Respondent I isure-Tiime and Respon-
dent lia,en Manor violate d Section 8(a )( ) of' the Act.
7. These unfiir labor practices were so independent. sub-
stantial. and pervasive that the 5 are disruptive of' the elec-
tion processes precluding a air election and wa;rranting an
order to barg;ain.
8. The aoresaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IRecommended Order omitted from publicationil
See. generall). I Plumbnmr & aml yi .11 NI.RR 716 (1962).
48