Hospital Linen Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1995

316 N.L.R.B. 1151 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

1151
316 NLRB No. 177
HOSPITAL LINEN SERVICE
1 On December 28, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Marion C.
Ladwig issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed cross-excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and both parties filed answering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in
this proceeding to a three-member panel.
2 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent did not vio-
late Sec. 8(a)(1) by warning Union Steward Noreen Stapinsky for
posting the unfair labor practice charge in Case 6–CA–26123 on the
union bulletin board without the Respondent’s permission, we find
it unnecessary to rely on his finding that this charge contained ‘‘un-
true, controversial allegations.’’
3 Absent evidence that any reference to the unlawful threat of dis-
charge to Union Steward Noreen Stapinsky exists in the Respond-
ent’s files, we shall delete, as unnecessary, the judge’s recommended
Order provision requiring the Respondent to remove such reference
from its files.
1 All dates are in 1994.
Hospital Linen Service Facility and Laundry and
Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 141,
AFL–CIO. Cases 6–CA–26123 and 6–CA–26152
April 10, 1995
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
This case presents two issues.1 (1) Did the judge
correctly find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by threat-
ening a union steward with discharge if she did not
provide a written account of an employee’s conduct
witnessed while performing steward duties? (2) Did
the judge correctly find that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by warning a union
steward against unauthorized postings on a union bul-
letin board and by refusing the Union’s request to post
an unfair labor practice charge on the bulletin board?
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Hos-
pital Linen Service Facility, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the actions set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Delete paragraph 2(a) and reletter the subsequent
paragraphs.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
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 the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge any union stew-
ard for failing to provide us a written account of an
employee’s conduct witnessed while performing stew-
ard duties.
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.
HOSPITAL LINEN SERVICE FACILITY
Robin F. Wiegand, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard V. Sica, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent.
Stephen H. Jordan, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the
Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. These
cases were tried in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on November 2,
1994.1 The charge in Case 6–CA–26123 was filed on Janu-
ary 25 and in Case 6–CA–26152 on February 7 (amended
June 16). The consolidated complaint was issued June 16.
On January 15, Weekend Shop Steward Noreen Stapinsky,
a member of the Union’s grievance committee, represented
employee Raymond Williams in a 3:15 p.m. disciplinary
meeting in which General Manager Edward Nazareth dis-
charged Williams for smoking in the restroom. Later at quit-
ting time, Nazareth threatened to discharge Stapinsky if she
failed to provide him a written account of Williams’ conduct
that she witnessed that afternoon.
On February 2, after Stapinsky had taped an National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) charge on the outside of the
locked glass on the union bulletin board, Nazareth warned
her that anybody putting anything on the board without per-
mission could be disciplined. About 2 weeks later, Nazareth
refused the Union’s request to post another charge.
The primary issues are whether the Company, the Re-
spondent (a) unlawfully threatened to discharge the union
steward and (b) unlawfully warned the union steward about
posting material without permission and refused the Union’s
request to post a charge against the Company, violating Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
1152 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the Company and the Union, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a corporation, annually performs services
valued over $50,000 at its facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, for hospitals that are health care institutions within the
meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act and that annually derive
gross revenue in excess of $250,000. The Company admits,
and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) and that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Threat to Discharge Union Steward
1. Discharged employee’s conduct
Noreen Stapinsky, a member of the grievance committee,
is the weekend shop steward (Tr. 26).
About 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, January 15, General Man-
ager Nazareth instructed Stapinsky, as the union steward on
duty, to remain upstairs in the training room for a discipli-
nary meeting. In the meeting, Nazareth informed employee
Raymond Williams that Nazareth had caught him smoking in
the men’s restroom and that Nazareth would give a decision
on discipline later that day. (Tr. 27–28.)
About 3:15 p.m., again in Stapinsky’s presence in the
meeting room as the steward, Nazareth handed Williams an
envelope and informed him that it contained his discharge
letter. As Nazareth was reading a copy of the letter to him,
Williams tore up the unopened envelope and threw it at
Nazareth’s face. Williams asked, ‘‘Why did you wait until
3:30 to fire me, why couldn’t you do it at 12:30?’’ Nazareth
answered, ‘‘I can do whatever I like, I’m the boss.’’ (Tr. 28–
30, 55–56, 85–86.)
They left the meeting and went through the lounge into the
hallway. As Nazareth was going into his office and
Stapinsky was ‘‘starting to head downstairs to the production
floor,’’ Williams began cursing and threatening Nazareth
with bodily harm. (Tr. 30–31, 41, 56–58, 86–87.) Supervisor
Amvel McIver, who also had attended the discharge meeting,
advised Williams to leave before he got in trouble and es-
corted him outside the building (Tr. 87–88). After working
until 3:30 p.m., Stapinsky met Williams in the parking lot
and advised him about filing a grievance (Tr. 32–33).
2. Threat to discharge steward
It is undisputed, as Stapinsky credibly testified, that before
she left the hallway to go downstairs, Nazareth told her:
‘‘You heard what he said, I want a written statement from
you. If you don’t provide me with this statement you will
be in a sling.’’ On cross-examination, Stapinsky answered,
‘‘It was . . . when I was on my way down to the production
floor,’’ to the company counsel’s question about whether
Nazareth had ‘‘asked [her] for [a statement] involving what
had transpired at the [discharge] meeting.’’ (Tr. 31, 41–42,
51.)
About 3:30 that afternoon, January 15, as Stapinsky was
leaving work, Nazareth told her, ‘‘You have until Wednes-
day to provide me with that statement. If you don’t provide
me with that statement at that time, you will no longer work
here [emphasis added]’’ (Tr. 32).
At the 9:30 a.m. break on Wednesday, January 19, Naza-
reth asked Stapinsky if she brought the statement. She said
she did, but ‘‘I’m not sure if I’m going to give it to [you].’’
Later that morning on the production floor, with Supervisor
Mabel Liggins present, Nazareth again asked Stapinsky if she
had the statement. She told him she did, but the Union was
not too happy about her having to give him a statement on
this. Liggins asked Nazareth what was he going to do if the
Union kicked Stapinsky out, make her a supervisor? He
evaded the question. Stapinsky then gave Nazareth her state-
ment, which related that at 12:30 p.m. on January 15 she was
called to the office as the union representative and which re-
lated what happened in the 12:30 and 3:15 p.m. meetings and
after the termination, when Williams ‘‘started to swear and
threaten Mr. Nazeretth’’ (misspelling his name). (Tr. 33–36;
G.C. Exh. 3.)
About 2 p.m. Nazareth went to Stapinsky’s work station
and ‘‘yelled at [her] for spelling his name wrong’’ (Tr. 32–
33).
3. Contentions and concluding findings
The General Counsel contends (Tr. 7) that the Company’s
requiring the steward to provide it with the written account
of the events surrounding Williams’ termination ‘‘put the
steward in a sharp conflict of interest, pitting her interest [of]
representing employees in the bargaining unit to her fullest
extent versus trying to satisfy the [Company’s] desires and
being threatened with discharge.’’
The Company contends in its brief (at 9–10) that Williams
was fired only for smoking on company premises, not for
verbally assaulting and threatening Nazareth. Although
Stapinsky was present in the hallway as well as in the dis-
charge meeting only because she was the steward represent-
ing Williams (a protected concerted activity), the Company
argues (at 10–12) that ‘‘Williams was already terminated and
Stapinsky was not acting as a union representative at the
time of the verbal assault.’’ It argues that therefore she ‘‘was
not engaged in a protected union activity at the time she
heard the threats.’’ To the contrary, Williams’ conduct in the
hallway closely related to Williams’ response in the dis-
charge meeting, both in time (immediately afterward the
meeting) and in subject matter (responding to what he evi-
dently considered an unjust discharge).
The Company contends in its brief (at 12–13) that its ‘‘de-
mand that Stapinsky document her observation of Williams’
outburst’’ after the discharge was not ‘‘for the purpose of
vindicating a disciplinary action [for smoking] or discovering
a union’s arbitration position.’’ Relying on Nazareth’s claim
at the trial (Tr. 58), the Company contends (at 12–13) that
‘‘Nazareth wanted the written statement from Stapinsky be-
cause he wanted documentation of the threat in the event
Williams attacked him in the future.’’
I find this professed purpose of the written statement to be
an afterthought.
Williams had engaged in misconduct both during the 3:15
p.m. discharge meeting (in Nazareth’s words, Tr. 56, ‘‘he
just tore up the envelope . . . and threw it at me’’) and later
1153HOSPITAL LINEN SERVICE
in the hallway. Any grievance and arbitration challenging the
justness of the discharge could be expected to involve a re-
quest for reinstatement. I find that a purpose for Nazareth’s
coercing Steward Stapinsky (with the threat of discharge) to
provide him the written statement was to supplement the tes-
timony that Nazareth and Supervisor McIver could give in
opposing reinstatement if the Union took a grievance by Wil-
liams to arbitration.
Contrary to Nazareth’s claim (Tr. 58) that he asked both
Stapinsky and Supervisor McIver to give him written state-
ments of what they had seen and heard that ‘‘had transpired
out in the hallway,’’ they both understood that Nazareth was
referring to what happened in the discharge meeting as well
as out in the hallway. Stapinsky’s written statement (G.C.
Exh. 3) includes what happened at the 3:15 p.m. meeting and
later in the hallway. McIvers’ written statement (G.C. Exh.
4) relates in detail what happened in the discharge meeting
and in the hallway. McIver admitted that Nazareth asked him
to write ‘‘everything that I had witnessed and heard that took
place in the meeting and in the hallway’’ (Tr. 88–89).
I discredit Nazareth’s claim (Tr. 58–59) that he specifi-
cally limited his requests, asking Stapinsky and McIver only
‘‘to give me written statements of what they had seen and
heard that had transpired out in the hallway [emphasis
added].’’ I also discredit his claim (Tr. 58), ‘‘That is not my
recollection that I had threatened [Stapinsky] at any time that
she would be discharged.’’
Having found that Stapinsky was serving as a steward in
representing Williams both in the discharge meeting and
afterward in the hallway, engaging in protected concerted ac-
tivity, I agree with the General Counsel that the Company
unlawfully coerced Stapinsky by demanding that she provide
him a written statement of the incident under threat of dis-
charge. I find that by doing so, the Company was infringing
on protected concerted activity by putting the steward, a rep-
resentative of the Union, in a sharp conflict of interest by
pitting her interest in representing this bargaining unit em-
ployee to the fullest extent, against her interest in protecting
her own job by complying with the Company’s demand.
I therefore find that on January 15, 1994, the Company,
as alleged in the complaint, threatened a steward, a union
representative, with discharge if the steward failed to provide
it a written account of an employee’s conduct witnessed
while performing steward duties, violating Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
B. Use of Union Bulletin Board
The complaint alleges, as further 8(a)(1) violations, that
the Company unlawfully threatened a steward with discipli-
nary action for attempting to post union-related materials
without prior authorization and later refused a union request
for permission to post an unfair labor practice charge.
The current collective-bargaining agreement (G.C. Exh. 2,
p. 21) provides in article 8, ‘‘Union Activities,’’ section 7,
‘‘Union Bulletin Board,’’ as follows:
The Employer will provide the Union with a bulletin
board for the use by the Union in announcing meetings
or other routine or non-controversial matters. The
union bulletin board will be glass-covered with a lock.
All notices posted on the union bulletin board shall be
signed by a union official as evidence that its posting
has been authorized by the Union. The bulletin board
key shall be available upon request at the Personnel
Office. [Emphasis added.]
Although prior company approval is not specifically re-
quired in this provision in the contract, it is undisputed, as
Union Steward Clariece Branch admitted (Tr. 13), that the
practice in getting something posted has been for the union
steward to take the material to the office and give it to a sec-
retary, who ‘‘would let Mr. Nazareth see it and post it on
the bulletin board. . . . that’s the way it was always done
before.’’
Similarly, General Manager Nazareth credibly testified (Tr.
63):
Q. Is there a procedure for the Union to follow if
they wish to post information on their bulletin board?
A. The procedure that a Union follows is . . . what-
ever needs to be posted they bring it into the office and
make us aware of what needs to be posted, then we
date stamp it and if it’s okay, then we post it on the
bulletin board.
In the past, the Union has received company approval to
post such material as notices of union meetings or election
of stewards and applications for union-sponsored credit cards
(Tr. 12, 37).
On Sunday, January 30, Weekend Shop Steward Noreen
Stapinsky failed to follow this procedure. She taped on the
outside of the locked bulletin board glass a copy of the
charge in Case 6–CA–26123, filed January 25. It alleged the
unlawful threat to discharge Stapinsky ‘‘if she fails to pro-
vide written evidence to the Employer, requested for pur-
poses of establishing and justifying discipline [emphasis
added]’’ of Raymond Williams.
Nazareth required Stapinsky to remove the charge and in
a meeting on February 2, told her that all material to be post-
ed ‘‘had to go through him,’’ or ‘‘You could be dis-
ciplined.’’ She asked, ‘‘You mean I could be fired?’’ and he
answered, ‘‘No, that you could be disciplined. Anybody that
put anything on the board without permission could be dis-
ciplined.’’
In mid-February Nazareth refused the Union’s request for
permission to post its charge in Case 6–CA–26152, filed
February 7. It alleged threats to discipline stewards ‘‘if they
attempt to post union-related materials on the union bulletin
board . . . without permission of the Employer’’ and that
‘‘There has never been a requirement of employer approval
[emphasis added] for posting of union-related materials.’’
I agree with the Company that both of the charges con-
tained untrue, controversial allegations. The January 25
charge incorrectly alleged that the purpose of Stapinsky’s re-
quired written statement was ‘‘establishing and justifying dis-
cipline’’ of Williams (whereas the statement would concern
only his reinstatement if the justness of his discharge went
to arbitration). The February 7 charge incorrectly alleged that
there has ‘‘never been a requirement of employer approval’’
for the posting of material on the union bulletin (whereas
both the Company and the Union agreed that there was such
a practice, although not a specific contractual requirement).
I find that the Company was justified in issuing the warn-
ing that anybody that put material on the union bulletin
board without permission could be disciplined (particularly
1154 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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.
3 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.’’
after Stapinsky had taped the charge on the outside of the
locked bulletin board glass).
I also find that the Company was justified in refusing the
Union’s request for permission to post its February 7 charge,
as a contractual controversial matter, because it incorrectly
alleged that there had ‘‘never been a requirement of em-
ployer approval’’ for posting union material on the bulletin
board.
I therefore find that these 8(a)(1) allegations must be dis-
missed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatened a union steward with discharge if the
steward failed to provide it a written account of an employ-
ee’s conduct witnessed while performing steward duties, the
Company has engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Company, acting in accordance with the established
practice under a contractual bulletin board provision, did not
violate the Act by warning a union steward that anybody put-
ting material on the union bulletin board without permission
could be disciplined and by refusing under the contractual
provision to grant the Union’s request for permission to post
an NLRB charge against the Company, containing a clearly
incorrect, controversial allegation.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Hospital Linen Service Facility, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening to discharge any union steward for failing
to provide it a written account of an employee’s conduct wit-
nessed while performing steward duties.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
threat to discharge Weekend Shop Steward Noreen Stapinsky
and notify her in writing that this has been done and that dis-
charge threat will not be used against her in any way.
(b) Post at its facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 6, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.