Hospital Santa Rosa, Inc. a/k/a Clinica Santa Rosa

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 2017

365 NLRB No. 5 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 5
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Hospital Santa Rosa Inc. a/k/a Clinica Santa Rosa
and Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras(os) y
Empleados de la Salud. Case 12–CA–143221
January 3, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND MCFERRAN
On June 16, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Kenneth
W. Chu issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions with supporting argument, and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed an answering brief. The General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions with supporting argu-
ment.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified and set forth in full below.2

1 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s finding that the Respond-
ent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it refused to provide
the information the Union requested.
The Respondent excepts to the judge’s conclusion that it changed the
terms and conditions of employment of its unit employees by failing to
pay them a $600-Christmas bonus without affording the Union ade-
quate opportunity to bargain in violation of Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. The Respondent does not challenge the judge’s findings that the
Christmas bonus was a mandatory subject of bargaining, that the Re-
spondent had a practice of paying the bonus to bargaining unit employ-
ees, that the parties did not reach impasse, or that the Respondent did
not engage in meaningful bargaining with the Union. Rather, the Re-
spondent argues only that under Puerto Rico Law No. 148 of June 30,
1969, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann tit. 29, sec. 501 et seq., it was not
obligated to pay the bonus because it suffered financial losses in 2014,
filed paperwork to obtain an exemption from paying the bonus with the
Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources, and expected
to receive an exemption upon completion of an audit. We reject this
argument primarily because there is no record evidence that such an
exemption was granted by the date the bonus payment was due under
Puerto Rican law. Notably, no exemption had been granted by October
27, 2015, when the parties entered into the stipulation of facts and
documents, and the Respondent has not offered to show that one was
ever granted.
Moreover, even if the government of Puerto Rico had granted the
Respondent’s exemption request for the 2014 bonus, it does not follow
that this exemption would have relieved the Respondent of its obliga-
tion under the National Labor Relations Act to provide the Union no-
tice and an opportunity to bargain about the bonus payment, as the
exemption would not have prohibited the Respondent from paying the
2014 bonus. See, e.g., Watsonville Register-Pajaronian, 327 NLRB
957 (1999) (Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provision allowing em-
ployers not to pay overtime to exempt employees did not excuse em-
ployer’s failure to bargain over unilateral changes to employees’
schedules because the FLSA provision did not compel employer to
AMENDED REMEDY
In addition to the remedies provided in the judge’s de-
cision, we shall order the Respondent to pay the employ-
ees named in the Appendix to the complaint and compli-
ance specification the amount opposite their names, less
any applicable Federal or Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
taxes. The total amount of backpay for each employee
shall be calculated with interest, accrued to the day of
payment, plus compensation to offset any adverse tax
consequences, as set forth in the remedy section of the
judge’s decision, as modified.
ORDER
The Respondent, Hospital Santa Rosa, Inc., a/k/a
Clinica Santa Rosa, Guayama, Puerto Rico, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union,
Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras(os) y Empleados de la
Salud, by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested
information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s unit employees.
(b) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its unit employees by failing and refusing

bring employees within that exemption; employer could have complied
with the FLSA simply by paying the employees overtime). Because an
exemption would not prevent the Respondent from paying the bonus
under Puerto Rican law, it still has an obligation to bargain with the
Union over payment of the bonus.
Member Miscimarra concurs in finding that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(a)(5) on the basis that the Respondent did not except to the
judge’s finding that payment of the annual bonus was an established
past practice and a term and condition of employment that, under the
holding of NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962), the Respondent could
not discontinue unilaterally. Because the Respondent did not except to
this finding, it is not before the Board for review. See, e.g., Can-Am
Plumbing, Inc., 350 NLRB 947, 948 (2007), enfd. 340 Fed.Appx. 354
(9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, Member Miscimarra does not reach or pass
on whether, under Katz, the payment of an annual Christmas bonus
based on an obligation existing under Puerto Rico law constitutes a past
practice that requires notice and the opportunity for bargaining prior to
discontinuation of the bonus.
2 The judge ordered the Respondent to “restore the full Christmas
bonus benefit of $600 to the unit employees,” but he did not name the
employees entitled to that remedy. The General Counsel, having listed
the names in the compliance specification, excepts. We shall modify
the remedy to include the employees’ names. In addition, we do not
rely on Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No.
10 (2014), which the judge cited in his decision. Instead, we rely on
AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), which the
judge properly applied in his recommended Order and notice. Further,
we have substituted a “limited” bargaining order for the judge’s rec-
ommended affirmative bargaining order. See Mimbres Memorial Hos-
pital, 337 NLRB 998, 998 fn. 2 (2002), review denied sub nom. NLRB
v. CHS Community Health Systems, Inc., 108 Fed. Appx. 577 (10th Cir.
2004). We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to
our findings and the Board’s standard remedial language.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
to pay the 2014 Christmas bonus without bargaining in
good faith with the Union to impasse.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on December 12, 2014.
(b) Before implementing any changes in wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit:
All regular full-time and regular part-time registered
nurses employed by the Employer at its facilities locat-
ed in Guayama, Puerto Rico; excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, guards, other pro-
fessional employees and supervisors as defined under
the National Labor Relations Act.
(c) Rescind the change in the terms and conditions of
employment of its unit employees that was unilaterally
implemented on December 12, 2014, and make unit em-
ployees whole for the Respondent’s failure to pay the
2014 Christmas bonus, by paying them the total amounts
shown below opposite their names, with interest in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s
decision as amended, minus any tax withholdings re-
quired by Federal and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
laws.

NAME BACKPAY
DUE
1. ORTIZ RODRIGUEZ,
ELIZABETH
$600
2. RIVERA BURGOS, MYRNA 600
3. FIGUEROA ORTIZ, ONELIA 600
4. MUNOZ CEDERO, OLGA 600
5. COTTO MONTANEZ,
SANDRA
600
6. VARGAS, ADELAIDA 600
7. GONZALEZ RIVERA, LUIS 600
8. CARRION ALICEA, IRIS 600
9. PICART VAZQUEZ, MARIA 600
10. ARROYO MEDINA,
GLORIVEE
600
11. REYES VELEZ, IRMA 600
12. SANCHEZ RODRIGUEZ,
JOSE I.
600
13. RIVERA, GLORIA 600
14. COLON PEREZ, LYMARIE 600
15. CRUZ CRESPO, LUZ M. 600
16. CRUZ MAURAS, CYNTHIA 600
17. GOMEZ CAMACHO,
YAMILCA
600
18. MARTINEZ TORRES, ROSA 600
19. ROSA GARCIA, MYRIAM 600
20. SANTIAGO-FELIX, ADELA , 600
21. MORALES BAEZ.
MARILYN
600
22. LEBRON FIGUEROA,
ENEIDA
600
23. MONTANEZ MATOS,
MARILYN
600
24. ORTIZ ROMAN, NOEMI 600
25. ESTRADA HERNANDEZ,
ZAIDA
600
26. RAMOS RODRIGUEZ,
YANITZA
600
27. ROSARIO MARTINEZ,
LINDA
600
28. FONTANEZ, YOLANDA 600
29. MILIAN SALCEDO, ANGEL 600
30. RIVERA SOLIS, JEANNETIE 600
31. LUGO GONZALEZ,
NASHIRA I.
600
32. LA SANTA RODRIGUEZ,
MARIBEL
600
33. SUAREZ GOMEZ,
ANNIBELLE
600
34. ALICEA MELENDEZ, 600
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA INC. A/K/A CLINICA SANTA ROSA 3
ADELAURA
35. JESUS ALVARADO,
BERENICE
600
36. SOSA RODRIGUEZ,
EDNILYS
600
37. ORTIZ JR., CARLOS 600
38. VEGA CRUZ, NANETTE 600
39. SALGADO CINTRON,
VIVIANA
600
40. DIAZ ROSARIO, HIDALIS 600
41. BRITO LABOY, JENNIFER 600
42. RIVERA ORTIZ, JUANITA 600
43. VEGA COLON, SHEILA T. 600
44. ORTIZ TORRES, MARIBEL 600
TOTAL: $26,400
(d) Compensate unit employees for the adverse income
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region
12, within 21 days from the date of this Order, a report
allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
year for each employee.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities in Guayama, Puerto Rico copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix”3 in English and Span-
ish. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 12, 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, notices shall be dis-
tributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an
intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means,
if the 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. If the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facili-
ty involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the no-
tice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since December
12, 2014.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 12 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the 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.”
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 3, 2017
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 vio-
lated 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 refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union, Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras(os) y Empleados
de la Salud, by failing and refusing to furnish it with re-
quested information that is relevant and necessary to the
Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-
bargaining representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the terms and condi-
tions of employment of our unit employees by failing
and refusing to pay the 2014 Christmas bonus without
bargaining in good faith with the Union to impasse.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights listed above.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information it requested on December 12, 2014.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our employees in the following appropriate bar-
gaining unit:
All regular full-time and regular part-time registered
nurses employed by the Employer at its facilities locat-
ed in Guayama, Puerto Rico; excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, guards, other pro-
fessional employees and supervisors as defined under
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL rescind the change in the terms and condi-
tions of employment of our unit employees that was uni-
laterally implemented on December 12, 2014 and WE
WILL make our unit employees whole for our failure to
pay the 2014 Christmas bonus by paying each of them
600 dollars, plus interest accrued to the date of payment,
minus any tax withholdings required by Federal and
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico laws.
WE WILL compensate unit employees for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for
Region 12, within 21 days from the date of the Board’s
order, a report allocating the backpay awards to the ap-
propriate calendar year for each employee.
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA, INC. A/K/A CLINICA
SANTA ROSA
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12–CA–143221 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
Ana B. Ramos Fernández, Esq., for the General Counsel.
José Oliveras, Esq., of San Juan, Puerto Rico, for the Respond-
ent.
Harold Hopkins, Esq., of San Juan, Puerto Rico, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KENNETH W. CHU, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
scheduled for a hearing in San Juan, Puerto Rico on October
28, 2015. 1 The parties filed a joint motion and stipulation of
fact on said date without opening the record. The parties stipu-
lated and agreed that the facts recited in the stipulation are not
in dispute and represent a full and complete record of the evi-
dence necessary to issue a decision in the amended complaint.
The parties further stipulated that no oral testimony is necessary
or desired and the parties waived their right to a hearing on this
complaint. On October 30, 2015, I accepted the joint motion
and stipulation of fact and the parties’ waiver of a hearing in
this matter pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(9) of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations.
The Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras (OS) y Empleados de la
Salud (Union) filed the charge on December 19. The Regional
Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued
a complaint on March 31, 2015, and a subsequent amended
complaint on April 6. The amended complaint alleges that
Hospital Santa Rosa, Inc., a/k/a Clinica Santa Rosa (Respond-
ent) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act (Act) when on or about December 12, the Respond-
ent refused and failed to furnish the Union information request-
ed which is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance
of its responsibilities as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employee unit. The complaint further
alleges that since December 15, 2014, the Respondent eliminat-
ed the Christmas bonus benefit by refusing and failing to pay
the 2014 bonus to the unit employees without affording a rea-
sonable opportunity to bargain with the Union and without
bargaining in good faith to lawful impasse. It is further alleged
that the refusal of the Respondent to the 2014 bonus is incon-
sistent with the terms of its final collective-bargaining proposal
made to the Union. The Respondent filed a timely answer
denying the material allegations in the amended complaint (GC
Exh.1a–e).2
On the entire record, and after considering the briefs filed by
the General Counsel, the Union and Respondent, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND UNION STATUS
At all material time, the Respondent, a Puerto Rico corpora-
tion with offices and place of business located in Guayama,
Puerto Rico, has been engaged in the operation of an acute care
hospital providing medical services. During the past 12
months, the Respondent had gross annual revenues in conduct-
ing its business in excess of $250,000 and has purchased and
received at its Guayama hospital, goods valued in excess of

1 All dates are in 2014 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The General Counsel exhibits are identified as “GC Exh.” and the
joint exhibits are identified as “Jt. Exh.” Joint exhibits in Spanish have
been marked with the letter “a” and the English translation has been
marked with the letter “b.” The closing briefs for the General Counsel
and Respondent are identified as GC Br. and R. Br., respectively.
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA INC. A/K/A CLINICA SANTA ROSA 5
$50,000 directly from points located outside the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico. As such, I find and it is admitted, that
the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act (GC Exh. 1m).
I also find that at all times material, the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following facts have been stipulated by the parties:
1. Respondent operates an acute care hospital in two build-
ings located in Guayama, Puerto Rico, consisting of approx-
imately 89 beds, and provides inpatient, outpatient and
emergency care services, primarily to residents of the mu-
nicipality of Guayama and its vicinity. At all material times
the following individuals have held the positions set forth
opposite their respective names and have been supervisors
of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act:
Gloria Diaz Hospital Administrator
DoraA.Areizaga FinanceDepartmentDirector
ElenaSantiago CollectionandBillingContractor
2. Attorneys Jorge Pizarro (Pizarro) and Karla Rivera-
Rubio (Rivera) served as legal counsels for Respondent
during the period from August 1, 2014, until at least De-
cember 15, 2014, and represented the Respondent during
negotiations with the Union concerning the payment of the
2014 Christmas Bonus to the unit employees.
3. On November 14, 2013, pursuant to a National Labor Re-
lations Board election conducted in Case 12–RC–113295 on
October 18, 2013 in which a majority of the votes was cast
for the Union, the Union was certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit:
All regular full-time and regular part-time registered nurses
employed by the Employer at its facilities located in
Guayama, Puerto Rico; excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, guards, other professional employees and
supervisors as defined under the Act (GC Exh. 2 and 3).
To date, there has been no collective-bargaining agreement
reached between Respondent and the Union.
4. Ariel Echevarria Martinez (Echevarria) and Ingrid Vega
(Vega) are business agents employed by the Union. They
represented the Union during negotiations with the Respondent
concerning the payment of the 2014 Christmas Bonus to
the unit employees.
5. In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the payment of
a Christmas Bonus is mandated by law. The Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico Law No. 148 of June 30, 1969, as amended
(Christmas Bonus Law), 29 L.P.R.A., Section 501 et seq.,
requires any employer who employs one or more workers or
employees to pay a Christmas bonus. Law No. 148 pro-
vides that to be eligible for the Christmas bonus an em-
ployee must have worked a minimum of 700 hours during
the period from October 1 of the previous year to September
30 of the year at issue. The amount to be paid is six percent
(6%) of an employee’s wages or salary up to a maximum
bonus of $10,000. The total amounts to be paid by reason of
said bonus shall not exceed 15% of the net annual profit of
the employer within the period comprised from September
30 of the preceding year until September 30 of the year to
which the bonus corresponds. The Law further provides that
the bonus be paid within the period from December 1 to
December 15, and establishes penalties for late and/or non-
payment of the bonus. Puerto Rico Law No. 148 of June 30,
1969, as amended (Christmas Bonus Law), 29 L.P.R.A.,
Section 501, et seq. (Jt. Exh. 1).
6. Law No. 148 also provides a procedure for the exemp-
tion, or exoneration, of employers from their obligation to
pay the Christmas Bonus in a particular year. An employer
seeking a n exoneration may make a request to the Secre-
tary of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human
Resources (PDOL Secretary), who is responsible for deter-
mining whether a requesting employer is exempt from
paying the Christmas Bonus that year.
7. In December 2010, December 2011, and December
2012, pursuant to the provisions of Law No. 148, Respond-
ent paid annual Christmas Bonuses of $600 to all of its regis-
tered nurses. Copies of Respondent's payroll records show
those Christmas bonus payments in 2010, 2011 and 2012
( Jt. Exh.s. 2, 3 and 4).
8. In December 2013, after the certification of the Union as
the representative of Respondent's registered nurses, re-
ferred to herein as the unit employees, Respondent paid
$300 to each of its unit employees. Respondent referred to
said $300 payment as a "gift" in lieu of the 2013 Christmas
Bonus. Respondent did not give the Union notice or an op-
portunity to bargain with respect to the elimination of the
2013 Christmas Bonus with respect to unit employees, or with
respect to the payment of the $300 "gift" to unit employees in
December 2013. The Union filed an unfair labor practice
charge against Respondent regarding these matters in Case
12–CA–119177. Following the issuance of a Complaint in
Case 12–CA–119177, Respondent and the Union entered into
a Settlement Agreement in Case 12–CA–119177, which was
approved by the Regional Director on July 31, 2014. A copy
of the Settlement Agreement in Case 12–CA–119177 is at-
tached (Jt. Exh. 5).
9. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement in Case 12–
CA–119177, Respondent paid each of the unit employees
$300 in two equal installment payments made in August
2015, plus interest, to compensate them for the elimination of
the 2013 Christmas Bonus payment. Each of the unit employ-
ees named in the Appendix to the Complaint, Compliance
Specification and Notice of Hearing issued in Case 12–CA–
143221 on March 31, 2015, as amended on April 6, 2015,
worked at least 700 hours and earned at least $10,000 during
the period from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014.
Therefore, pursuant to the formula provided in Law No. 148,
each of those employees is eligible for a 2014 Christmas bonus
in the amount of $600.
10. On August 22, 2014, Respondent Attorney Pizarro
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
sent a letter to Union Business Agent Echevarria, informing
the Union of Respondent's intention not to pay the 2014
Christmas Bonus to employees because of Respondent's
"precarious financial situation" and offering to negotiate with
the Union about “he nonpayment of the Christmas Bonus” (Jt.
Exh. 6).
11. On August 29, 2014, Echevarria sent a letter to
Pizarro, agreeing to negotiate, and requesting a proposal
from Respondnt (Jt. Exh. 7).
12. On September 4, 2014, Pizarro sent a letter to Eche-
varria, proposing that the Union accept the decision of
Puerto Rico Department of Labor (PDOL) regarding Re-
spondent's request to be exempted from the payment of the
2014 Christmas Bonus to its employees (Jt. Exh. 8).
13. On September 15, 2014, Echevarria sent a letter to Pizar-
ro, again requesting a proposal from Respondent regarding
the 2014 Christmas Bonus (Jt. Exh. 9).
14. On September 23, 2014, Pizarro sent a letter and a "Pro-
posed Stipulation for Christmas Bonus 2014" to Echevarria,
proposing that the parties accept the PDOL's determination
of Respondent's request for exemption from the 2014
Christmas Bonus payment (Jt. Exh. 10 and 11). On Novem-
ber 3, 2014, Echeverria sent a letter to Pizarro, requesting
dates to negotiate (Jt. Exh. 12).
15. On November 3, 2014, Respondent attorney Rivera sent
a letter t o Echevarria, stating Respondent's availability on six
dates in November 2014, including November 18, 2014 (Jt.
Exh.Jt. Exh. 13). On November 4, 2014, Echevarria sent a
letter to Rivera, confirming a negotiating session on No-
vember 18, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 14).
16. On November 18, 2014, the Respondent and the Union
met to bargain about Respondent's intention not to pay the
2014 Christmas Bonus. The meeting took place at the facilities
of the PDOL in Guayama, Puerto Rico. Hospital Administrator
Gloria Diaz, Finance Department Director Dora Areizaga,
and Attorney Rivera attended for Respondent. Union
Agents Echevarria and Vega, and Shop Steward Maria Picart
attended for the Union. Attorney Rivera started the meet-
ing by informing the Union representatives that due to fi-
nancial problems, it was the Respondent's intention not to
pay its employees the Christmas bonus in December 2014.
17. Union Agent Echevarria asked what the economic
impact of the payment of the Christmas Bonus was on
Respondent. Respondent's representatives replied that the
economic impact for the 36 employees in the RN bar-
gaining unit would be $21,600 plus the employer's share
of 7.65% for Social Security and Medicare taxes, and
that the economic impact for all 150 Hospital employees,
including the RNs, would be about $138,000 plus 7.65%
for Social Security and Medicare taxes. Respondent's rep-
resentatives further stated that the Respondent was not going
to pay the Christmas bonus for 2014 because they could not
afford it. Echevarria asked whether Respondent was willing
to pay the Registered Nurses an amount for a royalty. Rivera
replied that no royalty would be paid. Respondent' representa-
tives stated that the hospital did not have money to cover pay-
roll on November 21, 2014, and that Respondent would not
pay the bonus, and that she was sure PDOL would exempt
Respondent from paying the bonus. Echevarria explained that
the Union was only negotiating on behalf of the RNs.
Echevarria stated that the Union was willing to seek alter-
natives including a payment plan. Respondent then pro-
posed to reduce the unit employees’ benefits such as vacations,
sick leave, holidays and/or reimbursement for license fees.
Echevarria replied that the parties should seek other alterna-
tives because the Union was not willing to relinquish the unit
employees' benefits, at least, not at that time. Echevarria
further informed Respondent's representatives that the Union
rejected Respondent's proposal of September 23, 2014, which
provided that the parties would accept the determination of
PDOL regarding Respondent's request for a complete exemp-
tion from payment of the Christmas Bonus in 2014 and that the
Union would make a counteroffer. A meeting was scheduled
for December 3, 2014.
18. On November 24, 2014, Union representative Eche-
verria sent a letter to Respondent attorney Rivera by letter,
proposing payment of the 2014 Christmas Bonus to unit em-
ployees in the installments of $550 on or before December
15, 2014, and $50 on or before December 31, 2014. By sepa-
rate letter from Echevarria to Rivera, also on November 24,
2014, the Union informed the Respondent that it would not
be available to meet on December 3, 2014, as previously
agreed, and requested that the Respondent provides available
dates (Jt. Exhs . 15 and 16).
19. On November 25, 2014, Respondent attorney Rive-
ra replied to Union Representative Echevarria by letter,
rejecting the Union's proposal of November 24, 2015, and
making a counterproposal to pay a $100 bonus to the unit
employees on or before December 15, 2014. In that letter
Respondent also offered to meet on any date up to December
15, 2015 (Jt. Exh. 17).
20. On November 25, 2014, by letter from Echevarria to
Rivera, the Union rejected Respondent's proposal and the
Union proposed that Respondent pay the 2014 Christmas Bo-
nus to unit employees in installments of $500 on or before
December 15, 2014, and $100 on or before December 31,
2014. In the same letter, the Union requested that Respond-
ent provide the Union with a copy of the Exoneration Re-
quest that Respondent filed with PDOL, and confirmed the
Union's availability to meet on December 12, 2014 (Jt.
Exh.18).
21. On November 26, 2014, Rivera replied to Echevarria by
letter, informing the Union that its proposal of November 25,
2014, was not accepted and urging the Union to accept Re-
spondent's proposal to pay a $100 bonus to the unit em-
ployees on or before December 15, 2014. In that letter, Re-
spondent further informed the Union that its Exoneration Re-
quest would be provided to the Union after it had been filed
with PDOL, which had not yet occurred. Respondent ended
that letter expressing its availability to meet on any date
until December 15, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 19).
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA INC. A/K/A CLINICA SANTA ROSA 7
22. On December 1, 2014, Union Agent Echevarria sent a
letter to Respondent attorney Rivera, rejecting the Respond-
ent's proposal for the payment of a bonus of $100 to the
unit employees on or before December 15, 2014, and coun-
ter-offering that Respondent pay the unit employees the
2014 Christmas bonus in installments of $450 on or before
December 15, 2014, and $150 on or before December 31,
2014.
23. By separate letter also dated December 1, 2014, from
Echevarria to Rivera, the Union requested that Respondent
provide the Union with a list of active and inactive unit
employees entitled to the Christmas Bonus for year 2014
(based on employment from October 1, 2013 to September 30,
2014) (Jt. Exhs. 20 and 21).
24. By letter dated December 1, 2014, from Rivera to
Echevarria, Respondent rejected the Union's proposal of that
same date, and again reiterated its $100 bonus offer that it
had initially made on November 25, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 22).
25. By letter dated December 3, 2014, from Respondent
Attorney Rivera to Union Agent Echevarria, Respondent
informed the Union that the Request for Exoneration of
the Payment of the Christmas Bonus for year 2014 had been
filed with PDOL, and Respondent enclosed to the Union
copies of its letter dated November 21, 2014, from Respond-
ent Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Fer-
nando Alarcon to the Secretary of the PDOL, Mr. Vance E.
Thomas Rider, informing PDOL that Respondent would not
pay its employees the 2014 Christmas Bonus, and a document
entitled Financial Statement, September 30, 2014 (Jt. Exhs. 23,
24, and 25).
26. On December 4, 2014, by letter from Echevarria to Ri-
vera, the Union again rejected the Respondent's proposal of
November 25, 2014, and proposed that Respondent pay the
unit employees the 2014 Christmas Bonus in installments of
$400 on or before December 15 2014, and $200 on or before
December 31, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 26).
27. By letter dated December 4, 2014, from Rivera to
Echeverria, Respondent rejected the Union's proposal of that
same date, and reiterated its offer of November 25, 2014, for
a $100 bonus to the unit employees on or before Decem-
ber 15, 2014. Attached to that letter Respondent enclosed a
list of 30 active unit employees and 10 inactive unit employ-
ees who were eligible for a Christmas Bonus, if one was to
be paid (Jt. Exhs. 27 and 28).
28. On December 5, 2014, by letter from Echevarria to
Rivera, the Union again rejected Respondent's proposal made
on November 25, 2014, and proposing that Respondent pay
unit employees the 2014 Christmas Bonus in installments of
$350 on or before December 15, 2014, and $250 on or before
December 31, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 29).
29. By letter dated December 9, 2014, from Rivera to
Echevarria, Respondent rejected the Union's proposal of
December 5, 2014, and asked the Union to reconsider its
position in anticipation of the meeting scheduled for Decem-
ber 12, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 30).
30. On December 10, 2014, by letter from Echevarria to Ri-
vera, the Union again rejected Respondent's $100 bonus
proposal, and proposed that Respondent pay the 2014
Christmas Bonus to unit employees in installments of $300 on
or before December 15, 2014, and $300 on or before Decem-
ber 31, 2014 ( Jt. Exh. 31).
31. By letter dated December 11, 2014, from Rivera to
Echevarria, Respondent rejected the Union's proposal of
December 9, 2014. Respondent further stated that it had
been exonerated from the 2014 Christmas Bonus require-
ment by PDOL, and therefore, was not obligated to pay the
Christmas Bonus on December 15, 2014, or in subsequent
installments. Respondent proposed that the Union accept the
PDOL determination. Attached to that letter is a document
entitled “ "Report of Request for Exoneration Law No. 148
of June 30, 1969, as amended, Bonus year 2014” (Jt. Exh. 32).
32. A copy of the document entitled “Report of Request for
Exoneration Law No. 148 of June 30, 1969, as amended, Bo-
nus year 2014,” which acknowledged PDOL’s receipt of
documents from Respondent in support of its request for
exoneration from paying the 2014 Christmas Bonus, but did
not contain a decision regarding that request (Jt Exh. 33) (Jt.
Exh. 33(b) consists of the translation for page 7 only).
33. On December 12, 2014, representatives of Respondent
and the Union met for t h e second time to bargain about
the 2014 Christmas Bonus with respect to the unit employ-
ees. The meeting took place at the facilities of PDOL in
Guayama, Puerto Rico. At this meeting, Gloria Diaz, Dora
Areizaga, and attorneys Karla Rivera and Lloyd Isgut repre-
sented Respondent, and Union Representative Echevarria,
Union Administrative Assistant Ruth Perez, and Shop Stew-
ard Maria Picart represented the Union. At the meeting,
Echevarria asked Respondent for a copy of the letter whereby
PDOL exempted Respondent from paying the 2014 Christ-
mas Bonus, to which Attorney Rivera replied that PDOL
had not yet made a decision on Respondent's request and
that its final determination would eventually be found on
PDOL’s webpage.
Echevarria stated that all he received was a document from
PDOL acknowledging receipt of the required documents in
order to complete Respondent's exemption request. Attor-
ney Rivera replied that the document provided was the only
document that had been issued by PDOL and advised
Echevarria that Respondent had fully complied with the
local law; made reference to the letter dated November 26,
2014 whereby the Department of Labor made a preliminary
determination, which in her view, constituted an exoneration
from the payment of the bonus; and that in view of the latter
there was no obligation to pay the bonus to all the employees
(Jt. Exh. 34).
34. During that meeting of December 12, 2014, the parties
exchanged several proposals as follows: Respondent, by
Attorney Rivera, again rejected the Union's proposals for a
$600 bonus to be paid in two installments, and proposed a
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
$110 bonus of which $55 was payable on January 15,
2015, and the other $55 on March 15, 2015. Echevarria
rejected this proposal under the ground that local law man-
dated a $600 bonus to be paid on or before December 15,
2014. Attorney Rivera stated that PDOL exonerated about
670 companies from paying the 2014 Christmas Bonus and
the Respondent was among them.
Union Representative Echevarria made the following three
counteroffers regarding the 2014 Christmas Bonus:
(a) A first installment of $300 payable on or before Decem-
ber 15, 2014 and a second installment of $300 payable on or
before January 15,2015.
(b) A first installment of $300 payable on or before Decem-
ber 15, 2014 and a second installment of $300 payable on or
before August, 2015.
(c) Payment of a $500 bonus.
Respondent rejected all three proposals, in succession. Re-
spondent counter-offered a bonus of $120 per unit employ-
ee to be paid in a first installment of $60 on or before
December 31, 2014, and a second installment of $60 on or
before March 31, 2015. This proposal was rejected by the
Union. The meeting ended without any agreement and without
any further proposals being made bythe parties.
36. By letter dated December 12, 2014, from Rivera to
Echevarria, Respondent set forth its version of certain events
at the bargaining session of December 12, 2014, and in-
formed the Union about its availability to negotiate during
the weekend of December 13 and 14, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 35).
37. On December 15, 2014, Respondent distributed a
memorandum to its employees, including the unit employees,
concerning the non-payment of the 2014 Christmas Bonus
(Jt. Exh. 36).
38. By letter dated December 15, 2014, from Echevarria
to Rivera, the Union set forth its version of bargaining con-
cerning Respondent's demand for nonpayment of the 2014
Christmas Bonus with respect to unit employees (Jt. Exh.
37).
39. By letter dated December 15, 2014, from Rivera to
Echevarria, Respondent set forth its version of the negotiation
process concerning the 2014 Christmas Bonus and con-
firmed that Respondent was not going to pay the 2014 Christ-
mas Bonus (Jt. Exh. 38).
40. A letter dated December 12, 2014, from PDOL to
the Union's Executive Director concerning Respondent's Ex-
oneration Request for the 2014 Christmas Bonus (Jt. Exh. 39).
41. A letter dated September 12, 2014, from the Re-
spondent to CPA Hiram Irizarry concerning the audit for the
Request for Exoneration of the Christmas bonus (Jt. Exh.Jt.
Exh. 40).
42. Respondent's Declaration for Christmas Bonus Exon-
eration Request and Statement of Gain and Losses to the
PDOL dated December 16, 2014, reflects a loss of $98,685
during the year ending on September 30, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 41).
43. Respondent has not paid its employees in the unit repre-
sented by the Union anything for a 2014 Christmas Bonus.
Respondent did not implement its final offer to the Union of
a $120 bonus to be paid to unit employees in two installments,
and Respondent has not made payment or provided any bene-
fit to its unit employees in lieu of the payment of the 2014
Christmas bonus.
44. A letter issued by the PDOL on October 26, 2015, con-
cerning the status of Respondent’s Request for the Exoneration
of the 2014 Christmas Bonus (Jt. Exh. 42).
a. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
refusing and failing to provide the Union with
information requested
The complaint alleges that since on or about December 12,
2014, the Union orally requested that the Respondent furnish
the Union with information regarding the financial statements
previously provided to the Union.
The payment of a Christmas bonus is mandated by law in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico Law No. 148 of June 30, 1969, as amended
(Christmas Bonus Law)). 29 L.P.R.A., Section 501 et seq.,
requires any employer who employs one or more workers or
employees to pay a Christmas bonus. Law No. 148 pro-
vides that to be eligible for the Christmas bonus an em-
ployee must have worked a minimum of 700 hours during
the period from October 1 of the previous year to September
30 of the year at issue. The amount to be paid is six percent
(6%) of an employee's wages or salary up to a maximum bo-
nus of $10,000. The total amounts to be paid by reason of
said bonus shall not exceed 15% of the net annual profit of the
employer within the period comprised from September 30 of
the preceding year until September 30 of the year to which
the bonus corresponds. The Law further provides that the
bonus be paid within the period from December 1 to Decem-
ber 15, and establishes penalties for late and/or nonpayment
of the bonus. (Jt. Exh. 1). Law No. 148 also provides a pro-
cedure for the exemption, or exoneration, of employers from
their obligation to pay the Christmas Bonus in a particular
year. An employer seeking a n exoneration may make a
request to the Secretary of the Puerto Rico Department of
Labor and Human Resources (PDOL Secretary), who is re-
sponsible for determining whether a requesting employer is
exempt from paying the Christmas Bonus that year.
The Respondent informed the Union on August 22, 2014 of
its intention not to pay the 2014 Christmas bonus because of the
Respondent’s “precarious financial situation” and offered to
negotiate with the Union over the “non-payment of the Christ-
mas bonus.” In September, the Respondent informed its ac-
countant to prepare the audit and financial documents for filing
the “Application for Waiver Declaration of Christmas Bonus
(Jt. Exh. 40).”
The parties met for the first time on November 18, 2014 to
bargain over the non-payment of the Christmas bonus. The
Union agent Echevarria inquired as to the economic impact
of the payment of the Christmas Bonus on Respondent.
Respondent's representatives replied that the economic
impact for the 36 employees in the RN bargaining unit
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA INC. A/K/A CLINICA SANTA ROSA 9
would be $21,600 plus the employer's share of 7.65% for
Social Security and Medicare taxes, and that the eco-
nomic impact for all 150 Hospital employees, including
the RNs, would be about $138,000 plus 7.65% for Social
Security and Medicare taxes. Respondent then asserted that
it was not going to pay the Christmas bonus for 2014 because
they could not afford it.
On November 26, the Respondent was informed by PDOL
that financial statements and waiver application has been re-
ceived and the documents and an audit would be conducted of
the accounting documents to verify the losses submitted in the
financial statements (Jt Exh. 34b).
On December 3, the Respondent informed the Union that the
request for exoneration of the payment of the Christmas bonus
was received by PDOL and provided a copy of the letter sent to
PDOL and the financial statements filed with PDOL (Jt. Exh.
25b).
On December 12, the parties met for a second time to bar-
gain over the non-payment of the Christmas bonus. During this
bargaining session, the Union requested the following infor-
mation relating to the financial statements filed by the Re-
spondent with PDOL:
Page 2-“Accounts receivable $58,673”
What are they?
Amounts
Period of time
Page 2“Prepaid Expenses $242,037”
What are those expenses?
What accounts it's referring to?
Period of time
Page 6 “Other accounts receivable $225,925”
Disclosure of accounts
Period of time
Page 6 “jhOther Assets $16,000”
Disclosure
Period of Time
Total
Discussion and Analysis
The counsel for the General Counsel maintains that the in-
formation is necessary and relevant for the Union to perform its
duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit employees. The counsel for the General Counsel ar-
gues that the financial information requested by the Union was
necessary and relevant to the bargaining negotiations because
the Respondent was alleging an inability to pay the bonus due
to its adverse financial situation. The General Counsel main-
tains that the information requested is critical for the Union to
evaluate and verify the validity of the Respondent’s exonera-
tion request and would clarify the amounts and identity of the
accounts receivable and expenses referenced in the Respond-
ent’s financial statements to PDOL (GC Br. at 18–22).
The counsel for the Respondent maintains that it was willing
to provide the information requested, but in turn requested that
the Union sign a confidentiality agreement because of the con-
fidential financial nature of the information. The Respondent
argues that the confidential agreement is necessary when the
information deals with financial facts such as accounts payable,
accounts receivable, assets, amounts of expense, and to avoid
releasing the identity of potential creditors to the public (R. Br.
at 6–8).
It is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when an
employer fails or refuses to provide information requested for
bargaining responsibilities. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S.
149 (1956). It is well settled that an employer is obligated to
furnish information requested by its employees’ collective-
bargaining agent that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
bargaining responsibilities and contract negotiations. Detroit
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979). As to infor-
mation regarding the unit employees, there is a presumption
that the information is relevant to the Union’s bargaining obli-
gation. When the information requested of an employer is
about the employees or operations other than those represented
by the Union, it is necessary for the Acting General Counsel to
prove relevancy. Relevancy should be broadly construed and
absent any countervailing interest, any requested information
that has a bearing on the bargaining process must be disclosed.
The burden to show relevancy is not exceptionally heavy, re-
quiring only that a showing be made of a “probability that the
desired information is relevant, and that it would be of use to
the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibili-
ties.” NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437 (1967).
The standard for relevancy is the same, whether relevancy is
presumed or proved by specific evidence. The standard to ap-
ply is a liberal discovery-type standard. Acme Industrial Co.,
supra at 437.
The issue is whether the information sought has any bearing
to the bargaining negotiations. Here, the Union was seeking
information on four key financial items to the negotiations re-
garding the Christmas bonus. The Union needed information
on the identity of the accounts receivables and payable and the
pre-paid expenses and assets already referenced in the financial
statements submitted to the PDOL and to the Union.
The Board has held that a demand to “open the books” to the
union to provide general financial information is relevant if the
employer alleges an inability to pay. Truitt, 351 U.S. at 153.
Here, the Respondent stated it was unable to pay the bonuses.
Further, the Union never demanded full financial disclosure.
My review shows that the Union’s request for the financial data
was narrowly tailored and in response to the Respondent’s own
financial statements that had already been disclosed to the Un-
ion. See Caldwell Mfg. Co., 346 NLRB 1159 (2006). In this
regard, I find that the information requested was very specific
and was in direct response to the Respondent’s financial state-
ments. The Respondent maintains that it could not afford to
pay the bonuses. The Union’s request for information to identi-
fy the pre-paid expenses of $242,037 would have verified for
the Union that the expenses were legitimate in the Respond-
ent’s assertion that its expenses exceeded its inability to pay.
Similarly, the information on identifying the Respondent’s
assets and its accounts receivable of $225,925 and $58,373 and
when payable would assist the Union in verifying if the Re-
spondent was indeed able to pay.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act when it refused to provide the information requested. In
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
my opinion, such information is relevant for the Union to nego-
tiate from a knowledgeable position about the identity of its
assets, the accounts receivables and when payable after the
Respondent asserted inability to pay the bonuses. I find that the
information was necessary and relevant in order to verify the
accuracy of the Respondent’s claim that it was unable to pay.
The Confidential Nature of the Information
Having found the information to be relevant to the Union’s
responsibilities in bargaining, I turn next to the issue of confi-
dentiality. It is well settled that substantial claims of confiden-
tiality may justify refusals to furnish otherwise relevant infor-
mation. I have considered the Respondent’s contentions that
even if the information was relevant (as I found it was), its
interest in protecting the confidential information outweighs the
need of the Union for the relevant information. I find that it
does not.
As the Board explained in National Steel Corp., 335 NLRB
747, 748 (2001):
With respect to the confidentiality claim, it is well established
that an employer may not avoid its obligation to provide a un-
ion with requested information that is relevant to bargaining
simply by asserting a confidential interest in the information.
Rather, the employer has the burden to seek an accommoda-
tion that will meet the needs of both parties.
I agree with the General Counsel that the Respondent failed
to establish that the information was confidential. The Re-
spondent failed to provide any specificity as to the confidential
nature of the information sought. The record shows that the
Respondent provided the financial statements to PDOL and to
the Union. The financial statements were therefore records
available for review by the public through PDOL. In addition,
the Respondent did not restrict or limit disclosure when the
financial statements were provided to Union. Since the
amounts of the pre-paid expenses, assets and accounts payable
and receivable were already identified by the Respondent, the
Union merely sought information on the identity of the ac-
counts and assets and when such accounts would be received or
paid by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent asserted a
blanket claim that such information was confidential and pri-
vate.
Further, even assuming that the Respondent has a legitimate
privacy or confidential concern over releasing the information,
it was obligated to notify the Union of its concern and to bar-
gain for an accommodation that would satisfy the Union’s need
for the information and the employer’s need to keep the infor-
mation confidential. West Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585
(2003); Salem Hospital Corp., 358 NLRB 837 (2012), reaf-
firmed and incorporated by reference, 361 NLRB No. 61
(2014). Here, the Respondent maintains that it was willing to
release the information provided that the Union signed a confi-
dential agreement. I do not disagree with the Respondent that a
confidential agreement would have been appropriate assuming
that the information was indeed confidential. In the past, the
Union had agreed to sign a confidential agreement. However,
on this occasion, the Respondent insisted on the inclusion of a
severe penalty of $200,000 in damages if the Union breached
the agreement. The Respondent never sought a penalty in its
previous confidential agreements with the Union. The Re-
spondent never asserted that the penalty was necessary this time
because the Union had breached an agreement in the past or
that the Union was untrustworthy. There was simply no basis
to extract such a severe penalty on the Union on this occasion.
The Respondent argues that under E. W. Buschman Co. v.
NLRB, 820 F.2d 206 (6th Cir. 1987), the Sixth Circuit vacated
the Board’s decision finding that it was not an unfair labor
practice where the employer refused to provide the financial
information when the union refused to maintain the confidenti-
ality of the information.3 However, that case is easily distin-
guishable. In Bushman, the union requested complete financial
statements, including disbursements and revenues. Here, such
information had already been provided by the Respondent to
PDOL and to the Union. As noted, the Union merely wanted
the Respondent to identify these accounts and when they were
to be received or disbursed by the Respondent. Further, unlike
Bushman, the penalty here of $200,000 has no legitimate basis
and is unreasonable on its face.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act when it failed to meet its burden that the
information sought by the Union was confidential and even
assuming the confidential nature of the information, the Re-
spondent failed to establish that the Union had been untrustwor-
thy in confidential matters to justify the unreasonable and se-
vere penalty of $200,000 for breaching the agreement.
b. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
failing and refusing to bargain collectively in good faith or to
lawful impasse with the Union regarding the payment of the
2014 Christmas Bonus
The counsel for the General Counsel argues that the parties
were not at impasse on December 12. The General Counsel
further argues that the Respondent did not bargain in good-faith
because the Respondent made clear at the outset of negotiations
that it had no intentions to pay the 2014 bonus (GC Br. 24–29).
In turn, the Respondent maintains that the parties were at im-
passe on December 12 and no further proposals had been made
by the parties since that time (R. Br. 14–16).
On August 22, Respondent Attorney Pizarro sent a letter
to Union Business Agent Echevarria, informing the Union of
Respondent's intention not to pay the 2014 Christmas Bonus
to employees because of Respondent's "precarious financial
situation" and offering to negotiate with the Union about “the
nonpayment of the Christmas Bonus” (Jt. Exh. 6). On August
29, Echevarria sent a letter to Pizarro, agreeing to negoti-
ate, and requesting a proposal from Respondent.
No proposal was received by the Union but instead, on Sep-
tember 4, Pizarro sent a letter to Echevarria, proposing that
the Union accept the decision of PDOL regarding Respond-
ent's request to be exempted from the payment of the 2014
Christmas Bonus to its employees (Jt. Exh. 8).
On September 15, Echevarria sent a letter to Pizarro, again

3 I am bound only to apply established Board precedent which the
Supreme Court has not reversed, notwithstanding contrary decisions by
the lower courts. Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 749 fn. 14 (1984).
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA INC. A/K/A CLINICA SANTA ROSA 11
requesting a proposal from Respondent regarding the 2014
Christmas Bonus. On September 23, Pizarro sent a letter and a
"Proposed Stipulation for Christmas Bonus 2014" to Eche-
varria, again proposing that the parties accept the PDOL's
determination of Respondent's request for exemption from
the 2014 Christmas Bonus payment.
On November 3, Echeverria sent a letter to Pizarro, re-
questing dates to negotiate. The Respondent informed the
Union on November 3 that it was available on six dates in No-
vember. The parties confirmed a negotiating session for No-
vember 18 (Jt. Exh. 14).
On November 18, the Respondent and the Union met to bar-
gain about Respondent's intention not to pay the 2014 Christ-
mas Bonus. Rivera started the meeting by informing the
Union representatives that due to financial problems, it was
the Respondent's intention not to pay its employees the
Christmas bonus in December 2014. Echevarria inquired as
to the economic impact of the payment of the Christmas
Bonus on the Respondent. The Respondent provided a re-
sponse and again reiterated that it was not going to pay the
Christmas bonus for 2014 because it could not afford it.
Echevarria asked whether Respondent was willing to pay the
Registered Nurses an amount for a royalty. Rivera replied that
no royalty would be paid. The Respondent also asserted that
that it did not have money to cover payroll on November 21,
and that Respondent was sure PDOL would exempt it from
paying the bonus.
The Union was willing to seek alternatives including a
payment plan. The Respondent proposed to reduce the unit
employees' benefits such as vacations, sick leave, holidays
and/or reimbursement for license fees. Echevarria replied that
the parties should seek other alternatives because the Union
was not willing to relinquish the unit employees' benefits, at
least, not at that time. Echevarria further informed Re-
spondent's representatives that the Union rejected Respond-
ent's proposal of September 23, which provided that the par-
ties would accept the determination of PDOL regarding Re-
spondent's request for a complete exemption from payment of
the Christmas Bonus in 2014 and that the Union would make a
counteroffer. A meeting was scheduled for December 3, 2014.
On November 24, the Union proposed payment of the
2014 Christmas Bonus to unit employees in the installments
of $550 on or before December 15, and $50 on or before
December 31. By separate letter from Echevarria to Rivera,
also on November 24, 2014, the Union informed the Re-
spondent that it would not be available to meet on Decem-
ber 3, 2014, as previously agreed, and requested that the
Respondent provides available dates (Jt. Exhs . 15 and 16).
On November 25, the Respondent rejected the Union’s
proposal of November 24, and made a counterproposal to pay
a $100 bonus to the unit employees on or before December 1.
The Respondent also offered to meet on any date up to De-
cember 15,2015 (Jt. Exh. 17).
On November 25, the Union rejected Respondent's pro-
posal and proposed that Respondent pay the 2014 Christmas
Bonus to unit employees in installments of $500 on or be-
fore December 15, and $100 on or before December 31. In
the same letter, the Union requested that Respondent provide
the Union with a copy of the Exoneration Request that Re-
spondent filed with PDOL, and confirmed the Union's
availability to meet on December 12 (Jt. Exh. 18).
On November 26, t h e Responden t informed the Union
that its proposal of November 25 was not accepted and urged
the Union to accept Respondent's proposal to pay a $100
bonus to the unit employees on or before December 15. In
that letter, Respondent further informed the Union that its
Exoneration Request would be provided to the Union after it
had been filed with PDOL, which had not yet occurred.
Respondent ended that letter expressing its availability to
meet on any date up to December 15, 2014 (Jt. Exh. 19).
On December 1, the Union rejected the Respondent's pro-
posal for the payment of a bonus of $100 to the unit em-
ployees and counter-offered that Respondent pay the unit
employees the 2014 Christmas bonus in installments of $450
on or before December 15, and $150 on or before December
31. On December 1, the Respondent rejected the Union's
proposal and again reiterated its $100 bonus offer that it had
initially made on November 25 (Jt. Exh. 22).
By letter dated December 3, Respondent informed the
Union that its request for exoneration of the payment of the
Christmas Bonus for year 2014 had been filed with PDOL
and a copy of that letter to PDOL and a document entitled
“Financial Statement, September 30, 2014” were provided to
the Union (Jt. Exhs. 23, 24, and 25).
On December 4, the Union again rejected the Respond-
ent's proposal of November 25, and proposed that Re-
spondent pay the unit employees the 2014 Christmas Bonus in
installments of $400 on or before December 15 and $200 on or
before December 31 (Jt. Exh. 26). The Respondent rejected the
Union’s offer on the same date and reiterated its offer of No-
vember 25, for a $100- bonus on or before December 15.
On December 5, 2014, the Union again rejected Respond-
ent's proposal made on November 25, and proposed that the
Respondent pay unit employees the 2014 Christmas Bonus
in installments of $350 on or before December 15 and $250
on or before December 31(Jt. Exh. 29).
On December 9, 2014, the Respondent rejected the Union's
proposal of December 5, and asked the Union to reconsider
its position in anticipation of the meeting scheduled for De-
cember 12 (Jt. Exh. 30).
On December 10, the Union again rejected Respondent's
$100 bonus proposal, and proposed that Respondent pay
the 2014 Christmas Bonus to unit employees in installments of
$300 on or before December 15 and $300 on or before De-
cember 31 (Jt. Exh. 31).
On December 11, the Respondent rejected the Union's pro-
posal of December 10. Respondent further stated that it had
been exonerated from the 2014 Christmas Bonus require-
ment by PDOL, and therefore, was not obligated to pay the
Christmas Bonus on December 15 or in subsequent install-
ments. Respondent proposed that the Union accept the
PDOL determination.
On December 12, representatives of Respondent and the
Union met for t h e second time to bargain about the 2014
Christmas Bonus. At the meeting, Echevarria asked the Re-
spondent for a copy of the letter whereby PDOL exempted
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
Respondent from paying the 2014 Christmas Bonus, to
which Rivera replied that PDOL had not yet made a deci-
sion on Respondent's request and that its final determination
would eventually be found on PDOL’s webpage. During the
meeting, the parties exchanged several proposals as follows:
Respondent again rejected the Union’s proposals for a
$600 bonus to be paid in two installments, and proposed a
$110 bonus of which $55 was payable on January 15,
2015, and the other $55 on March 15, 2015. The Union
rejected this proposal under the ground that local law man-
dated a $600-bonus to be paid on or before December 15
and made the following three counteroffers regarding the 2014
Christmas Bonus:
(a) A first installment of $300 payable on or before
December 15, 2014 and a second installment of $300
payable on or before January 15, 2015.
(b) A first installment of $300 payable on or before
December 15, 2014 and a second installment of $300 pay-
able on or before August, 2015.
(c) Payment of a $500 bonus.
Respondent rejected all three proposals and counter-offered
a bonus of $120 per unit employee to be paid in a first
installment of $60 on or before December 31 and a second
installment of $60 on or before March 31. This proposal
was rejected by the Union. The meeting ended without any
agreement and without any further proposals being made bythe
parties.
The Respondent has not paid its employees anything for a
2014 Christmas Bonus. Respondent did not implement its
final offer to the Union of a $120 bonus to be paid to unit
employees in two installments, and Respondent has not made
payment or provided any benefit to its unit employees in lieu
of the payment of the 2014 Christmas bonus.
Discussion and Analysis
An economic bonus, such as a year-end Christmas bonus, is
clearly a mandatory subject of bargaining where the employer
has followed a practice of paying it to applicable employees.
Santa Cruz Skilled Nursing Center, Inc., 354 NLRB No. 25,
slip op. at 4 (2009) (not reported in Board volumes); Bon-
nell/Tredegar Industries, 313 NLRB 789 (1994). This principle
applies even in the absence of a contractual provision recogniz-
ing such a practice, as the practice becomes an implied condi-
tion of employment premised on the presumed mutual agree-
ment of the parties. Accordingly, any unilateral change in an
implied term or condition of employment violates Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Finch, Pruyn & Co., 349 NLRB
270, 277 fn. 31 (2007); Lafayette Grinding Corp., 337 NLRB
832 (2002).
After bargaining for two sessions, the parties stopped and no
further proposals were offered. The counsel for the General
Counsel argues that the parties were not at impasse and the
Respondent did not bargain in good faith in that it was a fatal
accompli when the Respondent announced before the first bar-
gaining session that it had no intentions to pay the Christmas
bonus.
An impasse occurs whenever negotiations reach that point at
which the parties have exhausted the prospects of concluding
an agreement and further discussions would be fruitless. Labor-
ers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight
Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539, 543 fn. 5 (1988). The burden of
proving that an impasse exists falls upon the party asserting
such a defense. North Star Steel Co., 305 NLRB 45 (1991),
enfd. 974 F.2d 68 (8th Cir. 1992). Moreover, there is a duty to
refrain from implementation unless an impasse has been
reached on bargaining for the agreement as a whole. Bottom
Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373 (1991), enfd. 15 F.3d 1087
(9th Cir. 1994).
In considering whether an impasse has been reached, the
Board will consider the totality of the circumstances. Such
analysis includes the following factors: (1) fluidity of position;
(2) continuation of bargaining; (3) nature and importance of
issues and the extent of difference in position; (4) bargaining
history and progress in negotiations; (5) demonstrated willing-
ness to consider the issues further; (6) duration of hiatus be-
tween bargaining sessions; (7) number and duration of bargain-
ing sessions; and (8) contemporaneous understanding of the
parties as to the state of negotiations. Taft Broadcasting, 163
NLRB 475 (1967).
I find that the parties had not reached impasse after their last
bargaining session on December 12. The Taft factors are evi-
dent in this situation. There was fluidity in the parties’ posi-
tions; bargaining was continuing; the bonus was important to
the Union; the parties offered proposals that demonstrated their
willingness to continue negotiating; the number and duration of
the bargaining sessions were few and more sessions could have
proved fruitful; and the parties have a history and progress in
negotiations.
The record shows that the parties met twice to negotiate over
the bonus. The bonus was very important to the Union and the
sole reason the parties initiated and engaged in bargaining.
Although the parties only met twice, there was fluidity in the
give-and-take proposals based upon the proposals communicat-
ed through correspondence between the parties. The Union
initially proposed two bonus installments to the unit employees
of $550 and $50 on November 24. The Respondent countered
with $100. The Union rejected the proposal and offered that
the Respondent pay in two installments of $500 and $100 on or
before December 31. The Union’s proposal was rejected by the
Respondent and it urged the Union to accept the $100 bonus
offer that was previously rejected. On December 1, the Union
rejected the Respondent’s $100-proposal in lieu of the bonus
and countered with a proposal for the Respondent to pay the
bonus in two installments of $450 and $150 before the end of
the year. The Respondent rejected the proposal and again reit-
erated its $100 offer. On December 4, the Union proposed that
the Respondent pay in two installments of $400 and $200 on or
before December 31. This offer was rejected by the Respond-
ent. On December 5, the Union proposed two installments of
$350 and $250 before the end of the year. This was rejected by
the Respondent. The Union, on December 10, proposed two
installments of $300 and $300 payable by December 31. The
Respondent rejected this offer and proposed that the Union
accept the determination to be made by PDOL on its exemption
application, which had not yet been approved. On December
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA INC. A/K/A CLINICA SANTA ROSA 13
12, the Respondent offered $110, of which $55 would be paid
by January 15, 2015 and the second $55 on March 15, 2015.
This was rejected by the Union and it made three counter offers
of (1) $300 on or before December 15 and $300 on or before
January 15, 2015; (2) $300 on December 15 and second in-
stallment of $200 on or before August 2015; or (3) a payment
of a $500 bonus. All three proposals were rejected by the Re-
spondent, but Respondent proposed $120 payable in two in-
stallments of $60 before December 31 and $60 on or about
March 31, 2015.
The parties did not meet after December 12, but all indica-
tions point to the fact that the parties were willing to continue
to negotiate over the bonus. There is no evidence that the Re-
spondent announced impasse or discussed impasse at the De-
cember 12 meeting. The Union was frustrated but never ex-
pressed that the parties were at impasse. Indeed, the Respond-
ent by letter dated December 12 informed the Union of its
availability to negotiate during the weekend of December 13
and 14 (Jt Exh. 35). Unfortunately, this letter was sent late on
December 12 and just before the commencement of the week-
end. The letter was not received until the following Monday,
December 15.
The Respondent’s late movement to meet over the weekend
after the parties’ December 12 meeting regarding the major
impediment on this issue presented a “ray of hope” warranting
further bargaining. Atrium at Princeton, LLC, 353 NLRB 540,
561 (2008), reaffirmed and incorporated by reference, 356
NLRB 5 (2010), enfd. 684 F.3d 1310 (D. C. Cir. 2012). Ac-
cordingly, there was no impasse between the parties at that
point. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co., 328 NLRB 585
(1999). Under the circumstances, the Respondent’s unilateral
implementation concerning the non-payment of the bonus
without affording the Union a meaningful opportunity to bar-
gain violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Moreover, I find that the actions of the Respondent by an-
nouncing to the Union on August 22 that Respondent had no
intention to pay 2014 Christmas bonuses to employees was a
clear indication that Respondent was not engaging in meaning-
ful bargaining with the Union and tantamount to a fait accom-
pli. The announcement made directly to the Union that a
change in a mandatory subject is being implemented—instead
of proposing it to the employee’s bargaining representative—
suggests a fait accompli and is inconsistent with the duty to
bargain. Brannan Sand & Gravel Co., 314 NLRB 282 (1994).
See also Burrows Paper Corp., 332 NLRB 82, 83 (2000) (“af-
ter . . . announcement of the wage increase to employees, we
find that the Union could reasonably conclude that the matter at
this point was a fait accompli, i.e., that the Respondent had
made up its mind and that it would be futile to object to the pay
raises”); Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals, 264 NLRB 1013, 1017
(1982) (“most important factor” dictating finding that employ-
er’s announcement of change was “fait accompli” was that it
was made without “special notice” in advance to the union, the
union’s officers “having become aware of this merely because
they themselves were employees”), enfd. 722 F.2d 1120 (3d
Cir. 1983).
This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the Respondent
informed the unit employees on December 12 that it was not
paying the bonus before there was any impasse. In circum-
stances where it is clear that the employer has no intention of
bargaining, the Board has found the implementation of the
changes to be nothing more than fait accompli. Id.; FirstEnergy
Generation Corp., 358 NLRB 842, 848 (2012), vacated under
Noel Canning and reaffirmed by the Board at 362 NLRB No.
66 (2015).4
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times, the Respondent, Hospital Santa Ro-
sa, Inc., a/k/a Clinica Santa Rosa is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union, Unidad Laboral De Enfermeras (OS) Y
Empleados De la Salud is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by failing and refusing to fully provide the relevant infor-
mation to the Union in its December 12, 2014 request.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act on or about December 12, 2014 by changing the terms and
conditions of unit employees by failing to pay them the cus-
tomary $600-bonus, without affording the Union adequate op-
portunity to bargain with Respondent regarding this conduct.
5. The unfair labor practices described above affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Hospital Santa Rosa, Inc.
has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order the
Respondent to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent will be ordered to, on request, bargain with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit
employees with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment and, if an agreement is reached,
embody it in a signed document.
The Respondent shall also be required to rescind its decision,
on the Union’s request, the non-payment of the 2014 Christmas
bonus and to restore the full Christmas 2014 bonus benefit.
The Respondent is to make the unit employees whole for any
loss of earnings and other benefits attributable to its unlawful
conduct. The make whole remedy shall be computed in accord-
ance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970),
enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed
in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily
as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6
(2010).
The Respondent additionally shall be ordered to (1) compen-
sate the unit employees for any adverse income tax conse-
quences of receiving their backpay in one lump sum and (2) file

4 In finding that the parties did not reach impasse and that the Re-
spondent failed to bargain in good-faith because it had no intentions to
pay the bonus, I find it unnecessary to address the remaining argument
of counsel for the General Counsel that assuming the parties were at
impasse, the Respondent was obligated to make sure that changes to the
terms of employment that were implemented must be consistent with its
last offer to the Union.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the
backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters, as set forth in Don
Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10
(2014). Consistent with the Board holding in AdvoServ of New
Jersey, 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), the Respondent shall be
required within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, to file its report allo-
cating backpay with the Regional Director and not with the
Social Security Administration. The Respondent will be re-
quired to allocate backpay to the appropriate calendar years
only.
The Respondent shall also be ordered to provide to the Un-
ion the information requested on December 12, 2014 that is
necessary and relevant for the Union in its role as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, Hospital Santa Rosa, Inc., a/k/a Clinica
Santa Rosa, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing, refusing to provide to the Union, Unidad Laboral
De Enfermeras (OS) Y Empleados De La Salud, information
requested without a monetary penalty that is necessary and
relevant to its role as the exclusive representative of a unit of
employees consisting of all regular full-time and regular part-
time registered nurses employed by the Respondent at its facili-
ties located in Guayama, Puerto Rico; excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, guards, other professional
employees and supervisors as defined under the Act.
(b) Failing and refusing to pay the 2014 Christmas bonus to
the unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide to the Union the information requested without
requiring the Union to agree to a monetary penalty.
(b) Rescind the decision for the non-payment of the 2014
Christmas bonus and restore the full Christmas bonus benefit of
$600 to the unit employees.
(c) Make the unit employees whole, with interest, for any
losses sustained due to the unlawfully imposed changes in wag-
es, hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment
(d) Compensate the unit employees for any adverse income
tax consequences of receiving their backpay in one lump sum,
and file with the Regional Director for Region 2, within 21
days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by
agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay

5 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 pur-
poses.
award to the appropriate calendar year(s).
(e) On request, bargain with Unidad Laboral De Enfermeras
(OS) Y Empleados De La Salud as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of the unit employees concerning
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its ex-
isting facilities in the Puerto Rico area copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix”6 in the English and Spanish lan-
guages. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 12, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous 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 Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, 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 jobsites involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since December 12, 2014.
(h) 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 the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 16, 2016
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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and abide by
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefits
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgement
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations.”
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA INC. A/K/A CLINICA SANTA ROSA 15
The Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras (OS) y Empleados de la
Salud (the Union) is the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All regular full-time and regular part-time registered nurses
employed by the Respondent at its facilities located in
Guayama, Puerto Rico; excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, guards, other professional employees and
supervisors as defined under the Act.
WE WILL NOT change the unit employees’ wages, hours, or
other terms and conditions of employment without first notify-
ing the Union and giving it a meaningful opportunity to bargain
about such changes to agreement or impasse regarding such
changes in the wages, hours, and working conditions of the unit
employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse or delay in promptly furnishing the in-
formation requested by the Union that is relevant and necessary
to the Union’s performance of its duties as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the above unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the
unit described above concerning wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
WE WILL, on the Union’s request, rescind the decision on the
nonpayment of the 2014 Christmas bonus to the unit employees
and restore the full 2014 Christmas bonus benefit.
WE WILL make the unit employees whole, with interest, for
any losses sustained due to our unlawfully imposed changes in
wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it requested
on December 12, 2014, without requiring the Union to agree to
a monetary penalty.
HOSPITAL SANTA ROSA, INC., A/K/A CLINICA SANTA
ROSA
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12–CA–143221 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.