Holy Cross Health d/b/a Holy Cross Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 21, 2017

05-CA-182154 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 21, 2017)

JD–58–17
Silver Spring, MD
STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
HOLY CROSS HEALTH D/B/A HOLY CROSS
HOSPITAL
and Cases 05–CA–182154
05–CA–187452
NATIONAL NURSES ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE/NATIONAL NURSES UNITED
(NNOC/NNU), AFL–CIO
Brendan Keough, Esq., for the General Counsel
Stephen M. Silvestri and Chelsea Leyh, Esqs.
(Jackson & Lewis P.C.), Baltimore, MD,
for the Respondent.
Jonathan Harris, Esq. (California Nurses Association/
National Nurses United (CNA/NNU),
Oakland, CA, for the Charging Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Baltimore,
Maryland on May 18–19 and 23, 2017. The controversy involves an assortment of alleged unfair
labor practices by Holy Cross Health d/b/a Holy Cross Hospital (the Hospital or the Respondent)
during a union organizing campaign. Based on timely filed charges by the National Nurses
Organizing Committee/National Nurses United (NNOC/NNU), AFL–CIO (the Union or
Charging Party), the complaint alleges that the Hospital unlawfully interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights to engage in pro-union activity.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act)1 by: (1) on June 8, 20162 and October 7, promulgating a
facially-unlawful “Solicitation and Distribution” policy; (2) on July 20, unlawfully threatening
employees with more onerous working conditions and loss of benefits if they selected the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative, and asking employees to disclose to the Hospital
their feelings about the Union; (3) on August 6, coercively interfering with employees engaged
in protected concerted activities by sending security officers to prohibit employees from

1 29 USC §§ 151–169.
2 All dates are in 2016 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–58–17
2
communicating about the Union; (4) on August 6, coercively interfering with employees
engaged in Union and/or protected concerted activity by writing down the names of employees
engaging in such activity and threatening to alert the Hospital’s nursing coordinator; (5) on
August 6, coercively interfering with employees engaged in union and/or protected concerted
activity by confronting a group of nurses and interrogating them by asking “what are they 5
offering?”; (6) on September 16, surveilling employees engaged in Union and/or protected
concerted activity by taking pictures of organizing employees and disseminating the pictures to
the Hospital’s supervisors; (7) on September 21, threatening employees with loss of benefits if
they selected the Charging Party as their collective-bargaining representative; and (8) on October
19, interrogating employees about union sympathies and instructing employees that they were 10
prohibited from discussing the Union in the Hospital. The Hospital denies the allegations.
On the entire record,3 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging Party and Respondent, I make
the following15
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
20
The Hospital, a corporation, is engaged in the operation of a hospital providing inpatient
and outpatient medical care at its facility in Silver Spring, Maryland, where it annually derives
gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and purchases and receives products, goods, and materials
valued in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State of Maryland. The Hospital
admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 25
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and a health institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the
Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
30
A. The Hospital’s Operations
Hospital staff, which includes approximately 1300 nurses, sees approximately 7000
patients per month and annually welcomes over 9000 babies into the world. The Hospital
facility consists of one building with two separate towers: the fairly new “South tower” and the 35
older “Hospital tower.” The Hospital’s operational floors are connected by elevators and
stairwells, which, on each floor, open into a general public hallway. From the hallway,
employees and visitors enter hospital units staffed by administrative personnel—such as the
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) on the third floor, which is a locked unit and requires that
visitors be buzzed in—or sit in an open lounge. Public access areas include these open patient 40
lounges, along with hallways, elevators, the parking lot, the Hospital cafeteria, and the landing
outside of the cafeteria, which provides a through-point for many other rooms in the Hospital.

3 The General Counsel’s Motion to Strike Portions of Respondent’s Brief to the Administrative Law
Judge, served July 13, 2017, essentially amounts to a post hearing reply brief, which is not permitted
under Board rules. To the extent that the motion includes a request for reconsideration of certain
evidentiary rulings, that application is denied.
JD–58–17
3
Restricted areas include the Hospital units themselves, many of which require a Hospital-issued
badge to enter. The different units include soiled utility rooms, doctors’ charting rooms, staff
lounges, the open nursing station, lab rooms, patient rooms, storage areas, supply areas,
administrative offices, and isolation rooms. Once a non-Hospital employee (such as a patient or a
visitor) is admitted onto a unit, the in-unit hallways connecting patient rooms and areas 5
surrounding the nursing stations are also thought of as general public-access areas. These
hallways are frequented by everyone in the hospital.4
The pertinent Hospital managers, supervisors and statutory agents include: Judith Rogers
– president, interim; Sylvia Guarino – chief nursing officer; Cynthia Hawley – director, Neonatal 10
Intensive Care Unit;5 Mariamma Ninan – director of nursing, Acute Care and Surgery Unit; Jolly
Joseph, Michele Jones, Dwight Lyles, Irene Pasas, Monique LaSingh, and Damarius Collins –
nurses in charge (NIC). Daniel Webster is a hospital security supervisor, and Lawrence Hawkins
and “Vernado” are special police officers.6
15
The NICU is on the 3d floor of the “Hospital tower,” and is staffed by approximately 140
nurses. Access to the NICU is regulated electronically and limited to that department’s staff.
NICU staff includes Suzanne Mintz, a clinical nurse, and Jeaneen (Nina) Scott, and Susanna
Reed-McCullough, registered nurses (RNs). Their supervisor is Nancy Wood, interim director of
the Neonatal Unit. Wood was preceded in that capacity by Hawley. Hawley/Wood’s supervisor 20
is Nancy Nagle, director of women and children’s services.
The Acute Care department is on the fifth floor of the Hospital, and is broken up into two
departments: 5 South and 5 East. Aieun Grace Yu and Vera Ngezem are both acute care RNs
stationed on the 5th floor. Maryann Wysong is an RN in the Mother/Baby department. 25
B. The Hospital’s Rules
The Hospital issued an updated version of its employee rules book on June 8. The update
contained a “Solicitation and Distribution” policy, which provided the following definitions:
30
(a) Solicitation - “…[P]romoting, encouraging, or discouraging participating,
support or membership in any organization; or promoting of a doctrine or
belief.”
(b) Distribution of literature - “Distribution, delivery, or posting of any written, 35
printed, or electronic matter for the purpose of, or as an aid to, solicitation.”

4 These findings are based on the credible and unrefuted testimony of Suzanne Mintz and Maryann
Wysong. (Tr. 46–49, 82, 331–332.)
5 Hawley was on an unspecified form of extended leave during the hearing.
6 The Hospital admits that the aforementioned medical staff are supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act. With respect to the security officers, the Hospital stipulated that they were
agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act, but reserved the right to introduce evidence that
they acted outside the scope of their authority. It did not do so.
JD–58–17
4
(c) Immediate patient care area - “…[P]atient units; patient lounges and waiting
areas…nursing stations; corridors; sitting rooms…elevators and stairways
used by or to transport patients.”
(d) Working time – “…[A]all time during which a colleague is responsible for 5
performing tasks, duties, or functions for which s/he is employed.”7
The new “Solicitation and Distribution” policy also promulgated the following rules:
(a) Holy Cross Health does not allow colleagues to solicit colleagues, patients, or 10
visitors at any time in immediate patient care areas or during working time
(including the working time of either the colleague soliciting or being
solicited).
(b) Colleagues may not distribute literature during their working time or to any 15
colleagues who are on working time.
(c) Colleagues may not distribute literature at any time in working areas or
immediate patient care areas.
20
(d) The health system also prohibits solicitation through the use of the health
system’s electronic communication systems to colleagues or non-employees.8
(e) The health system does not permit non-employees to solicit or distribute
literature anywhere on Holy Cross Health’s properties for any reason.925
On October 7, the Hospital issued another policy update in a memorandum titled
“Solicitation in Nursing Units.” The Hospital reiterated its definition of “immediate patient care
areas,” which includes “areas on unit that are adjacent to patient rooms (where patients can hear
our conversations), patient lounges, waiting areas where patients are usually present . . . nursing 30
stations, hallways/corridors on the units[, and] elevators and stairways used by or to transport
patients.”
The October memorandum also promulgated the following rules:
35
(a) Nurses opposed or in support of the union may leave literature for pick up as
long as it is a non-work or patient care area where Holy Cross allows
solicitations and/or distributing personal materials.

7 GC. Exh. 2; Jt. Exh. 1.
8 Notwithstanding this policy provision, in an email dated March 17, 2017, Guarino communicated to
nursing staff that: “Holy Cross has done what most employers don’t do, and made it’s [sic] email system
and distribution list available to all nurses so they can exchange ideas and thoughts, whether they or [sic]
for the union or not.” (Emphasis in original.) (R. Exh. 1.) There is no indication in the record, however,
that the Hospital ever rescinded its June or October “Solicitation and Distribution” policies.
9 GC. Exh. 2.
JD–58–17
5
(b) Solicitation or discussion while either nurse is on work time (not off duty and
not on break) or with a nurse who is performing her duties – charting,
speaking with other caregivers, family – in the patient’s room, or speaking to
physicians is not permitted on the unit.
5
(c) Solicitation or discussion in a patient room or elsewhere on the unit where
patients are or can be present – such as corridors where patients wait or
treatment rooms – is not permitted on the unit.10
It is common practice for the Hospital’s nurses to discuss various non-work related 10
topics, including politics and religion, at nursing stations in the presence of their NICs. Nurses
and other employees, including Hospital managers and supervisors, regularly use working areas
for solicitations. For example, it is common to see items such as donation requests to the Girl
Scouts and to the Hospital’s Holy Cross Foundation at nursing stations. The Hospital has never
disciplined employees for engaging in non-work discussions at nursing stations. This is not 15
surprising, since the Hospital itself distributed antiunion solicitations, termed “fact sheets,” at the
NICU nursing station during the organizing period.11
As of late June 2016, nurses were also permitted to discuss the pros and cons of union
affiliation in all Hospital areas, including stairwells and lobby areas. Nurses were also permitted 20
to communicate with each other via Hospital email and had personal use of the email system
without consequence. From as early as September 2016 to as late as May 2017, employees and
management regularly used the hospital email to advocate both for and against the Union.12 In
September 2016, however, department supervisors began to enforce other aspects of the
Hospital’s new solicitation and distribution policy. In the Mother-Baby Department, for example, 25
NIC Michelle Jones informed 15–20 nurses at the nursing station in late September of the
solicitation/distribution policy, specifically noting that nurses were not allowed to talk about the
Union in any patient care area, the nursing station, the hallways, or anywhere else in the building
– only in the parking lot or elsewhere outside of the hospital. In one instance, Jones followed up
on that edict by approaching Wysong during a lull in the latter’s shift. Wysong had just sent out a 30
hospital-wide email showing her support for the Union. Jones told Wysong that the Hospital had
always taken care of her and a union was unnecessary.13
Most recently, Mintz went to the Operating Room (OR) lounge on March 21, 2017 to
solicit support for the Union and hand out box lunches to the nurses there during break time. 35
There is no hospital policy against bringing food into break rooms. A few minutes after Mintz
entered, the OR’s nursing director, Allison Sheedy, entered the lounge and said she was calling
security. Sheedy said Mintz was “not supposed to be in there” and “should be ashamed” of
herself. Mintz left the lounge and went directly to the Human Resources Department to file a
complaint against Sheedy for inappropriate conduct.1440

10 GC. Exh. 3.
11 This finding is based on the credible and undisputed testimony of Mintz, Reed-McCullough, and
Scott. (Tr. 85, 127, 291–296.)
12 R. Exh. 1.
13 This finding is based on the credible and undisputed testimony of Scott and Wysong. (Tr. 88, 103–
104, 330–338.)
14 A charge was not filed over this incident. However, Mintz’ credible and undisputed testimony
JD–58–17
6
C. The Union Campaign
Concerned about short staffing and its impact on patient safety, some employees began
soliciting support from coworkers to organize into a union in January or February. Nurses began
attending information sessions at the Union’s offices. Union supporters, including Scott, had5
conversations with other nurses at nursing stations. She was one of many nurses whose picture
appeared in some of the prounion flyers. Scott distributed union flyers in the Hospital, including
the nurses’ lounges, but not in the units. There are still Union flyers in the NICU today.15
Several nurses have been particularly active and open in their solicitation of support for 10
the Union. Mintz and Scott have been especially active in soliciting union support since
February, including talking to other nurses in other units, distributing flyers, attending meetings
at National Nurses United, and convening information sessions for coworkers. 16
On August 6, several nurses posed for a group photograph on the hospital lawn next to a 15
statue of Saint Joseph. Nurses in the group included Mintz, Scott, Vera Ngezem, and Jessie
Norris. As they posed for the photograph, the nurses held up a large letter of demands entitled:
“WHAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE BEST PATIENT CARE.” The
nurses’ letter also identified Saint Joseph, the statue behind them, as “the Patron Saint of
Workers.” The group published this picture in a prounion flyer and disseminated it over email 20
later that day. After the photographs were taken, the nurses went to meet with Dr. Norvell Coots,
the Hospital’s president and chief executive officer, to present him their list of demands.17
Upon arriving at Dr. Coots’ office, Mathew Lukeziak, the Hospital’s vice president for
Human Resources, said it was inappropriate for the group to just “show up” and demand a 25
meeting. Nevertheless, the nurses left a letter for Dr. Coots, with a copy for Guarino, demanding
that the Hospital stop harassing union supporters and agree to Union representation.18 Since that
date, union supporters have continued distributing prounion flyers in common areas and nurses
lounges, as well as using Hospital email to advocate for and against union representation.
30
D. The Hospital’s Response
The Hospital became aware of the Union’s organizing campaign in late June.19 Beginning
in July, Guarino began presenting the Hospital’s position relating to union affiliation in fact
sheets distributed in staff lounges and nursing stations and by email and fax.20 On July 28, 35

establishes that the Hospital continues to enforce its solicitation and distribution policy. (Tr. 317–319.)
15 R. Exh. 31.
16 Scott could not recall the exact dates of events but was otherwise very credible and detailed.
17 GC. Exh. 8.
18 Wysong and Scott testified that they have never been prohibited from speaking about the Union by
Hospital managers, supervisors, or security officers. (Tr. 297–299, 305, 344.)
19 Jt. Exh. 1.
20 Mintz described the fact sheets as “hospital-issued flyers that are distributed in the staff lounge and
nurses’ stations that address union-related issues and talk primarily about the negative aspects of
unionizing.” The fact sheets first appeared in mid-July and circulated for a limited period of time.
JD–58–17
7
Hospital managers, including interim president Rogers, Guarino, Cynthia Hawley, and Nancy
Nagel, convened an optional meeting with NICU staff to respond to nurses’ concerns about
patient satisfaction, prospective changes, staffing/floating, and other unit issues. About 12–15
nurses were present, including Mintz and Scott. In the course of the meeting, Rogers addressed
the Union’s organizing campaign. She implored the nurses to work with management to address 5
issues of concern and asserted that a union was not necessary in order for nurses to communicate
with management. Mintz left the meeting early, but Scott remained until its conclusion and even
interrupted Rogers to charge that it was unfair for Rogers to use the meeting venue to discuss the
merits of union representation.21
10
At least one Hospital administrator gave regular antiunion speeches during the organizing
period. Mariamma Ninan, a nursing director who managed two hospital units and four NICs,
conveyed the Hospital’s position to nurses during numerous “huddles.” The huddles were
designed to be daily meetings at the nursing station between the nurses from previous shifts and
new nurses coming in to the next shifts. Nurses, nursing assistants, HUCs, and NICs were all 15
present at huddles, which consisted of approximately 10–14 people. Prior to the campaign,
huddles usually lasted about 5 minutes. After the union campaigning started, Ninan typically
spent 20–30 minutes during huddles talking about the Union and passed out fact sheets.22
Dr. Yancy Phillips, the Hospital’s chief quality officer, also promoted the Hospital’s20
antiunion position by speaking with potential bargaining unit members in patient care areas. On
August 7, Dr. Phillips visited the NICU. The charge nurse, Gaston, informed nurses on duty that
Dr. Phillips was on the unit and available to speak with anyone interested in discussing the
Union. Visitors and patients were visible and around at this time. Scott went to see Dr. Phillips,
who was by the nursing station speaking with another nurse, Charlie Storck. Scott interrupted the 25
two and asked Storck if she was on a break, because the nurses had been told that they could not
discuss the Union during work time or while caring for patients. Dr. Phillips stopped talking to
Storck, but then asked Scott if she had any questions for him. Scott informed Dr. Phillips that she
was working, not on a break, and that they were in a patient-care area. Dr. Phillips left his
business card on the table and told the nurses that his number was there if they needed it. Scott 30
responded that she would only meet with Dr. Phillips in the lounge during break time. Scott did,
in fact, meet with Dr. Phillips in the lounge during break time later that day and asked him a
question about the solicitation policy.23
The Hospital also retained a labor relations consulting firm, Yessin & Associates, LLC 35
(Yessin) to speak with nurses at nursing stations and public areas, and present them with
informational antiunion videos. In some instances, Yessin consultants played the videos on
laptop computers for nurses while patients and visitors were in the vicinity. In other instances,

Guarino also distributed the fact sheets by email. (Tr. 86.) Scott testified that the fact sheets were
distributed through emails, posted in break rooms, and stacked in the NICU at the charge nurse desks,
which were visible to the public from the hallway. (Tr. 291–292.)
21 This finding is based on the undisputed testimony of Scott and Mintz. (Tr. 54–56, 258, 261.)
22 Ngezem credibly testified that Ninan spoke about the Union many times during huddles and told
the nurses that senior union nurses could take the jobs of less senior union nurses. (Tr. 171, 205, 208.)
23 Scott’s testimony regarding her conversations with Dr. Phillips is undisputed. (Tr. 271–73, 278.)
JD–58–17
8
the consultants met employees during Hospital meetings such as ACT training, a required
session relating to employee rights. Yessin consultants have continued approaching nurses on a
regular basis in nursing and public areas until as recently as the week before the hearing.24
1. July 20, 20165
On July 20, supervisor Cynthia Hawley asked to meet with Susanna Reed-McCullough.
Before walking into Hawley’s office around the end of her shift, Reed-McCullough sent text
updates to union representatives and to coworkers notifying them that her supervisor had asked
to speak with her. During the meeting, Hawley mentioned that the Hospital administration knew10
that some nurses were in contact with union representatives. Hawley said that she wanted Reed-
McCullough to be informed before she made a decision about the Union, and that some nurses
had been called at home and harassed. Hawley also said that if anything like that were to happen
to Reed-McCullough, she should let Hawley know.
15
Hawley added that, in her personal experience and in her daughters’ experience from
working in unionized hospitals, there was no “huge difference” between union-affiliated
hospitals and non-affiliated hospitals when it came to staffing and nurse satisfaction. However,
according to Hawley, the presence of a union might limit employee access to management by
requiring that union representatives be present for such meetings. There might also be changes to 20
the Hospital’s generous leave and flexible-schedule customs and practices. Specifically, Hawley
compared the current NICU policy—which allowed nurses who were hired as shift rotators to
work straight nights or straight days after only 8 years—with the general hospital policy, which
required 15 years of work before a nurse could switch to straight shifts. Hawley said that,
because unions like things to be equal “across the board,” the policy could shift to 15 years for 25
the NICU too. Hawley then handed Reed-McCullough a fact sheet.25 At no time did Hawley
explain that any possible changes to working conditions would be the result of a collective-
bargaining process between Hospital and union representatives, or even mention the collective-
bargaining process at all.26 The fact sheet that Hawley handed to Reed-McCullough also did not
mention the collective-bargaining process. After the meeting, Reed-McCullough passed along 30
Hawley’s comments to coworkers.27
Reed-McCullough was not the only nurse to meet with Hawley about the Union. On July
22, Scott—on her own initiative—went to Hawley’s NICU office and told Hawley that she
supported the Union. Scott prefaced her comments by stating that she was not going to argue, but 35
that she wanted to let Hawley know that she would be very active in organizing the Union. Scott
added that she had concerns about patient safety and that her choice to organize was not
personal. Hawley said it felt personal.28

24 A charge was not filed in connection with any of the statements by any of these labor consultants.
(Tr. 90, 173, 180–181, 339–340.)
25 GC. Exh. 7.
26 Contrary to Respondent’s contention in its brief, Reed-McCullough’s testimony made no mention
of Hawley bringing up negotiations during their conversation. (R. Br. at 9.)
27 Reed-McCullough was not intimidated by Hawley’s remarks. However, she credibly testified that
the flexibility and day work shifts afforded her by Hawley’s NICU schedules were extremely important to
her for childcare reasons. (Tr. 120–123, 129.)
28 Scott’s credible testimony is undisputed. (Tr. 258.)
JD–58–17
9
2. August 6, 2016
Prior to August 6, Mintz and Scott regularly approached and solicited nurses in other
units. On August 6, they went to the Hospital in order to solicit support for the Union. They 5
were off-duty and in plainclothes, but were both wearing Hospital badges (though Mintz’ badge
did not state her last name). Mintz and Scott started on the sixth floor oncology unit around 3
p.m. and asked the hospital unit coordinator (HUC) to speak with Ester, another nurse. Ester
came out and met with Mintz and Scott. They asked if Ester could help them organize. Ester
agreed, but explained that she was busy and would catch up with them later. 10
Around 3:15 pm, Mintz and Scott left the sixth floor and took the stairs down to the 5
South Acute Care Unit on the 5th floor. There, they told the 5 South HUC that they wanted to
speak with Aieun Grace Yu, another RN. The HUC told them that Yu was in the medicine room
and offered to escort them there. Mintz and Scott, however, declined the offer and said they 15
would wait for Yu in the visitor waiting area, which was in the hallway outside the 5 South Unit,
across from the elevator landing.
Inside the unit, Dwight Lyles, the unit’s NIC, then came out to the HUC area. From the
unit, Lyles observed Mintz and Scott waiting for Yu in the visitor bay. Yu had not yet finished 20
with her work. Lyles did not recognize Mintz, but recognized Scott as a nurse who had
previously received a Hospital achievement award. After a conversation with the HUC, Lyles
determined that Mintz and Scott were engaged in union activity. Lyles then called administrative
coordinator Carrie Weakland and relayed this information. Weakland instructed Lyles to call
security. Lyles did so, and told the security dispatcher that he was concerned that Mintz and 25
Scott were attempting to speak with a staffer on his floor, which he deemed unusual.
After Lyles spoke with the dispatcher, Yu approached Lyles’ desk. Lyles told Yu that
there were two people waiting to speak with her. At 3:23 p.m., Yu left the nursing unit to meet
with Mintz and Scott in the waiting room across the hall. The three nurses spoke for about 230
minutes. During this time, Mintz and Scott asked if Yu would be willing to solicit nurses on her
unit. Yu identified a potential supporter in her unit named Nene and said she would check and
hopefully send Nene out to meet with them. At 3:25 p.m., Yu returned to her unit.
Upon Yu’s re-entering the 5 South unit, Lyles confronted Yu about her conversation with 35
Mintz and Scott. Specifically, Lyles asked Yu how Mintz and Scott had known her name. Lyles
also informed Yu that he called security. This news surprised Yu, who responded by asking why
Lyles had called security. Lyles replied that union advocates were not permitted to solicit
employees during work time, and then asked Yu if she had spoken to her boss about the Union.
After confirming that she had, indeed, spoken to her boss about the Union, Yu returned to work. 40
Meanwhile, at 3:34 p.m., Ester came down to the fifth floor and met with Mintz and Scott
in the visitor waiting area. During their approximately 6-minute conversation, Ester updated
Mintz and Scott on her recruitment efforts. Mintz and Scott expressed their appreciation for
Ester’s help, and said that they would be around the Hospital if Ester got card signers or needed 45
assistance speaking with other nurses.
JD–58–17
10
At 3:40 p.m., as Ester turned to leave, security supervisor Daniel Webster and security
officer Varnado stepped out of the fifth floor elevator. A third security officer, Lawrence
Hawkins, stepped off the elevator 1 minute later and joined them. The security officers went
directly to the 5 South Acute Care Unit and asked Lyles why they had been called. Lyles told the
officers that there were two off-duty nurses sitting in the waiting area attempting to recruit his 5
unit’s nurses to the Union.
At 3:41 p.m., the three security officers approached Mintz and Scott, who were still
seated in the waiting room. As the three officers formed a loose semicircle around the nurses,
Webster explained that the officers were responding to a complaint about a disturbance on the 10
unit, and asked what Mintz and Scott were doing. The nurses replied that they were waiting for a
friend, and referred the security officers back to the HUC on the unit. Webster then asked to see
Mintz and Scott’s identification, and the nurses complied. None of the security officers wrote
anything down, but Webster told the nurses that he needed to file an incident report. At 3:42
p.m., the security officers walked away. 15
After obtaining Mintz and Scott’s names, Webster returned to the unit, spoke with Lyles,
and then asked to speak with Yu. Yu, who had returned to work but then saw Lyles and Webster
speaking, approached them. Upon seeing her, Lyles stated to Webster, “this is Grace.” Webster
wrote her name, told Lyles and Yu that he was going to report this matter to the nursing 20
coordinator, and left. Webster then went to the NICU to confirm that Mintz and Scott had, in
fact, been off-duty that day. Webster prepared an incident report, which included the factual
description “Off-duty Employees suspected of trying to recruit working nurses to Union,” and
referred to an attached report. The report stated that Lyles called security because Mintz and
Scott had been on his unit to solicit on-duty nurses for the Union. Follow-up communications 25
with Weakland, the administrative coordinator, further indicated that the security officers were
previously aware of the card solicitation activity on the part of Scott and Mintz.29
Back in the unit and after Webster left, Lyles tried to hand Yu an antiunion fact sheet, but
Yu would not take it. Yu then texted Mintz and asked if she could call. Around 3:50 p.m., Yu 30
called Mintz and said that a security supervisor approached her and said he would report her to
the nursing coordinator. Yu also mentioned that her NIC had prohibited her from leaving the
unit, and that the nurse whom Yu intended to send out to them was now too scared to leave.
Mintz apologized and hung up.30
35
At 3:53 p.m., after Mintz’ phone conversation with Yu, Mintz and Scott took the elevator
from the fifth floor to the Hospital lobby and sat near the public café to plan their next step. As
they sat there, Ester called Scott’s cellular telephone to say that she had obtained a signed union
authorization card. The nurses gave Ester their location and said that they would wait for her to
bring the card. After Ester brought them the authorization card and left the lobby, Mintz and 40
Scott decided that their next recruitment stop would be the Emergency Department. However, at

29 GC. Exh. 18–19.
30 Lyles, Webster, and Hawkins all confirmed during hearing that they were not reacting to a
disturbance, but rather, union activity based on the Hospital’s position opposing it in working areas. They
also conceded that the visitor sitting area was not a hospital work area. (Tr. 406, 477–478, 480, 496–497,
501–505.) Moreover, Webster conceded that it was “unusual” to be called to report on employees for
union behavior. (Tr. 493.)
JD–58–17
11
this point, the nurses noticed that two of the security officers from the earlier fifth floor incident
suddenly reappeared and were standing nearby, looking at them. Rather than proceed on to the
Emergency Department as planned, Scott and Mintz left the building.31
Officer Hawkins was not part of the initial response to Lyles’ call, but merely happened 5
to walk past the elevator lobby commotion while patrolling the acute care unit. Later that
afternoon, while making his rounds, Officer Hawkins overheard a group of three or four nurses
discussing their interest in seeing what the Union “had to offer.” Hawkins inserted himself into
the conversation and asked, “what are they offering?” At that point, the nurses dispersed.32
10
3. September 16, 2016
On the morning of September 16, a group of uniformed nurses congregated in front of the
St. Joseph’s statue on the Hospital’s lawn and were photographed by a professional
photographer. As they posed for the photograph, the nurses held up a large letter of demands 15
entitled: “WHAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE BEST PATIENT CARE.”33
The nurses intended to print the photograph and disseminate it within a separate, prounion
flyer.34 The subject of the photograph—the large letter of demands—was to be delivered to Dr.
Coots, CEO of Holy Cross, later that morning.
20
After the picture had been taken but while the union nurses were still congregating,
Ngezem, an RN on the fifth floor East Care Unit, spotted about ten other nurses watching and
photographing her group from inside the hospital. At the time, Ngezem could not identify any of
the nurses taking the photographs. However, she saw at least ten people in the window, at least 5
of whom were pointing cellular telephones in her direction, with the cameras flashing. Ngezem25
informed the other nurses in her group that they were being photographed. Ngezem’s group then
turned toward the nurses in the windows and waved. Ngezem and the other prounion nurses then
entered the Hospital to deliver their large letter, with its list of demands, to Dr. Coots.35
Jolly Joseph, a NIC in the Acute Care Unit, was one of the nurses taking pictures of 30
Ngezem’s group. Joseph had been attending a training meeting in the first floor conference room
of the Hospital, along with about 20 other NICs. From the conference room, which was about 25
feet away from the St. Joseph’s statue, the NICs saw the group of nurses taking pictures below.
Some of the NICs, including Joseph, then began photographing the group from the window.
Several other NICs expressed interest in Joseph’s photos of the union nurses and excitedly 35

31 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Mintz, Scott, Yu, Lyles, and Webster, as well
as a time-stamped security video of the fifth floor elevator lobby. (Tr. 62–70, 100, 134–136, 264–266,
271, 452–454, 457, 477–480; R. Exh. 32.)
32 Hawkins attempted to depict a jovial encounter. However, his incident report portrayed a much
more serious tone to the interaction: “[w]hile Officer Hawkins was walking around the Unit, he witnessed
three to four nurses huddled together and overheard them say ‘I want to see what they are offering.’ He
then approached the Nurses and asked them ‘What are they offering’. [sic] After confronting them the
Nurses ignored him and dispersed. Officer Hawkins then stated right after speaking to the Nurses he saw
two NICU nurses leave when they saw him.” (Tr. 489, 501; GC. Exh. 18.)
33 GC. Exh. 8.
34 The flyer was published and disseminated throughout the Hospital through email later that day.
35 This finding is based on Ngezem’s credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 154–158.)
JD–58–17
12
grabbed her phone. Joseph testified that she was aware at this time that a union campaign was
ongoing, and she texted several of her pictures to her director, Mariamma Ninan.36
4. September 21, 2016
5
In addition to displaying her support for the Union through the group photograph used in
the union flyer, Ngezem also solicited union authorization cards and distributed prounion flyers
in Hospital break rooms.37 Although counseled by her NIC, Barbara Kline, on several occasions
for performance deficiencies,38 Ngezem has had a good working relationship with Ninan. In fact,
Ninan previously provided Ngezem with employment verification letters in connection with a 10
mortgage application and approved Ngezem’s flexibility, work, and vacation schedules.39
On the morning of September 21, Ninan called Ngezem into her office to convey her
position about the Union. Ninan proceeded to warn Ngezem that if the Union came in, a lot of
things would change. For instance, Ninan said she would not be able to provide any more15
employment verification letters and may reduce the flexibility previously afforded to Ngezem
with respect to vacations and schedules, which could impact Ngezem’s continuing education.
Ninan then shared stories of unionized nurses who were unable to get vacation time because of
seniority. Further, Ninan warned that if the nurses unionized, more experienced nurses could
bump less experienced nurses—such as Ngezem—from their jobs. At no time did Ninan explain 20
that any possible changes to working conditions would be the result of a collective-bargaining
process between Hospital and union representatives, or even mention the collective-bargaining
process at all. Ngezem said virtually nothing during this meeting, which lasted 15–20 minutes.40

36 Joseph was not credible when she testified that she was unaware of Ngezem’s union support.
Joseph was also not credible when she testified that she did not know why the Union nurses were posing
for a picture. Joseph took 2–3 pictures of the nurses and then texted those pictures to Ninan, along with
the captions “[l]ook at the activity in front of the saint near parking lot, send barbra” and “Gisele,
[Ngezem], Jessy [Scott] all were there.” Ninan responded, “[i]s [sic] Gisele and [Ngezem] there?” Joseph
confirmed that Gisele and Ngezem were in the picture: “4th and the 5th person.” Ninan replied, “I see, so
we were correct about Gisele!” Joseph responded, “Yep.” In later testimony, both Joseph and Ninan
confirmed that Ninan’s “so we were correct” statement was, in fact, a reference to the Union. (Tr. 365–
374, 379–380 422–425; GC. Exh. 13–17.)
37 GC Exh. 8; R. Exh. 15 at 3.
38 I do not credit Ngezem’s testimony denying that she was counseled on several occasions, including
June 2016 (failing to administer pain medicine and having a dispute with a patient) and August 2016
(putting the wrong name on a medical document and allowing a patient to take medicine from her own
inhaler). (Tr. 185–186.)
39 GC Exh. 21.
40 Ninan essentially confirmed Ngezem’s credible testimony regarding Ninan’s statements, except
with respect to the employment verification letters, which Ninan did not recall discussing. Ninan also
testified that she had approached other employees, who had personal reasons for working a particular set
schedule, to inform them that the Union may bring adverse changes: “I have been talking with employees
who had personal reasons to work only Saturdays or only works [sic] certain choice of days because they
are in school. They would say I can only work Tuesdays and Thursdays because I have classes. So we’ve
been very flexible with scheduling to accommodate school. And so – and there are employees who may
be taking, working only weekends and being off on weekdays so they can care for their elderly parents or
sick children. And knowing who those employees are, I have approached them to let them know that if we
have a contract, that may change.” (Tr. 162–164, 406–411.)
JD–58–17
13
After the meeting, Ngezem was upset because she felt that somebody (either Ninan or the
Union) lied to her. Ngezem immediately called union organizer Mansi Kathuria and informed
her about Ninan’s remarks. Kathuria assured Ngezem that what Ninan said about the Union was
not true. Kathuria explained to Ngezem that having a union would not impact communication 5
with her manager, nor change her ability to have flexible scheduling and swap shifts with other
nurses, or impede Ninan’s ability to support other nurses with personal efforts, such as obtaining
a mortgage. Kathuria requested that Ngezem summarize the meeting with Ninan in an email and
send it to Kathuria. Ngezem did so, 6 days later.41
10
5. October 19, 2016
As Mintz and Scott were leaving the Hospital cafeteria on October 19, they ran into
another nurse, Jessie Norris, and stopped to talk with her on the hospital landing. The landing is a
central, public-use area within the building. The landing is not a patient area and is used by 15
everybody in the Hospital, including staff, families, patients, and visitors.
As the nurses chatted about a number of things—including oncology, the Union,
organizing, and their children—security officer Hawkins approached, in uniform, and asked if
they were talking about the Union. The nurses asked why he wanted to know. Hawkins said that20
there was a memorandum from management stating that it was illegal to talk about the Union in
the Hospital. Scott replied that it was actually illegal for Hawkins to be asking the nurses about
the Union. The nurses asked for Hawkins’ name, which he provided. Hawkins then left the
landing and generated an incident report for his supervisor. The entire interaction lasted a few
minutes.4225
LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The Hospital’s No-Solicitation Policy is Facially Unlawful
30
The complaint alleges that the Hospital’s written solicitation and distribution policies
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully restricting employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights. The Company denies this charge.

41 An email summary of the encounter sent by Ngezem to the Union shortly thereafter was initially
rejected as impermissible evidence of a prior consistent statement. (Tr. 167–169.) However, after the
Hospital sought to impeach Ngezem’s credibility based on potential bias because she was counseled for
faulty performance on several occasions, I reconsidered my ruling and received the email over objection
pursuant to FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(i). (Tr. 247–252, 352; GC Exh. 9.)
42 I relied on the credible and consistent testimony of Scott and Mintz regarding this incident. (Tr. 82–
84, 288–290.) Hawkins testified that he merely asked whether the nurses were having a union meeting
and then thanked them and told them to have a nice day. However, Hawkins’ version was not credible
because he already knew from management’s instructions that discussion about the Union was permitted
in non-patient treatment areas. Yet Hawkins still found it necessary to ask whether the nurses were
discussing the Union. Moreover, the unexplained failure to produce Hawkins’ written report of the
incident further detracted from the weight to be given to Hawkins’ testimony. (Tr. 499–502.)
JD–58–17
14
Employers may lawfully impose restrictions on workplace communications among
employees. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 265 NLRB 129, 133 (1982); Stone & Webster
Engineering Corp., 220 NLRB 905 (1975). Thus, employers may lawfully ban work time
solicitations when defined so as not to include times before or after regular working hours, lunch
breaks, and rest periods. Sunland Construction Co., 309 NLRB 1224, 1238 (1992). However, a 5
no-solicitation rule is unlawful when it unduly restricts the organizational activities of employees
during periods and in places where these activities do not interfere with the employer’s
operations. Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB 394 (1983); Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 315 NLRB 79, 82
(1994), cited in Adtranz, ABB Daimler-Benz, 331 NLRB 291 (2000). An employer violates
Section 8(a)(1) when it maintains a work rule that reasonably tends to chill employees in the 10
exercise of their Section 7 rights. Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 647
(2004). To determine whether such rights are chilled, the Board first examines whether the
policies at issue explicitly restrict protected Section 7 activity. Id. If the challenged policy does
not explicitly prohibit protected activity, a violation may still be shown if: (1) employees would
reasonably construe the policy to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in 15
response to Section 7 activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7
activity. Id. Finally, “the absence of evidence of enforcement of a[n unlawful] rule does not
preclude the finding of a violation or the issuance of a remedial order.” J. C. Penney Co., 266
NLRB 1223, 1224–1225 (1983). It is “axiomatic” that merely maintaining an overly-broad or
ambiguous rule violates the Act. Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, 332 NLRB 347, 349 20
(2000), citing id.
For the reasons below, I find that the Respondent’s promulgation and maintenance of
several policies are facially unlawful violations of Section 8(a)(1).
25
1. Overbroad and ambiguous prohibitions and policies
Ambiguity in a rule is construed against the rule’s drafter. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 263
NLRB 375, 377 (1982); see also First Transit, Inc., 360 NLRB 619, 629 (2014). The Board has
struck down employer rules when an employee would reasonably construe them to require 30
management’s permission before engaging in protected activity, thereby allowing management
to abrogate the Section 7 right to engage in such activity. Trump Marina Associates, LLC, 354
NLRB 1027, 1029 fn. 3 (2009); Crowne Plaza Hotel, 352 NLRB 382, 386–387 (2008); In re
Saginaw Control and Engineering, Inc., 339 NLRB 541, 553 (2003), citing Brunswick Corp.,
282 NLRB 794, 798 (1987). Additionally, an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) when it permits 35
employees to discuss nonwork-related subjects during working time, but simultaneously
prohibits discussion of union-related matters. Jensen Enterprises, 339 NLRB 877, 878 (2003);
see also Frazier Industrial Co., 328 NLRB 717, 717 (1999).
(a) “Solicitations” and “Discussions”40
The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent’s June definition of “solicitation” is
overbroad, insofar as it encompasses “promoting, encouraging, or discouraging participation,
support, or membership in any organization; or promoting of a doctrine or belief.” I agree. “The
Board has consistently held that solicitation for a union usually means asking someone to join 45
the union by signing his name to an authorization card at that time.” Conagra Foods, Inc., 361
NLRB No. 113, slip op. at 3 (2014), enf. in part and set aside in part 813 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir.
JD–58–17
15
2016) (internal quotations omitted), citing W. W. Grainger, Inc., 229 NLRB 161, 166 (1977),
enfd. 582 F.2d 1118 (7th Cir. 1978). The Hospital’s broadened definition obscures the line
between “solicitation” and “discussion” of union activity, and would lead an employee to
reasonably believe that lawful discussions are also forbidden during working time. See Conagra
Foods, slip op. at 3, supra, citing Lutheran Heritage, 343 NLRB at 647 (striking down an 5
employer prohibition against union “discussions”—which the employer claimed were covered
under its “no solicitation policy”—as employees would reasonably construe this rule to prohibit
protected Section 7 activity). By promulgating an unlawful policy, the Hospital violated Section
8(a)(1).
10
Additionally, the Hospital’s October policy also prohibits “solicitation or discussion
while either nurse is on work time” and “solicitation or discussion in a patient room or elsewhere
on the unit where patients are or can be present.” This policy is facially overbroad insofar as it
explicitly prohibits discussions about union activity during work time, when it is undisputed that
the Hospital permits employees to discuss other nonunion topics while at work. Jensen 15
Enterprises, 339 NLRB at 878 (finding unlawful a policy prohibiting union discussions during
working hours, while simultaneously allowing the discussion of other nonwork-related subjects).
Here, the Hospital explicitly distinguishes union “solicitations”—which, when lawfully defined,
an employer may restrict in this manner—and related “discussions,” which an employer may
not.43 In reading this policy, an employee would reasonably be led to believe that she cannot 20
discuss the Union during work time or in patient care areas, even though she can discuss other
nonwork topics in those areas. See id.; Lutheran Heritage, 343 NLRB at 647. By promulgating
an explicitly unlawful policy, the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1).
(b) “Unauthorized Persons”25
The Hospital’s June policy notes that “[t]he health system prohibits solicitation and
distribution of literature to patients or visitors at any time by unauthorized persons.” General
Counsel alleges that, because the Hospital does not define “unauthorized person,” employees
could reasonably construe the prohibition to include off-duty employees, which would have a 30
chilling effect on lawful Section 7 activities. I agree. Section 7 encompasses the right to seek
support and sympathy from customers and the general public. Santa Fe Hotel & Casino, 331
NLRB 723, 730 (2000) ( “the fact that the off-duty employee distributions . . . were to customers
rather than to other employees appears to be a distinction without a difference and is an
irrelevant consideration”); NCR Corp., 313 NLRB 574, 576 (1993) (“the right of employees to 35
distribute union literature during nonworktime and nonwork areas is not limited only to
distribution to prospective union members. Employees have a statutorily protected right to solicit
sympathy, if not support, from the general public, customers, supervisors, or members of other
labor organizations”).
40

43 Indeed, the policy’s preamble reiterates that the Hospital intended to draw a distinction between
“solicitations” and “discussions” as it prohibits them both: “[t]his memo is our attempt to review our rules
regarding solicitation and other similar activity . . . this includes solicitation for any cause, including in
favor of or against a union and discussion about wages, hours and conditions of employment. . . . there are
limits to when and where solicitation and these discussions may occur.” (GC. Exh. 3 at 4.)
JD–58–17
16
Even further, the policy sends the explicit message that any solicitation or distribution to
non-employees would need to be pre-“authorized” by the Hospital. Absent additional
clarification, an employee would reasonably construe the policy to read that any employee—on
or off-duty—seeking to exercise their Section 7 rights to solicit and distribute to non-employees
must first seek authorization from the Hospital. The Hospital may not promulgate policies 5
implying that employees must seek permission before engaging in protected activities.44 Crowne
Plaza Hotel, 352 NLRB at 386–387 (finding unlawful a rule prohibiting employees from
“leaving [their] work area without authorization before the completion of [their] shift”); In re
Saginaw, 339 NLRB at 553 (finding unlawful a rule requiring employees to seek written
permission from management to solicit or distribute materials while on company property). By 10
promulgating an unlawful policy, the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1).
(c) “Where Holy Cross allows Solicitations”
The Hospital’s October policy notes that “[n]urses opposed or in support of the union 15
may leave literature for pick up as long as it is a non-work or patient care area where Holy Cross
allows solicitations and/or distributing personal materials.” While the Hospital may reasonably
restrict workplace communications, it may not do so at times or in places where the employees’
activities do not interfere with employer operations. Our Way, 268 NLRB at 394. A non-work
and non-patient care area is, by definition, outside of the Hospital’s operations. Thus, for 20
Respondent to attach the additional condition to its policy—“non-work or patient care area
where Holy Cross allows solicitations and/or distributing personal materials” (emphasis
added)—is to send the message that there are places outside of patient care and nonwork areas
where Holy Cross might still prohibit protected activity. This rule is facially overbroad and sends
the explicit message that an employee’s ability to engage in protected solicitations is contingent 25
upon Respondent’s “allow[ing]” it. See Trump Marina Associates, 354 at fn. 3; Crowne Plaza
Hotel, 352 NLRB at 386–387; In re Saginaw, 339 NLRB at 553. An employee reading the plain
language of the rule would reasonably understand it as such. Lutheran Heritage, 343 NLRB at
647. By promulgating an unlawful policy, the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1).
30
2. Email distribution system
“[A]n employer that gives its employees access to its email system must presumptively
permit the employees to use that email system for statutorily protected communications during
nonworking time.” Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 14 (2014); see 35
also UPMC, 362 NLRB No. 191, slip op. at 3 (2015) (extending Purple Communications’
Section 7 email protections to hospital employees).

44 Respondent argues that employees would not reasonably construe the term “unauthorized persons”
to apply to off-duty nurses, and provides examples of off-duty employees soliciting other employees on
numerous occasions. (R. Br. at 30–31.) However, the language at issue specifically constrains solicitation
activity pertaining to non-employees – “patients or visitors,” which Respondent distinguishes from
“colleagues” elsewhere in the policy. See GC. Exh. 2 at 2: “Holy Cross does not allow colleagues to
solicit colleagues, patients, or visitors at any time in immediate patient care areas or during working
time.” There is no evidence in the record about employees soliciting non-employees so the Respondent’s
examples do not apply.
JD–58–17
17
The Hospital’s policy prohibiting solicitations “through the use of the health system’s
[email]” is impermissibly vague to the extent that an employee who has rightful access to the
email system would reasonably feel restrained from posting Section 7 material via email during
non-work time. See Purple Communications, Inc., slip op. at 14, supra.
5
The Respondent, citing Ichikoh Manufacturing, Inc., correctly notes that “where an
employer has a facially unlawful rule, the employer has the burden of showing that it
communicated or applied the rule in such a way as to convey an intent clearly to permit
solicitation during breaktimes or other nonwork periods.” R. Br. at 29, citing 312 NLRB 1022
(1993). The Respondent then contends that, because many nurses and members of Hospital 10
management openly used the Respondent’s email to argue for or against the Union, without
rebuke, the Hospital conveyed its intent to permit union solicitation over email. Id. However,
Ichikoh also states that, “the fact that some employees ignored the rule and were not disciplined
fails to meet the Respondent’s burden of establishing that it conveyed to employees ‘an intent
clearly to permit solicitation.’” 312 NLRB at 1022. Here, the fact that members of management 15
also flouted the rule is similarly uncompelling. The Respondent had many opportunities to
clarify or retract its unlawful policy: for example, Respondent’s October clarification of its
Solicitation and Distribution rule provided examples of permissible and impermissible in-person
solicitation, but remained silent as to its email policy. Indeed, there is no evidence that the
Hospital ever sought a retraction of its email solicitation policy, notwithstanding Guarino’s 20
March 17 email seemingly condoning union discussion over the Hospital’s network. The
unlawful rule was still on the books at the time of trial, which itself violates the Act. J.C. Penney
Co., 266 NLRB at 1224–1225 (finding a violation where an employer did not communicate to
employees the elimination of an unlawful rule: “it is well established that the mere maintenance
of such a rule serves to inhibit employees from engaging in otherwise protected organizational 25
activity, and, therefore, the absence of evidence of enforcement of a rule does not preclude the
finding of a violation”); see also Ichikoh, 312 NLRB at 1022 (finding a violation where an
employer did not show “that it has clearly communicated to all the unit employees to whom the
presumptively invalid rule was disseminated that the rule did not mean what it said”). By
promulgating an unlawful policy, the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1). 30
3. “Immediate Patient Care Areas”
In recognition of the fact that a hospital’s primary function is patient care, and “that a
tranquil atmosphere is essential to carrying out that function,” the Board, with Supreme Court 35
approval, has given health care institutions some latitude in restricting the exercise of Section 7
rights. NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, 442 U.S. 773 (1979); Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S.
483 (1978); St. John’s Hospital & School of Nursing, 222 NLRB 1150 (1976), enfd. in part 557
F.2d 1368 (10th Cir. 1977). Thus, health care facilities may prohibit solicitation in “immediate
patient care areas,” such as patients’ rooms, operating rooms, X-ray areas, therapy areas, and 40
other places where patients receive treatment. NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, 442 U.S. at 781
(approving the standard applied by the Board in St. John’s Hospital). In such places, where
solicitation might be unsettling to patients who need quiet and peace of mind, the balance
between certain concerted activities and patient needs may be struck against employee rights.
See Beth Israel Hospital, 437 U.S. at 483. However, the Board has long held that this latitude 45
does not extend to other, non-immediate care areas to which patients and visitors have access
(such as lobbies, waiting rooms, and hallways). Solicitation bans in these areas are presumptively
JD–58–17
18
unlawful “unless the hospital can show that such a ban is necessary to avoid a disruption of
patient care.” Baptist Hospital, 442 U.S. at 780; see also Healthbridge Management, LLC., 360
NLRB 937, 938–939 (2014); Brockton Hospital, 333 NLRB 1367, 1368 (2001); Eastern Maine
Medical Center, 253 NLRB 224, 226 (1980), enfd. 658 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981).
5
The Hospital’s promulgated definition of “immediate patient care areas” is impermissibly
broad. By defining “immediate patient care areas” to include such non-care areas as patient
lounges, waiting areas, corridors, sitting rooms, elevators, stairways, or “[areas] on the unit
where patients are or can be present,” the Hospital has coopted the legal language and expanded
it to an unlawful degree. See Baptist Hospital, 442 U.S. at 780; see also Healthbridge 10
Management, LLC., 360 NLRB 937, 938–939 (2014) (finding that a hospital rule prohibiting the
wearing of union buttons in “all areas” of the facility was presumptively invalid, when the
employer could show no special circumstances justifying the action); Brockton Hospital, 333
NLRB 1367, 1368 (2001) (finding unlawful a hospital rule prohibiting solicitation in areas used
by patients, including the vestibule, gift shop, and cafeteria); Eastern Maine Medical Center, 253 15
NLRB 224, 226 (1980), enfd. 658 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981) (finding unlawful a solicitation ban
extending to the hospital’s second-floor lobby, which opened into the cafeteria and which was
used by all employees and visitors). Absent a showing of patient care disruption, “[o]n balance,
the interests of the patients well enough to frequent [non-immediate patient care areas] do not
outweigh those of the employees to discuss or solicit union representation.” St. John’s Hospital, 20
222 NLRB at 1151.45 By promulgating a policy that is impermissibly broad, without
demonstrating that such an expansive policy is necessary to avoid disruption of patient care, the
Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1).
B. Threats, Coercion, and Unlawful Interrogation25
The complaint also alleges that the Hospital unlawfully threatened employees with
onerous working conditions and loss of benefits if they selected the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative, coercively interfered with employees engaged in union and protected
concerted activity, and interrogated employees about their union and protected concerted 30
activity. The Hospital denies these charges.
For the reasons below, I find that the Hospital engaged in at least eight instances of
unlawful threats, coercion, and interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1).

45 The Respondent asserts in its brief that, under NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, the Board has the duty
to “strike the proper balance between…asserted business justifications and the invasion of employee
rights in light of the Act and its policy.” (R. Br. at 22, citing 388 U.S. 26 (1967).) However, Baptist
Hospital and its progeny, which the Supreme Court decided after Great Dane, provide precisely the
business justification/employee rights balancing test for solicitation in acute health facilities: the
Respondent must carry the burden of demonstrating, by the preponderance of the evidence, why a
restrictive ban is necessary to avoid a disruption of patient care. 442 U.S. at 781. The Respondent argues
that its “Solicitation and Distribution” memo sufficiently justifies the policy’s purpose, which is to
“protect the privacy of our patients and prevent interference with the delivery of patient care.” (R. Br. 22
at 22, citing GC. Exh. 3.) I disagree. This statement of purpose merely repeats the standard of protecting
patient care; it does not meet it. There is no record evidence demonstrating how employee solicitation
would disrupt patient care in such areas as patient lounges, waiting areas, hallways, or elevators. As such,
I find that Respondent has failed to meet its burden.
JD–58–17
19
1. Threats of more onerous working conditions and/or loss of benefits
An employer is free to communicate her general views about unionism, and an employer
may make predictions as to the precise effects she believes unionization will have on her
company. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969). However, these predictions 5
are only lawful when “carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer’s
belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control.” Id. Employer predictions
become unlawful threats, however, when their context has a reasonable tendency to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights. Flying Foods, 345 NLRB 101,
105–106 (2005). A threat of more onerous working conditions is unlawful. Liberty House 10
Nursing Homes, 245 NLRB 1194, 1199, 1204 (1979). Similarly, the statement that the presence
of a union “could” deteriorate employment conditions is unlawful absent a reference to the
collective-bargaining process. Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group, 356 NLRB 89, 89
(2010).
15
(a) July 20 – Cynthia Hawley threatened Susanna Reed-McCullough
On July 20, manager Cynthia Hawley convened a one-on-one meeting with Susanna
Reed-McCullough, whom Hawley knew to be an open union supporter. During this meeting,
Hawley told Reed-McCullough that the presence of a union might limit employee access to 20
management and might worsen the NICU’s FMLA and flexibility policies, because unions like
to equalize things “across the board.” Hawley also handed Reed-McCullough a Hospital-issued
“fact sheet” about union authorization cards. 46 Neither Hawley, nor the fact sheet, mentioned the
collective-bargaining process. During this conversation, Hawley was aware that flexibility leave
policies were particularly important to Reed-McCullough, as Hawley had approved Reed-25
McCullough’s day-shift contract. Hawley was also aware that Reed-McCullough had used
FMLA for her own family.
By omitting any reference to the collective-bargaining process, the Respondent, through
Hawley, unlawfully threatened Reed-McCullough with more onerous working conditions and 30
loss of benefits, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Novelis Corp., 364 NLRB No. 101
(2016), citing Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 320 NLRB 484, 484 (1995) (statements that employees
would lose their flexible work schedules constituted threats of more onerous working conditions
when those threats omitted any reference to the collective-bargaining process).
35
(b) September 21 – Mariamma Ninan threatened Vera Ngezem
On September 21, manager Mariamma Ninan convened a one-on-one meeting with Vera
Ngezem, whom Ninan knew to be an open union supporter. During this meeting, Ninan warned
Ngezem that if a Union came to the Hospital, “a lot of things would change.” Specifically, Ninan 40
presented as fact that she “would not” be able to provide future employment verification
letters—a benefit that had been previously afforded Ngezem—to employees. Ninan also said that
nurses would lose scheduling flexibility with respect to vacation and schooling. Ninan further

46 Hawley also mentioned that, in her and her daughters’ experience, there was not a “huge
difference” between unionized and non-unionized hospitals in terms of staffing and nurse satisfaction.
This statement was grounded in personal experience and did not violate the Act.
JD–58–17
20
warned that if the nurses unionized, more experienced nurses could bump less experienced
nurses from their jobs. At no time did Ninan mention the collective-bargaining process.
Additionally, during this conversation, Ninan was aware that scheduling flexibility was
particularly important to Ngezem, due to Ngezem’s family needs.
5
By omitting any reference to the collective-bargaining process and presenting
unsubstantiated predictions as certainties, the Respondent, through Ninan, unlawfully threatened
Ngezem with more onerous working conditions and loss of benefits in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. See Metro One, 356 NLRB at 89 (the statement “it could get much worse,”
absent a reference to the collective-bargaining process, constituted a threat of more onerous 10
working conditions).
2. Coercive interference with protected, concerted activities
It is established that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act if its conduct “may 15
reasonably be said to have a tendency to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights.”
Unbelievable, Inc. d/b/a Frontier Hotel & Casino, 323 NLRB 815, 816 (1997), enfd. in part 118
F.3d 795 (1997); Williams Motor Transfer, 284 NLRB 1496, 1499 (1987).
(a) August 6 – Dwight Lyles coercively interfered with nurses’ union activities20
On August 6, NIC Dwight Lyles called hospital security on nurses engaged in protected,
concerted activities. By Lyles’ own admission, he called security specifically because he was
concerned that Mintz and Scott were engaging in Union activity on his floor. The security
officers’ subsequent report (entitled “Off-Duty Employees suspected of trying to recruit working 25
nurses to Union”) and an administrative email confirm that Lyles called security in direct
response to the suspected union activity, and because he intended to interfere with it. Lyles
succeeded in this goal: after the incident, Lyles’ unit nurses were too afraid to meet with Mintz
and Scott, and the organizers left the floor.
30
By using hospital security to impede employees’ lawful organizing activities, the
Respondent, through Lyles, coercively interfered with Mintz, Scott, and Yu’s protected union
activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) August 6 –Security officers coercively interfered with nurses’ union activities35
On August 6, security officers responded to Lyles’ call by confronting employees who
were engaged in organizing activities. The security officers wrote down the name of every nurse
involved in the organizing incident (Mintz, Scott, and Yu), told Yu that they were going to “take
this matter to the nursing coordinator,” and filed an incident report naming all the nurses. After 40
the security officers left the floor, Yu told Mintz and Scott that she and another nurse were too
afraid to leave the unit, and the nurses ceased all organizing activities on that floor.
By interfering with the lawful organizing activities of Mintz, Scott, and Yu, the
Respondent, through its security officers, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Aqua-Aston 45
Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Aston Waikiki Beach and Hotel Renew, 365 NLRB No. 53, slip op. at 1
JD–58–17
21
(2017) (finding that the employer’s security officer unlawfully prohibited off-duty employees
from distributing union leaflets in the employer’s hotel).
(c) August 6 – Officer Hawkins coercively interfered with nurses’ union activities
5
During the incident on August 6, Officer Hawkins, one of the responding officers,
overheard a group of nurses at 5 South Acute talking about their desire to see what the Union
“had to offer,” and asked them, “what are they offering?” According to the Hospital’s incident
report, the nurses dispersed, and right afterward “[Hawkins] saw two NICU nurses leave when
they saw him.”10
By intimidating and dispersing a group of nurses who had been discussing union
activities, the Respondent, through Officer Hawkins, coercively interfered with employees’
protected concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1). See id. (employer held liable for
unfair labor practices committed by security guards acting in their official capacity). 15
(d) October 19 – Officer Hawkins coercively interfered with nurses’ union activities
On October 19, Officer Hawkins approached Mintz, Scott, and Norris as they chatted on
the Hospital landing. Hawkins asked the nurses if they were talking about the Union, and 20
incorrectly informed them that it was “illegal” to talk about the Union in the Hospital. Though
Hawkins did not succeed in halting the union activity—because the nurses pushed back—his
intent had been to stop any Union discussions and disperse the nurses.
By attempting to intimidate and disperse a group of nurses who had been discussing 25
Union activities, the Respondent, through Officer Hawkins, coercively interfered with
employees’ protected, concerted activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See St.
John’s Health Center, 357 NLRB 2078, 2096 (2011) (security guards acting under direct
authority from upper management violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to have employees
charged with trespassing for distributing prounion literature).30
3. Interrogation about protected, concerted activities
Questioning an employee constitutes unlawful interrogation when, considering the
totality of the circumstances, the interaction at issue would reasonably tend to coerce the 35
employee to an extent that she would feel restrained from exercising rights protected by Section
7 of the Act. Westwood Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 935, 940 (2000); Rossmore House, 269
NLRB 1176 (1984), affd. sub nom. Hotel Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir.
1985).
40
(a) July 20 – Hawley unlawfully interrogated Reed-McCullough
During Hawley’s July 20 meeting with Reed-McCullough, Hawley mentioned that the
Hospital knew that some nurses were in contact with union representatives. Hawley said that
“some nurses had been called at home and harassed” by union representatives, and encouraged45
Reed-McCullough to let Hawley know if anything like this were to happen to her.
JD–58–17
22
The Board has frequently found unlawful employer’s statements encouraging employees
who feel harassed or pressured in the course of union solicitations to report the incident to
management. Tawas Industries, Inc., 336 NLRB 318, 322–323 (2001), citing NLRB v. Gissel
Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). These statements violate Section 8(a)(1) “because they have
the potential dual effect of encouraging employees to identify union supporters based on the 5
employees’ subjective view of harassment and discouraging employees from engaging in
protected activities.” Id. Moreover, though remarks may not be framed in the customary
interrogative form, where a remark has the natural tendency to solicit a response which reveals or
discloses union sympathies, those remarks violate Section 8(a)(1). See Jefferson Apparel Co.,
248 NLRB 555, 560 (1980).10
By making statements that had the natural tendency to solicit a response from Reed-
McCullough that would identify union supporters and disclose the union sympathies of others,
the Respondent, through Hawley, unlawfully interrogated Reed-McCullough, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 15
(b) October 19 – Hawkins unlawfully interrogated Mintz, Scott, and Norris
In determining whether an interrogation violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the Board
weighs five factors holistically: (1) the truthfulness of the replies from the employee being 20
questioned; (2) the nature of the information sought; (3) the identity and rank of the questioner;
(4) the place and method of the interrogation; and (5) the background between the employer and
union, i.e., whether a history of employer hostility and discrimination exists. Metro-West
Ambulance Services, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 124, slip op. at 63 (2014); Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d
47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964). Whether an interrogation is courteous rather than rude or profane is not 25
dispositive. Woodcrest Health Care Center, 360 NLRB No. 58, slip op. at 7 (2014).
During Officer Hawkins’ October 19 interaction with Mintz, Scott, and Norris, Hawkins
asked the nurses if they were talking about the Union. Applying the Bourne factors, first, the
truthfulness of the nurses’ response cannot be assessed. Instead of answering the question, the 30
nurses angrily turned their backs on Hawkins and informed him, correctly, that his question was
unlawful. Second, Hawkins specifically asked the nurses if they were discussing the Union, a
protected Section 7 right. Third, the questioner was a uniformed security officer who had
previously been involved with a union-related security incident also involving Mintz and Scott.47
Fourth, the incident took place in an open, public-use landing, where the nurses had been 35
speaking freely to one another prior to Hawkins’ intervention. Fifth, the Hospital had, at this
point, committed a number of prior unfair labor practices as to this union campaign, at least one
in which involved Hawkins himself.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that Hawkins coercively 40
questioned the nurses in a way that would reasonably constrain employees from exercising their
Section 7 rights. Accordingly, the Respondent, through Hawkins, unlawfully interrogated Mintz,
Scott, and Norris, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

47 Though Hawkins had not responded to the initial call to stop Mintz and Scott’s August 6 union
activities, Hawkins happened to be on the floor during the incident. Hawkins aided his fellow officers in
surrounding Mintz and Scott during security’s first confrontation with the nurses.
JD–58–17
23
C. Surveillance, and Impression of Surveillance, of Union Activity
While the random or isolated viewing of a union gathering by an employer agent is not
prohibited surveillance, Hoyt Water Heater Co., 282 NLRB 1348, 1357 (1987), an employer that 5
photographs or videotapes employees engaged in concerted activities may engage in prohibited
surveillance, or may unlawfully create the impression of surveillance, or both. See generally F.
W. Woolworth, 310 NLRB 1197 (1993). An employer unlawfully creates the impression of
surveillance by statements or other conduct which, under all relevant circumstances, would lead
reasonable employees to assume that their union activities have been placed under surveillance. 10
Durham School Services, 361 NLRB No. 44, slip op. at 1 (2014). In general, the Board has
analyzed this problem by presuming that the photographing of peaceful protected activity
violates Section 8(a)(1), but it allows the employer to attempt to rebut the presumption with
proof of a legitimate security objective. Alle-Kiski Medical Center, 339 NLRB 361, 364–365
(2003); Fairfax Hospital, 310 NLRB 299, 310 (1993). 15
On September 16, Ngezem observed approximately 10 people watching her group
through a Hospital window as they posed for a prounion photograph. Ngezem also noticed at
least 5 of the watchers taking photographs, and concluded that she and her fellow union
supporters were being surveilled. Jolly Joseph confirmed that she and several other NICs had in 20
fact been taking pictures of the union supporters from the window, and that the NICs distributed
these photos to upper-level management.
Absent a legitimate security objective, this photography was presumptively unlawful.
Alle-Kiski Medical Center, 339 NLRB at 364–365 (hospital security guards violated the Act by 25
videotaping and photographing union organizers without advancing a security justification);
Fairfax Hospital, 310 NLRB at 310 (employer’s photographing employees during union
campaign not justified by simultaneous media picture-taking). The Hospital advanced the
following justifications for Joseph’s behavior: (1) the nurses advocating for the Union were
posing for pictures in plain sight; (2) it was coincidental that the NICs were training right next to 30
the organizing nurses; (3) Joseph observed a professional photographer taking the organizers’
picture; (4) Joseph did not know that she was photographing Union activity; (5) the organizers
ultimately published a hospital-wide, substantially-similar picture to the ones Joseph took; (6) it
was not out of the ordinary for Joseph to take pictures of nurses on her cell phone; (7) Ngezem
did not know the NICs were management; and (8) the organizers smiled and waved upon seeing 35
the NIC photographers.48
The Hospital’s contentions are unavailing as none of the alleged justifications evince a
legitimate security objective or risk posed by the organizers. Id. Further, that the nurses were
advocating in plain sight, that a professional photographer was present to help publicize union 40
photographs, that some of the organizers’ identities were public, and that the organizers did not
demonstrate fear at the sight of the NICs – these justifications misunderstand the reason for
which surveillance can be an unfair labor practice. As the Board upheld in Fairfax Hospital:

48 R. Br. 39–42.
JD–58–17
24
. . . the fact that pictures were also taken by the media and even by a friend of one of the
participants who invited him to take the pictures, makes no difference. The essence of the
unfair labor practice charge is that employers have no right to spy on the union and
concerted activities of its employees. Such spying is coercive . . . even if the union
adherents had made their identities public. 310 NLRB at 310.5
Finally, even if Joseph had been credible in testifying that she did not know her
surveillees were union adherents, that she regularly takes such photographs, and that the
interaction was entirely coincidental, the Respondent has no refuge here. Employer curiosity is
not an appropriate justification for spying on protected, concerted activities. BRC Injected 10
Rubber Products, 311 NLRB 66, 75–76 (1993) (violation found where work-bound supervisor,
claiming to have acted out of curiosity, drove through parking lot of inn where he knew union
meeting was being held).
On the above reasoning, I conclude that the Respondent, by Jolly Joseph and other nurses 15
in charge, unlawfully surveilled, and created the unlawful impression of surveillance of,
employees engaged in protected, concerted activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
20
1. The Hospital/Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and a health institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
25
3. The Respondent’s prohibitions against the use of its electronic communications
systems violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The Respondent’s June 2016 solicitation and distribution policy violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by prohibiting nurses from using the Respondent’s electronic communications 30
systems, including email, during nonworking t ime.
5. The Respondent’s policy of prohibiting nurses from discussing the Union in nursing
stations, corridors, stairwells, elevators, and immediate patient care areas violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.35
6. On July 20, by threating employees with more onerous working conditions and/or loss
of benefits if employees chose union representation, the Respondent, by Cynthia Hawley,
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
40
7. On July 20, by stating that she was aware that nurses had been called at home and
harassed by the Union and asking that a nurse alert Hawley if this happened to her, the
Respondent, by Cynthia Hawley, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. On August 6, by calling hospital security to respond to nurses engaged in protected45
concerted activities, the Respondent, by Dwight Lyles, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
-
JD–58–17
25
9. On August 6, by recording nurses’ names and threatening to “take the matter to the
nursing coordinator,” the Respondent, by its security officers, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
10. On August 6, by quelling nurses’ interest in speaking with prounion nurses, the
Respondent, by Officer Hawkins, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.5
11. On September 16, by taking photographs from a nearby conference room of nurses’
protected concerted activities and disseminating those pictures to other managers and
supervisors, the Respondent, by Jolly Joseph and other Nurses in Charge, violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.10
12. On September 21, by threatening nurse Vera Ngezem with more onerous working
conditions and loss of benefits if the nurses selected the Union, the Respondent, by Mariamma
Ninan, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
15
13. On September 21, by presenting certain changes to working conditions as
eventualities if a union represented the nurses, the Respondent, by Mariamma Ninan, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
14. On October 19, by asking nurses if they were discussing the Union and instructing20
them that they were prohibited from such discussion in the hospital, the Respondent, by Officer
Hawkins, interrogated and interfered with nurses in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
15. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.25
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 30
the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended49
35
ORDER
The Respondent, Holy Cross Health d/b/a Holy Cross Hospital, of Silver Spring,
Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
40

49 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–58–17
26
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Promulgating and maintaining overly broad and/or ambiguous solicitation and
distribution policies.
5
(b) Promulgating and maintaining an overly broad prohibition on employees’ use of
electronic communications systems.
(c) Promulgating and maintaining any rule or regulation prohibiting its employees from
soliciting on behalf of any labor organization on the Respondent’s premises other than immediate 10
patient care areas during nonworking time, or prohibiting the distribution of union literature in
nonworking areas during employees’ nonworking time.
(d) Promulgating rules prohibiting discussions about the Union anywhere and at any time
in the hospital.15
(e) Interrogating employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
(f) Threatening employees with more onerous working conditions if they select the Union
as their bargaining representative.20
(g) Threatening employees with loss of benefits if they select the Union as their
bargaining representative.
(h) Creating the impression among its employees that their protected concerted and/or25
union activities are under surveillance.
(i) Photographing employees engaged in protected concerted and/or union activity.
(j) Disseminating unlawful photographs of employees engaged in protected concerted30
and/or union activity.
(k) Using security guards to coercively interfere with employees engaged in protected
concerted or union activities.
35
(l) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
40
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Silver Spring, MD facility
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”50 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by

50 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the 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.”
JD–58–17
27
the Regional Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the 5
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and 10
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since November 25, 2013.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, Respondent will post a copy of the notice
in English and in additional languages if the Regional Director decides that it is appropriate to do
so, on its intranet for its employees at its facility located at 1500 Forest Glen Road, Silver Spring, 15
Maryland 20910 and keep it continuously posted there for 60 consecutive days from the date it
was originally posted.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, Respondent will email a copy of the
signed Notice in English and in additional languages if the Regional Director decides that it is20
appropriate to do so, to all employees who work at its facility located at 1500 Forest Glen Road,
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that 25
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2017
30

Michael A. Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
35
444:210 L-,--
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your union support or activities.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and maintain overly broad and/or ambiguous solicitation and
distribution policies.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and maintain an overly broad prohibition on employees’ use of
electronic communications systems.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and maintain any rule or regulation prohibiting our employees from
soliciting on behalf of any labor organization on our premises other than immediate patient care
areas during nonworking time, or prohibit the distribution of union literature in nonworking areas
during employees’ nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT promulgate rules prohibiting discussions about the Union anywhere and at any
time in the hospital.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with more onerous working conditions if you select the Union as
your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of benefits if you select the Union as your bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that your protected concerted and/or union activities are
under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT photograph you engaged in protected concerted and/or union activity.
WE WILL NOT disseminate unlawful photographs of employees engaged in protected-
concerted and/or union activity.
WE WILL NOT use security guards to coercively interfere with your protected concerted or
union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the definition of “solicitation” in our Solicitation and Distribution policy
regarding “. . . promoting, encouraging, or discouraging participation, support, or membership
in any organization, or promoting of a doctrine or belief.”
WE WILL rescind the definition of “distribution of literature” in our Solicitation and
Distribution policy regarding “. . . electronic matter for the purpose of, or as an aid to,
solicitation.”
WE WILL rescind the definition of “immediate patient care area” in our Solicitation and
Distribution policy regarding “. . . nursing stations, corridors . . . elevators and stairways used by
or to transport patients.”
WE WILL rescind the rule in our Solicitation and Distribution policy that prohibits “solicitation
and distribution of literature to patients or visitors at any time by unauthorized persons.”
WE WILL rescind the rule in our Solicitation and Distribution policy that prohibits “solicitation
through the use of the health system’s electronic communication system to colleagues or non-
employees.”
WE WILL rescind the rule in our October 7, 2016 memorandum, “nurses opposed to or in
support of the union may leave literature for pick up as long as it is a non-work or patient care
area where Holy Cross allows solicitations and/or distributing personal materials.”
WE WILL rescind the rule in our October 7, 2016 memorandum that prohibits “. . .
discussion while either nurse is on work time (not off duty and not on break) or with a
nurse who is performing her duties – charting, speaking with other caregivers, family – in the
patients room, or speaking to physicians.”
WE WILL rescind the rule in our October 7, 2016 memorandum that prohibits “. . . discussion
in a patient room or elsewhere on the unit where patients are or can be present – such as
corridors where patients wait or treatment rooms.”
WE WILL notify you that the rules and/or portions of rules from our Solicitation and
Distribution policy have been rescinded.
WE WILL notify you that the rules and/or portions of rules from our October 7, 2016
memorandum have been rescinded.
HOLY CROSS HEALTH D/B/A
HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce
the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether
employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by
employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge
or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office
set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
Bank of America Center, Tower II, 100 S. Charles Street, Ste 600, Baltimore, MD 21201-2700
(410) 962-2822, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/05-CA-182154 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (410) 962-2880.