Hospital & Health Care Workes Districe 1199C

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 270 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS MO NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
District 1199C, National Union of Hospital and
Health Care Employees, RWDSU/AFL-CIO and
Episcopal Hospital. Case 4 CB 3345
March 20, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANt) MEMBI RS JENKINS
ANt) FRUISD)AI.
On December 8, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed a
brief in opposition to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, District 1199C, National
Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees,
RWDSU/AFL-CIO, its officers, agents. and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set frth in the said
recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Producs. In. 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d C'ir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find n basis flr reversing his findings.
DECISION
SIAriMENr OF lItE CASE
Ci.Aumr I R. WOI.FE, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. on July
12 and 13. 1978, pursuant to a charge filed on January 4,
1978, by the Episcopal Hospital and served on January 6.
1978, and a complaint issued on February 24, 1978. The
complaint alleges that District 1199C, National Union of
Hospital and Health Care Employees. RWDSU/AFI,
('10, herein referred to as the Union Respondent. refused
to bargain with the Episcopal Hospital in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(3) of the Act by refusing to execute a side letter
agreed upon between the parties during negotiations on a
new collective-bargaining agreement which was reached on
July 1, 1977. Respondent denies the commission of any un-
'air labor practices and affirmatively pleads that, although
it did refuse and continues to refuse to execute the side
letter, the side letter was not part of the agreement reached
between the parties on July 1. 1977.
Upon consideration of the entire record, the demeanor of
the witnesses as they testified befbre me. and the post-trial
briefs filed by the parties, I make the following:
FINDING(S ANt)D CN( ItSIONS
I. JRISi)I(ION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that
the Episcopal Hospital is a Pennsylvania corporation en-
gaged in providing medical and hospital care of patients at
its location in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. and that during
the year preceding issuance of the complaint the Episcopal
Hospital had gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and pur-
chased goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the ommonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
Episcopal Hospital is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1l. lit L.ABO(R OR(;ANIZAHl(ON
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of'
the Act.
111. tlE UNFAIR LABOR PRAI"I('E
A. Finding.s of Fact
For several years prior to the events discussed herein, the
hospital and the Union were party to collective-bargaining
agreements covering an appropriate unit of the hospital's
employees.'
Their latest written agreement covered the period from July
I. 1975, to June 30, 1977. This agreement included the fol-
lowing side letter:
YIPIS(O(PAI OSPAL
SII)E I.TFrER
I. If Federal, State or local government controls are
established which regulate Hospital costs or rates and
The appropriate unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time service employees including Nurses
Aides. Aides, Advanced Aides. Advanced Assistants, Nursing Assis-
tants, Ward Clerks. Hospital Men. Nursing Messengers, all Medical
Clerks. OB Technicians OR Technicians, Purchasing Storeroom Clerks.
Mailroom Clerks. Chauffeurs. Orderlies, Laboratory Assistants. Techni-
cians' Aides. Medical Clerks. (Community Health Workers. Storekeep-
ers. Housekeeping Aides. Housekeeping Lead Aides, Seamstresses,
.aaundry Utility Men, Laundry Washman, Laundry Pressers, Laundry
Processors, Dietary Assistant and Dietary Storeroom Clerk. and exclud-
ing superssors. management level and confidential employees as de-
fined in the Act, part-time employees who regularly work less than
twenty (20) hours per week, and temporary employees.
241 NLRB No. 35
270
DISTRICT 1199(, NATIONAL UNION OF HOSPITAL ANI) HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES
such controls impair the ability of the Hospital to meet
its contractual obligations concerning wages and fringe
benefits, either party may terminate this Agreement by
giving the other party the appropriate statutory written
notice of ninety (90) days. If such impairment is cor-
rected within the ninety-da period, such termination
notice will be void and the Agreement will not termi-
nate.
2. The Hospital will furnish Union job descriptions
of unit classifications within six (6) months and is will-
ing to meet and consider any suggestions Union might
have.
3. The Hospital's present policy is that it may re-
quire a doctor's certificate confirming that absenteeism
was caused by illness or injury, specifying the nature of
the illness or injury, the required treatment and the
period of time that such illness or injury caused the
employees to be absent in the following circumstances:
(a) Chronic absenteeism.
(b) Pattern absenteeism such pattern might in-
volve absences at the beginning or end of the work-
week, day before or after holidays or paydays or
vacations, or any other observable pattern demon-
strated over a reasonable period of time.
(c) Absences of several days' duration.
(d) Absences occurring under unusual circum-
stances.
4. The Hospital will meet with Union representa-
tives to discuss Union suggestions concerning Day
Care or Patient Care. If employees attend such em-
ployees will be "off the clock" or such meetings will be
outside of their normal working hours.
NAII()NAl. UNION OF IIOSPIIAI AND HEAI.IH (ARE EM-
PLOYIES, A DIVISION OF RWiDS1, AFI.-CIO AND ItS AF-
FIIIATE, I)ISTRI(T 1199(
EPISCOPAl HOSPITAI. 2
It is clear that the parties had treated the side letter
signed by both the hospital and the Union as part of the
existing contract and it was in full force and effect through-
out the contract period.
The first negotiation meeting between the parties in 1977
was held on April 13.' Another meeting was held on April
29. but the next meeting was not held until June 21 because
of an intervening fact finding hearing on June 9 regarding
matters under negotiation. The next and last negotiation
meeting between the parties commenced on June 30 and
ended at 6 a.m. on July 1.
The Union's written demands presented either at or
shortly before the negotiation meeting of April 13 contain
no reference to the side letter in issue in this proceeding, nor
was any evidence adduced that the Union made any other
written demands specifically relating to that side letter. The
Union's chief spokesperson at the negotiating meetings, ex-
cept the last one when Union President Henry Nicholas
was present, was Union Executive Vice President Donna
Signatures of representatives of the parties are omitted from this deci-
sion.
All dates referred to herein occurred in 1977 unless otherwise specifically
indicated.
Ford. The Union's negotiating committee also included a
Mr. Roy Jacobs and the shop committee, none of whom
were called to testily' in this proceeding. The Employer's
negotiating committee consisted of Jacob Hart. the hospi-
tal's attorney and chief negotiator, and John Lloyd. Wil-
liam Chambley. Sam Steinberg. and Fred Pluck. One of the
critical factors in the resolution of the issue before me is a
determination as to what was said by Ford and Hart, if
anything, with regard to the side letter during the April 13
negotiations, or at any subsequent negotiations.
Ms. Ford claims that at the opening of the April 13 meet-
ing she informed the hospital committee that the written
demands were the Union's proposals for the negotiations,
and that the side letter in dispute in this case was null and
void. She states that there was no initial response but that,
as she went through the proposals and reached the Union's
proposal to make changes with reference to sick leave, Ja-
cob Hart said that there was already language in the side
letter referring to the sick leave. Whereupon she told him
that the Union was voiding the side letter and was modify-
ing the portion that they wanted to keep. In this connec-
tion. the Union's written proposal with regard to the sick
leave question to w'hich Ford refers relates to article XXI.
sick leave. section 21.5 of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment. and reads: "Change last sentence to read: I'he tlospi-
tal may request proof of illness hereunder including a doc-
tor's certificate for absence of more than 2 days." In the
margin of Ford's copy of the Union's proposals, to the left
of the requested change in section 21.5, she noted the word
"drop." Immediately at the end of the proposed change she
further noted "Keep side letter." Ford claims that the par-
ties talked about wage controls on April 13 and that she
told Hart that in the event that there were future govern-
mental wage controls the separability clause of the contract
would cover that contingency. This conversation testified to
by Ford clearly refers to item 3 in the existing side letter.
The Union's written demands also include a request to
delete the word "exclusive" from article X. Seniority, sec-
tion 10.8, Promotions--Subsection (a).' The hospital would
not agree to delete the word "exclusive." Ford asked Hart if
he would give the Union a letter stating that the Union had
bargained for the deletion of the word but that the hospital
had not agreed. Hart agreed to do so. According to Ford,
this agreement between her and Hart happened at the third
negotiation meeting and during the second negotiation
meeting the hospital and the Union had agreed to a side
letter in which the sick leave provision previously discussed
would be included. It is her contention that the parties
agreed at the third meeting that there would be a side letter
in which the two aforementioned provisions would be set
forth. Ford explains that her notes on her copies of the
Union's demands next to the proposal to change section
21.5 of the contract meant that the Union had dropped its
written demand and that the language of the old side letter
as it pertained to sick leave would be incorporated in a new
4 The subsection referred to contains a concluding sentence which reads:
"The Hospital has the exclusive right to determine qualifications of employ-
ees for promotional purposes." I conclude that the t nion initially requested
that the Employer delete the word "exclusive" from this sentence, and that is
what ord is referring to in her testimiony
271
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
side letter together with the statement by Hart with refer-
ence to the deletion of the word "exclusive."
Jacob Hart agrees that after the hospital had refused to
delete the word "exclusive" from article X, section 10.8, of
the contract he did agree, at Ford's request, to give her a
letter confirming that the Union had wanted to delete "ex-
clusive," and the hospital had rejected this request. Hart
did not write this letter as he promised, and says that he
forgot it. He asserts that the only time the existing side
letter was mentioned was at the first meeting on April 13
when they were discussing the Union's requested changes in
section 21.5 with regard to sick leave, and that he then said
that he did not see why the Union needed the change in the
contract with respect to doctor's notes because the subject
was already covered in the side letter. He avers that Ford
made no response to this one way or another, that there was
no other reference made to the existing side letter through-
out the entire course of the negotiations, and that the
Union's proposal with respect to doctor's notes was with-
drawn on April 29 or June 21 by Ms. Ford without any
explanation. Hart specifically states that the question of
governmental controls on wages was never discussed, and
that there was no statement by Ms. Ford that the Union
would not accept a wage control or governmental control
side letter and that if government controls were imposed the
separability clause of the contract would govern.
Hospital Director of Employee Relations William Cham-
bley and Hospital Vice President John Lloyd, who were
present at every negotiation meeting, corroborate Hart's
version of his conversations with Ms. Ford about the exist-
ing side letter. I think it is significant that no member of the
Union's bargaining team other than Ms. Ford appeared on
the witness stand to corroborate her testimony, and I draw
the inference that had they been called they would have
testified adversely to her version. I consider Ms. Ford's ex-
planation of her notes on the Union's demand with respect
to the sick leave language to be self-serving and contrived,
and I do not find it credible. Furthermore, I detected noth-
ing in the testimony or demeanor of Hart, Chambley, and
Lloyd, all of whom testified contrary to Ms. Ford's version
of the discussions relating to the side letter here at issue, to
indicate that they were either dissembling or had, by prear-
rangement, concocted a version favorable to the Hospital. I
recognize that Ms. Ford was engaged in several negotia-
tions at the same time that she was negotiating with the
Episcopal Hospital and may, therefore, have been mistaken
as to what was said in these specific negotiations as a result
of confusion arising from the fact that she was attending
several meetings with several hospitals, but on the basis of
the record, and my observations of the testimonial demea-
nor of Ms. Ford and the Hospital's witnesses, I credit Jacob
Hart's version as the more believable and find that Ford did
not tell the Company that the Union considered the old
side letter to be null and void, did not discuss any of the
provisions of that side letter other than the one relating to
the requested contract change in article XXI, section 21.5,
or secure any agreement that there would be a side letter
containing two provisions relating to sick leave and the se-
niority clause. I also find it highly unlikely that if Respon-
dent was adamantly opposed to a continuation of the exist-
ing side letter it would not have included a specific written
demand, as opposed to a mere comment by Ford that the
Union considered it null and void, that the side letter be
expressly deleted from any future agreement. I note that
many provisions in the expiring contract were included in
the new contract with no demand made to change them. I
am convinced that this is exactly the same thing that hap-
pened to the existing side letter. There was no request to
change it, other than the brief colloquy testified to by Jacob
Hart in connection with the request to change article XXI,
section 21.5, with respect to doctor's certificates. Inasmuch
as I have credited Hart's version, I conclude that there was
no further conversation by the Union during negotiations
with respect to the existing side letter. This suggests to me
that the Union had acquiesced in the hospital's position, as
set forth by Hart with respect to the change on sick leave,
and made no further protest about the side letter. I am
persuaded that the Union did not in fact reject the side
letter as it existed because the Union propounded no re-
quested changes or deletions therefrom, or any complete
severance of that side letter from the contract, or any aban-
donment of that side letter as a condition of a new agree-
ment.
At the end of the negotiations on July 1, Jacob Hart
wrote out a handwritten document detailing the changes in
the collective-bargaining agreement that his negotiation
notes reflected the parties had agreed to. He gave this to
Union President Nicholas. At the end of the document, suc-
ceeded only by the effective dates of the contract, Hart
wrote the words "all other conditions to remain the same."
A day or two after the negotiations had ended, Union Ne-
gotiator Roy Jacobs' telephoned him and asked him to
make a neat copy of the settlement reached. Referring
again to his negotiation notes, Hart caused a typewritten
document to be made which he forwarded to Jacobs. In
drafting the typewritten document, Hart expanded on the
brief notes in the handwritten sheet he had previously given
to Nicholas and composed the later document in sentences
and paragraphs in most cases. Additionally, the typewritten
document contains a paragraph pertaining to "Arbitration
Relating to Funds" which is not referred to in the handwrit-
ten document previously given to the Union. At the top of
the typewritten document the beginning paragraph reads:
Subject to ratification by the 1199C membership, the
following items have been agreed upon between Epis-
copal Hospital and the 1199C bargaining committee as
the basis for a new 1977-79 labor agreement.
The concluding item in the handwritten document is writ-
ten in capital letters and reads "All Other Terms and Con-
ditions of 1975-1977 Contract Shall Remain Unchanged."
There is no difference in substance, other than the arbitra-
tion relating to funds matter, between the two documents of
any particular consequence.
As Respondent acknowledges, the Union members there-
after ratified Hart's typewritten summary, after the Union
first changed the heading to read "Ratification Meeting,
July 5, 1977." Subsequent to this ratification vote, Ms. Ford
Roy Jacobs did not testify in this proceeding.
e Respondent's assertion in its brief that this summary of agreement pre-
pared by Hart was sent to the Union on or about July 5 would appear to be
sufficiently accurate for the purpose of this decision although the exact date
of the transmission was not made clear. It obviously was received prior to
ratification on July 5.
272
DISTRICT 1199C, NATIONAL UNION OF HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES
called Hart and requested a draft copy of the contract. Hart
told her it was being proofread. Ford then went on vacation
and did not return until August 16.
Hart sent the new collective-bargaining agreement draft,
along with the same side letter that was in the previous
contract, to the Union on August 10. 7 Union President
Nicholas then gave the material submitted by the Company
and the handwritten summary he had been given by Hart
on July I to union organizer Barbara Cable with the in-
struction that she should check the collective-bargaining
agreement and make sure that everything on the handwrit-
ten sheet was in it. After reading it, she returned it to
Nicholas with the advice that everything was in the com-
pleted contract except the notation in Hart's summary that
the hospital would give the Union a side letter stating that
the Union had bargained for the demand relating to senior-
ity but this demand had been rejected by the hospital.
Nicholas then directed Union Secretary-Treasurer Nora
Kessenich to return the contract with the information that
the Union had checked it, it was all right, and the hospital
should sign it. She did so, including the side letter.8 The
contract and side letter were forwarded to the hospital by
Hart on August 15. They were then signed by the hospital
and were back in the union offices when Ford returned
from vacation. They had not at that point been signed by
the Union. Ford reviewed the contract and reported to
Nicholas, about August 20 or 21, that the side letter that
was with the contract was not the side letter that the parties
had agreed upon. Nicholas told her to call the hospital and
to try to get the problem resolved. Ford claims that she
called Director of Employee Relations Chambley about
August 22, told him the side letter was not the one agreed
upon, and received the reply that Chambley would check
with Stanley Elwell, hospital administrator, and get back to
her. He did not. She called him again and was advised that
the hospital would wait until Hart returned from vacation.
Chambley first testified that he does not recall these tele-
phone calls referred to by Ms. Ford, and then stated that he
never spoke with her between August 15 and September 19
about the side letter in question.
Ford appeared to have the better recollection of the
phone calls, and the Union's phone records show that
Chambley attempted to call her on August 23 and 26. 1
conclude that Chambley's attempted calls were in response
to the first call that Ford made to him on or about August
22. Furthermore, Hart believes that he had a message,
when he returned from vacation on September 6, to the
effect that somebody from the hospital had called him. Hart
The letter is directed to Ms. Ford and reads, in pertinent part:
Enclosed please find an original and two copies of the new Collective
Bargaining Agreement between Episcopal Hospital and District 1199C.
As soon as you have satisfied yourself that this agreement encom-
passes all of the changes negotiated between the parties, I would appre-
ciate your having all three copies signed and returned to me. I shall then
get the signatures of Episcopal Hospital on them, and return one com-
pleted cop)y to you for your files.
If there are any problems concerning the agreement please call me at
your convenience.
I Kessenich's letter, dated August 12, reads:
Enclosed are three copies of the Episcopal Hospital contract. The
draft is satisfactory to the union. We request that management affix
signatures first. Please return all three copies after signature and we will
then sign them and return one copy to you.
credibly testified that Chambley told him, on his return
from vacation, that the Union would not execute the side
letter. I conclude that Chambley is incorrect and that Ms.
Ford did call him twice and received the answers that she
relates. Neither do I credit Chambley's testimony that he
did not call Hart until he received the signed contract from
the Union and noticed that the side letter previously signed
by the hospital was not attached thereto.
By letter of September 19, received by the hospital on
September 20, the Union returned an executed copy of the
agreement without the side letter attached.9 The side letter
had been deleted at Nicholas' instruction when the contract
was forwarded by the Respondent to the Union's National
President Leon Davis for execution.
I credit Hart and Ms. Ford that neither had any commu-
nication with their respective opposite parties after the
Union delivered the signed contract without the executed
side letter attached.
B. Discussion and Conclusions
The side letter in question was clearly one of the constitu-
ent parts of the collective-bargaining agreement between
the hospital and the Union which expired June 30, 1977.
That the side letter was not bound with the basic collective-
bargaining agreement for general distribution to employees
does not alter its character as part of the agreement be-
tween the parties which the Union concedes was abided by
through June 30, 1977. I have found that the Union did not
request that this side letter be deleted from the new agree-
ment, and that it did not advise the hospital that it consid-
ered that the side letter was no longer in effect. Hart's sum-
mary of the agreed upon changes in the contract, which he
gave to Union President Nicholas on the morning of July 1,
was accepted by the Union without comment or protest
even though his summary bore language at its conclusion
reading "All other conditions to remain the same." I am of
the opinion that the Union had no argument with Hart's
summary. This lack of disagreement by the Union is evi-
denced by its request that Hart submit a neater copy of his
handwritten notes, and the further fact that the Union uti-
lized Hart's notes as its record of what had been agreed on
when it reviewed the typed copies of the contract submitted
to it by the hospital for execution. Furthermore, the type-
written copy of the summary, which Hart gave to the
Union bore the concluding statement that "All Other
Terms and Conditions of 1975-1977 Contract Shall Remain
Unchanged." The side letter clearly contained terms and
conditions of the 1975- 1977 contract and is in the nature of
a supplement thereto. This concluding language of Hart
was never challenged, and the Union submitted this very
document for ratification, after first changing the heading
to read "Ratification Meeting, July 5, 1977." This comports
with the beginning paragraph of Hart's typewritten sum-
mary which the Union submitted to ratification. That para-
graph reads "Subject to ratification by the 1199C member-
ship, the following items have been agreed upon between
9 The letter is signed by Nora Kessenich, Secretary-Treasurer of the Union
and reads:
Enclosed please find one fully executed copy of the collective bargain-
ing agreement between District 1199C and Episcopal Hospital.
273
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Episcopal Hospital and the 1199C bargaining committee as
the basis for a new 1977-79 labor agreement." In my view,
the Union's actions of accepting Hart's summaries without
question. submitting the typewritten one to ratification,
ratifying the typewritten summary by a vote of its member-
ship, and then utilizing the original summary to verify the
contents of the eventual typed agreement establishes that
the Union assented to Hart's summary of changes, includ-
ing the concluding proviso that these were all the changes
in the existing collective-bargaining agreement, of which
the side letter was an integral part. I do not believe that
there was any misunderstanding between the parties as to
what was to be included in the final collective-bargaining
agreement as a result of the parties negotiated understand-
ing.'0 In my view, a final and binding agreement was
reached between the parties as Hart's memoranda detailed,
and the Union's subsequent ratification of Hart's typewrit-
ten memorandum confirms the fact of agreement reached.
That the Union may have had afterthoughts about allowing
the side letter to stand is no basis upon which to question
the binding nature of the agreement reached, which made
no changes in the side letter.
When the Union, by its officer, Nora Kessenich, returned
the contracts to the hospital for signature, along with the
message that the draft was satisfactory to the Union, the
hospital was totally justified in relying on that representa-
tion and concluding that there were no outstanding ques-
tions regarding what had been agreed to."
I have taken note that Jacob Hart had not, at the time of
the hearing, furnished the letter to the Union with respect
to the bargaining on the removal of the word "exclusive"
from article X, section 10.8 of the contract, and I conclude
that, although the failure of Hart to submit such a letter
may be a failure to comply with that much of the agree-
ment between the parties, this does not effect the basic fact
that there was an agreement reached.
When the Union refused to sign the side letter, which I
have found to have continued in an existence without
change, it breached its statutory duty to sign on request
collective-bargaining agreements reached between the par-
t I am convinced that the hospital contemplated the continuation of the
side letter from the outset. This conclusion is supported by Hart's advice to
Ford on April 13 that the Union's requested changes in sec. 21.5, which were
later dropped by Ford. were already covered in the side letter. This reference
put the Union on notice that the hospital considered the side letter to be a
continuing part of the collective-bargaining agreement. There was no ambi-
guity in the hospital's position on the side letter, or any other ambiguity as to
the matters being negotiated, which could have misled the Union. If in fact
the Union had some misunderstanding about what had been agreed upon,
and I find it did not, such misunderstanding was of its own construction and
not caused by any word at all of the hospital. The Union is clearly bound by
its acts detailed herein manifesting assent to the agreement memorialized
and submitted to the Union by Hart, which is clear on its face and warrants
no contrary understanding. In short, both parties are bound by the terms of
the memorandum submitted by Hart and ratified, a clear act of acceptance,
by the Union membership, and said terms plainly spell out a continuation of
all portions of the existing agreement not specifically changed. Inasmuch as
the side letter was part of the existing agreement. and was not specifically
deleted, it continued as part of the new agreement reached on July I, 1977.
1" Whatever Kessenich's authonty may be with regard to negotiations,
when she submitted the contracts with covering letter to the hospital for
signature she was acting, at the very least, as an express agent of the Union
for the purpose of transmitting the documents and, as far as the hospital was
concerned, she had apparent authority to so act on behalf of the Union. The
Union never advised the hospital to the contrary.
ties which have been reduced to writing. This is in violation
of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.' 2
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair
labor practice, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
In addition to the customary notice posting, I shall rec-
ommend that Respondent be ordered, upon request by the
Episcopal Hospital, to execute the side letter submitted to
it, with the remainder of the draft agreement, by the hospi-
tal on August 10, 1977.
CONCLtUSIONS OF LAW
1. Episcopal Hospital is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce and
business activities which affect commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. District 1199C, International Union of Hospital and
Health Care Employees, RWDSU/AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time service employees
of Episcopal Hospital including Nurses Aides, Aides, Ad-
vanced Aides, Advanced Assistants, Nurses Assistants,
Ward Clerks, Hospital Men, Nursing Messengers, all Medi-
cal Clerks, OB Technicians, OR Technicians, Purchasing
Storeroom Clerks, Mailroom Clerks, Chauffeurs, Orderlies,
Laboratory Assistants, Technicians' Aides, Medical Clerks,
Community Health Workers, Storekeepers, Housekeeping
Aides, Housekeeping Assistants, Housekeeping Lead Assis-
tants, Housekeeping Lead Aides, Seamstresses, Laundry
Utility Men, Laundry Washmen, Laundry Pressers, Laun-
dry Processors, Dietary Assistant and Dietary Storeroom
Clerk, but excluding supervisors, management level, and
confidential employees as defined in the Act, part-time em-
ployees who regularly work less than twenty (20) hours per
week and temporary employees, constitutes a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, as amended.
4. At all times material herein, the Respondent Union
has been and is the exclusive representative of the hospital's
employees within the unit herein found appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
5. By failing and refusing to execute the agreed upon
side letter submitted for its signature by the hospital on
August 10, 1977, Respondent has refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Episcopal Hospital within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as
amended.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record herein considered as a whole, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the following
recommended:
2 H. J. Heinz. Conany v. N.LR.B., 311 U.S. 514 (1941); and see Sec.
8(d) of the Act.
274
DISTRICT 1199C, NATIONAL UNION OF HOSPITAL AND HEALTH ('ARE EMPl.OYEES
ORDER"
The Respondent, District 1199C. National Union of Hos-
pital and Health Care Employees, RWDSU/AFL CIO,
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively
with Episcopal Hospital. on behalf of workers within the
unit herein found appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, by refusing to sign the agreed side letter sub-
mitted for signature by the Episcopal Hospital on August
10, 1977, or from engaging in any like or related conduct in
derogation of its statutory duty to bargain.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) If requested by the Episcopal Hospital, or its desig-
nated representatives, execute the draft side letter sub-
mitted to Respondent by the Episcopal Hospital on August
10, 1977, for signature by Respondent's representative.
(b) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix.l Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 4, after being duly signed by an official representative
of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced. or covered by any other
material.
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 4 signed
copies of the attached notice for posting, the Episcopal
Hospital willing, at its office or hospital in places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
4, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent as indicated.
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purposes.
'4 In the event that this Order is enforced b 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."
be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposi-
tion by him.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4. in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NolicE To EPI()YI ES ANDI) MIsBHIRS
PostEl ) BY ORDER ()OF lit
NATIONA. LABOR REI.AIIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WI uwil . NO1 refuse to bargain collectively with
Episcopal Hospital. as the exclusive representative of
their employees within the unit described below, by
refusing to sign the agreed upon side letter submitted
to our representative for signature on August 10, 1977.
WE WHIL. NOT engage in any like or related conduct
in derogation of our statutory duty to bargain.
WE. wil.t., if requested by Episcopal Hospital, ex-
ecute the side letter the Episcopal Hospital submitted
to us for signature by our representative on August 10,
1977. The appropriate unit for purposes of collective
bargaining is:
All full-time and regular part-time service employees
of Episcopal Hospital including Nurses Aides,
Aides, Advanced Aides. Advanced Assistants,
Nurses Assistants, Ward Clerks. Hospital Men,
Nursing Messengers, all Medical Clerks, OB Techni-
cians. OR Technicians. Purchasing Storeroom
Clerks, Mailroom Clerks, Chauffeurs. Orderlies.
Laboratory Assistants, Technicians' Aides. Medical
Clerks. Community Health Workers, Storekeepers.
Housekeeping Aides, Housekeeping Assistants.
Housekeeping Lead Assistants. Housekeeping Lead
Aides, Seamstresses. Laundry Utility Men, Laundry
Washmen. Laundry Pressers. Laundry Processors,
Dietary Assistant and Dietary Storeroom Clerk, but
excluding supervisors, management level, and confi-
dential employees as defined in the Act. part-time
employees who regularly work less than twenty (20)
hours per week, and temporary employees.
DISTRICT 1199C, NATIONAI UNION OF HOSPITAL
AN[D HFAI lt CARE EMPILOYEES. RWDSUL/AFL
CIO
275