Huron Valley-Sinai Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 29, 2019

07-CA-201332 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

JD–37–19
Commerce Charter Township, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
HURON VALLEY-SINAI HOSPITAL
and 07-CA-201332
07-CA-205971
MICHIGAN NURSES ASSOCIATION 07-CA-213556
07-CA-217647
Donna Nixon, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Catherine A Heitchue-Reed, Esq. for the Respondent.
Amy Batchelder, Esq.,(Nickelhoff & Widick, PLLC,, Detroit, Michigan)for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Arthur J. Amchan, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit, Michigan
on March 5, 2019. The Michigan Nurses Association filed the charges giving rise to this case
between June 22, 2017 and April 18, 2018. The General Counsel issued the most recent
complaint on September 27, 2018.
Many of the allegations in the most recent complaint were settled prior to hearing. Still
at issue are the following allegations:
Complaint paragraph 11 alleging that on April 14 and 15, 2018, Respondent, by clinical
coordinator, Steve Smades violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by prohibiting emergency room
nurses from combining their lunch and other rest periods, as was the practice prior to April 14-
15, 2018.1

1 The issue litigated at hearing was broader than that pled in the complaint. Complaint paragraph 11
appears to be limited to the statements and conduct of Smades on April 14 and 15. The General
Counsel’s brief at pages 10-11 relies on Chief Human Resource Officer Allison Demarais’ March 30
email in contending that strict adherence to the meal and rest policy was being imposed in retaliation for
nurses’ complaints about staffing levels. I find Respondent was not put on notice that the General
Counsel considered Demarais’ email to be retaliatory. Therefore, I will not consider this argument.
However, I find that the issue of whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally
enforcing a policy that had not been enforced previously, was litigated by consent. RN Tina Grossman’s
uncontradicted testimony, as well as the March 30, and April 4, 2018 emails from Demarais to Union
JD–37–19
2
Complaint paragraph 12 alleging that Respondent is violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
refusing to provide the Charging Party Union copies of the exit interview forms completed by
nurses who had resigned during the previous 12 months. Respondent has refused to provide 5
these, as requested, on confidentiality grounds.
Complaint paragraph 18 alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
unilaterally changing its meal and break policy by adding language that employees could be
disciplined for consistently missing meals without authorization and that unit employees would 10
be relieved for breaks by non-unit clinical coordinators, rather than by unit employees.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent. I make the following
15
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation, operates an acute care hospital in Commerce Township, 20
Michigan, where it annually derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000.2 Respondent annually
purchases and receives products, goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from
points outside the State of Michigan. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the
Union, Michigan Nurses Association, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) 25
of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The Michigan Nurses Association was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative 30
of all full-time, regular part-time and contingent registered nurses (RNs) employed by
Respondent at its facility in Commerce Township, Michigan on March 24, 2016. During
bargaining the parties agreed to add case managers to the bargaining unit. Amongst the
employees specifically excluded from the unit are clinical coordinators. Respondent and the
Union began bargaining in May 2016 and executed a collective bargaining agreement in 35

Representative Vincent Schraub, establish that Respondent began enforcing the policy that meal and rest
breaks could not be combined in April 2018 without prior notice to the Union and opportunity to bargain
over this change. In fact, Demarais confirmed that the policy had not been strictly enforced prior to
March 30, 2018, Tr. 85-86, 94-95. It is well settled that the Board may find and remedy a violation even
in the absence of a specified allegation in the complaint if the issue is closely connected to the subject
matter of the complaint and has been fully litigated, Pergament United Sales, 290 NLRB 333, 334 (1989),
enfd. 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990); Kankakee County Training Center for the Disabled, 366 NLRB No.
181 (slip opinion at p. 3) (2018).
2 Respondent is part of the Detroit Medical Center (DMC), which is owned by Tenet Healthcare
Corporation. Tenet purchased the assets of Vanguard Health Systems, which previously owned DMC
and Huron Valley Sinai Hospital in 2013.
JD–37–19
3
November 2018. A major issue between Respondent and the Union has been staffing levels,
which the Union believes are too low.
Complaint paragraph 12
5
On June 6, 2017, the Union requested that Respondent provide it with a list all of unit
RNs who resigned from their positions in the previous 12 months, their department and the start
and ending date of their employment. Respondent provided the names in a summary discussed
below, but did not provide the nurses’ department or dates of employment.
10
The Union also requested copies of exit interview records for all RNs who resigned in the
prior 12 months. Respondent provided the Union a summary of the requested exit interviews,
but not the completed exit interview forms, G.C. Exh. 4. This summary contained a 1 to 4-word
reason for the nurse’s leaving Huron Valley, such as “retirement,” “personal reasons,”
“prom/career advancement,” and “resigned without notice.” Shortly thereafter, during 15
bargaining, the Union advised Respondent that its response was not sufficient.
At a bargaining session on July 18, 2017, the hospital provided the Union a copy of a
blank exit interview form, but would not let the Union copy or retain the form. It did not restrict
the amount of time the Union had to review the questionnaire at the bargaining session. 20
Respondent insisted on a confidentiality agreement for the Union to retain the blank form and to
see the completed forms. It contends that it had a confidentiality interest in the following
questions on the blank form, which was introduced by Respondent at the hearing in this matter,
Exh. R-3:
25
Question 15: Are you aware of any unlawful or fraudulent behavior at DMC or Tenet?
Question 16: Are you aware of any behavior that violates the Standards of Conduct?
Question 17: Have you ever been instructed to do something you felt was unlawful or
fraudulent?
Question 18: Have you been instructed to do something you felt was a violation of Tenet 30
Standards of Conduct?
Question 19: Are you leaving Tenet because of any of these concerns?
The Union refused to sign a confidentiality agreement regarding the blank form.
35
Complaint paragraphs 11 and 18: Respondent’s meal break policy
At the time the Union was certified, Respondent’s meal period and rest period policy had
been in effect since June 2013, G.C. Exh. 7. The policy applies to union employees except to the
extent that it conflicts with an applicable collective bargaining agreement. The provisions 40
relevant to this case are those that state:
Paragraph 3.
C. Missed meal periods and/rest breaks may not be accumulated for use and/or pay at a
later date. If they are not taken during the current shift, they are forfeited.45
D. Combining meal period and rest breaks will be permitted only with the approval of the
Department Manager or designee.
JD–37–19
4
On January 2, 2018, while the parties were bargaining for an initial contract, Detroit
Medical Center, Respondent’s parent, promulgated a meal and rest break policy without first
notifying the Union or giving it an opportunity to bargain over new provisions. As with the 2013
policy it is applicable to union employees except to the extent that it conflicts with an applicable 5
collective bargaining agreement. Among the new provisions was the following statement which
the Union alleges violates the Act as a unilateral change:
If an employee consistently misses meals without the authorization of department
management, disciplinary action may occur up to and including termination. 10
The new policy also contains the paragraph from the 2013 policy that, “combining meal
period and rest breaks will be permitted only with the approval of the Department Manager or
designee.”
15
While Respondent had a policy of prohibiting the combining of meal and rest breaks, this
policy was not enforced at Huron Valley until April 2018, G.C. Exhs. 13 and 14, March 30, 2018
and April 4, 2018 emails from Allison Demarais, Respondent’s Chief Human Resources Officer,
to union representative Vincent Schraub. Respondent held a meeting for the staff nurses in
March 2018 in which it announced to these employees that meal breaks would be covered by 20
clinical coordinators and that meal and rest breaks could no longer be combined. A number of
nurses signed a petition protesting the change which Union Steward Tina Grossman presented to
Angela Castro, Respondent’s Manager of the Emergency Department on April 2, 2018.
On April 9, 2013, the policy that clinical coordinators will assign and cover nurses’ 30-25
minute meal break became effective, G.C. Exhs. 12, 15. The testimony of RN Tina Grossman
establishes that prior to April 9, 2013, RNs, rather than non-unit clinical coordinators usually
covered for other nurses’ rest and meal breaks.3 Grossman herself had been combining her meal
and rest breaks for a total break period of 1 hour. Immediately after April 9, the policy
prohibiting combining meal and rest breaks was not strictly enforced; however, afterwards30
Respondent began to strictly enforce the prohibition.
The General Counsel alleges that the enforcement of this policy is the result of
Respondent’s animus towards union activity. Specifically, Tina Grossman testified that on April
14 or 15, clinical coordinator Steve Smades told her that nurses would only get a 30-minute 35
break because of “your surprise.” By this Grossman understood Smades was referring to the
presence of union representative Liz Riley in the employee breakroom.4 Grossman also testified
that later Smades apologized to her and admitted that he had retaliated against unit employees in
denying them a rest break because he believed Riley had called him an “A-hole.” Grossman told
Smades the invective came from somebody else. Smades did not testify. Therefore, Grossman’s 40
testimony is uncontradicted.

3 Grossman’s testimony on this issue is uncontradicted by any first-hand evidence on the part of
Respondent. Allison Demarais’ testimony on this point at Tr. 87-88 is classic hearsay, which I do not
credit.
4 A charge and complaint allegation that Respondent violated the Act by barring union representative
Riley from its premises was settled by the parties prior to hearing.
JD–37–19
5
Conflicting testimony regarding Respondent’s proposal of a confidentiality agreement
Shaun Ayer, an attorney who was Respondent’s chief negotiator in bargaining, testified 5
that he offered the Union a confidentiality agreement by which Respondent would provide the
completed exit interviews. He proposed the Union agree that names and responses would be
redacted, but that Respondent would provide the Union with the contact information for the
nurses who completed the forms. Ayer testified that the reason Respondent would not provide
the unreacted exit interviews was that it had promised the exiting nurses confidentiality and did 10
not want the questions or answers regarding unethical or illegal conduct to be disseminated.
Union representative Vincent Schraub testified that Respondent never proposed an
accommodation regarding the completed forms. He stated Respondent’s offer went only to the
blank forms.
15
Nicole Williams, Respondent’s human resources director at the time, took notes for the
hospital at the July 18, 2017 bargaining session, Exh. R – 3. These notes are not a verbatim
account of what transpired and they were not shared with the Union. The notes consist of less
than 3 pages for a meeting that lasted from 9:28 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The rather cryptic notes
consist of the following entries regarding the Union’s request for the exit interviews:20
[Respondent] exit Int-provided rationale as to why Emp. Does not want to provide
Exit Int. info due to confidentiality & compliance questions.
MNA (The Union) wants something more specific, “if they left for another job, or
because of a manager, or unsafe staffing.”25
MNA Request-Exit Int. Blank Form
MNA ? – Redacting Info other than HIPPA
Resumes 10:23
30
HVSH (Respondent) “Read” Exit Int. Form-Allowed Union to review but took
form back and did not allow union to keep blank. Discussion of (*) meaning-goes to
compliance for unethical or illegal violations.
MNA-RFI-Want Blank Form35
Would like Exit Int’s of RNs who have left
HVSH No Federal or State law that requires employer to provide exit interviews.
Questions are sensitive in nature-the employer does not want to discourage ee’s from
complying40
HVSH Proposing Confidentiality of Exit w/ Redacted info; however, Emp has
provided spreadsheet for reason.
Respondent concedes that the meeting notes do not corroborate its testimony that it 45
offered to provide the Union with contact information for the nurses who completed exit
JD–37–19
6
interviews. It also concedes that it initially proposed redacting the nurses’ names and would not
identify the nurses’ work locations.
Analysis
5
Changes in Meal Break/Meal Break Coverage and threats of discipline for missing meal
breaks
An employer’s obligation while bargaining with the certified bargaining representative of
its employees for an initial contract is to maintain the status quo, Daily News of Los Angeles, 315 10
NLRB 1236 (1994). During negotiations, Respondent’s obligation to refrain from unilateral
changes extends beyond the mere duty to give notice and an opportunity to bargain, it
encompasses a duty to refrain from implementation at all, unless and until an overall impasse has
been reached on bargaining for the agreement as a whole, NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743
(1962), Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373, 374 (1991) enfd. 15 F. 3d 1087 (9th Cir. 15
1991).
Respondent’s strict enforcement of its rule against combining meal and rest breaks was a
clear departure from the status quo and therefore violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act,
Flambeau Arnold, 334 NLRB 165 (2001); Hyatt Regency Memphis, 296 NLRB 259, 263 20
(1989). The testimony of Respondent’s own witness, Human Resource Director, Allison
Demarais and her emails to union representative Schraub establish that Respondent’s rule was
not strictly enforced until bargaining was well under way.
Regardless of whether or not Respondent’s written rule prohibited or allowed 25
management to use its discretion in combining meal and rest breaks, its actual practice prior to
March 2018 was to allow such combinations. A change in practice, even when not a change in
stated policy, during collective bargaining negotiations, violates Section 8(a)((5) and (1),
Flambeau Arnold, 334 NLRB 165, 166 (2001). Thus, Respondent’s enforcement of the rule
prohibiting meal and break combinations and the policy mandating meal break coverage by non-30
unit clinical coordinators violated the Act. The latter practice was not consistent prior to March
2018, nor for a while March/April 2018, but then was strictly adhered to while collective
bargaining negotiations were ongoing.
Huron Valley’s new (January 2018) policy threatening disciplinary action if nurses miss 35
breaks also violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1). This is a material change of employee working
conditions. The fact that no employee may have disciplined pursuant to this unilateral change is
irrelevant to whether it violates Section 8(a)(5). Flambeau Arnold, supra.
Finally, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in altering its established practice of 40
having nurses cover for each other during meal breaks while collective bargaining negotiations
were in progress. This was a material change in that it directly affected the nurses’ concerns
regarding staffing. The new practice eliminated the work opportunities as a float nurse and thus
affected employee wages, Tr. 68.
45
JD–37–19
7
Respondent by Steve Smades violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in limiting emergency room
nurses to a 30-minute instead of a 1-hour break on April 14-15, 2018
I credit RN Tina Grossman’s uncontradicted testimony that clinical coordinator Steve 5
Smades admitted to her that he limited emergency room nurses to a 30-minute break on April 14-
15 due to his anger at union representative Liz Riley.5 This constitutes retaliation against the
nurses because they were unit members represented by the Union. The fact that Grossman did
not engage in any protected activity other than being a bargaining unit member, is irrelevant.
She was discriminated against due to her status as a unit member and union member.610
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in refusing to provide the Union its exit
interview questionnaire and the completed exit interview forms
A union is entitled to request and receive information that is relevant to its duties as the 15
collective bargaining representative. When the requested information concerns unit employees it
is presumptively relevant. In this matter, the exit interviews pertained to nurses who have left
the bargaining unit and thus were not presumptively relevant.
Nevertheless, the Union established the relevance of this request. A major issue in 20
negotiations was staffing levels at the hospital. The Union contended that was a reason that
many nurses were leaving Huron Valley. Respondent denied this and for this reason the Union
requested copies of the completed exit interviews. Moreover, the Union’s concern about staffing
was one of the reasons Respondent began to strictly enforce its rule against combining breaks,
G.C. Exh. 14, (Demarais email to Schraub at 1:06 p.m. on April 4, 2018).25
Respondent’s confidentiality interest
Respondent contends it was privileged to withhold the completed exit interviews because
it had promised departing nurses confidentiality.7 In this regard the form states that “your 30
responses will be confidential and will not become part of your personnel file. The information
will assist us in analyzing employee retention and turnover.”

5 Grossman’s testimony in this regard is not hearsay because it is the admission of a party-opponent
pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(c) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Respondent admitted that
Smades was a supervisor but did not admit that Smades was its agent, Smades clearly was Respondent’s
agent under Board precedent, Community Cash Stores, 238 NLRB 265 (1978). When Smades spoke to
Grossman, she reasonably believed he was speaking on behalf of Respondent.
6 Respondent is incorrect in asserting that there can be no violation if the employee-victim did not
engage in protected activity. Retaliation against one employee for the protected activities of another
violates the Act, Keller Construction, Inc., 362 NLRB 1246, 1255 (2015); Golub Brothers Concessions,
146 NLRB 120 (1962); PJAX, 307 NLRB 1201, 1203-05 (1992) enfd. 993 F.3d 378 (3d. Cir 1993 ).
7 The fact that Respondent introduced the blank interview form at trial, without even asking for a
protective order, belies its confidentiality claim for the blank form. Thus, its failure to provide the blank
interview form to the Union violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1). Moreover, Respondent has failed to give
any convincing reason why the questions asked of departing nurses, including those asking whether the
nurse was aware of any unlawful or fraudulent behavior should be considered confidential.
JD–37–19
8
Respondent did not provide departing nurses assurance that their responses would in any
way be limited in their dissemination to management and supervisors. One of the justifications
for Respondent’s confidentiality claim at page 11 of its brief is that the reports may involve close
co-workers, friends, and the same managers who may later be asked to provide an employment
reference. However, Respondent did not tell the departing nurses that their completed exit5
interview forms would be unavailable to their former managers, the individuals most likely to be
asked for an employment reference. Thus, Respondent’s confidentiality interest in the completed
forms is insubstantial.
Assuming that Respondent has a legitimate confidentiality interest in the completed exit 10
forms, it did not offer a reasonable accommodation to the Union under the circumstances. The
burden of formulating a reasonable accommodation is on the employer, the union need not
propose a precise alternative to providing the requested information unedited, Borgess Medical
Center, 342 NLRB 1105, 1106 (2004).8
15
Respondent’s offer to provide the Union the contact information of former nurses is not a
reasonable accommodation. That the Union might be able to contact the nurses and do its own
survey, is not a sufficient response, Detroit Newspaper Agency, 317 NLRB 1071, 1072 (1995);
Medstar Washington Hospital Center, 360 NLRB 846 (2014); Kroger Co. 226 NLRB 512, 513
(1976) [The union is under no obligation to utilize a burdensome procedure of obtaining desired 20
information where the employer may have such information available in a more convenient
form.] The barebones summary of reasons that nurses left Respondent’s employ, G.C. Exh. 4 is
an obviously inadequate response to the Union’s request for the exit interviews.
There is contradictory testimony as to whether Respondent offered any other 25
accommodation to the Union regarding the completed forms. Respondent took very limited
notes at the parties’ July 18, 2017 bargaining session, R. Exh. 3. Those notes established that the
subject of redactions were discussed. I credit Shaun Ayer’s testimony that this discussion was
about redactions to the completed forms, not just the blank form. However, neither the notes nor
Ayer’s testimony provides much evidence as to the specifics of Respondent’s suggested 30
accommodation.
I find that a reasonable accommodation to the confidentiality concerns raised by
Respondent would have redacted only the name and employee ID number from the completed
exit form and the names of persons to whom an unflattering reference was made. Apart from 35
this, the Union’s interest in the requested information far outweighs any purported
confidentiality interest of Respondent. This is particularly true of the answers to questions # 5,
“What prompted you to seek alternative employment?” 12, “What did you like most about your
job and/or this company?” 13: “What did you like the least about your job and/or this company?”
14: “What does your new job offer that your job with the company does not?” and 19 “Are you 40
leaving Tenet because of any of these [unlawful or fraudulent conduct, behavior contrary to
Tenet Standards of Conduct] concerns?”

8 Respondent did not raise the argument that the exit interviews were privileged under Michigan state
law until it filed its post-trial brief, R. brief at page 15. This argument was not timely raised; thus, I
decline to consider it, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, 360 NLRB 846 fn. 1 (2014).
JD–37–19
9
Thus, I find that Respondent violated the Act in failing to provide to the Union those
responses from each exit interview that touched upon the reason for which the nurse was leaving
Respondent’s employment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW5
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) during collective bargaining negotiations by
commencing to strictly enforce its prohibition against combining breaks when it had not done so
previously.
10
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) during collective bargaining negotiations by
regularly covering nurses’ meals breaks with clinical coordinators instead of bargaining unit
nurses when it had only done so sporadically prior to the beginning of collective bargaining
negotiations.
15
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) during collective bargaining negotiations by
promulgating a rule threatening unit employees with disciplinary action if they missed paid
breaks.
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in failing to offer the Union a reasonable 20
accommodation to address its confidentiality concerns with regard to the Union’s request for
completed exit interview forms.
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by denying unit employees breaks on April
14-15, 2018 in retaliation for the conduct of a union representative.25
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 30
the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended9
35
ORDER
The Respondent, Huron Valley-Sinai Hospital, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
40
1. Cease and desist from

9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–37–19
10
(a) Refusing to bargain with Michigan Nurses Association by failing and refusing to
promptly furnish exit interviews completed by former nurses from June 6, 2016.
(b) Enforcing its rule prohibiting the combination of meal and other breaks.
5
(c) Covering meal breaks with clinical coordinators rather than unit nurses.
(d) Denying bargaining unit members breaks in retaliation for the conduct of union
representatives.
10
(e) 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 effectuate the policies of the Act.
15
(a) Furnish the Union with copies of all exit interviews forms received since June 6, 2016
with the following information redacted: the name and ID number of the nurse
completing the form; the names of any persons regarding whom an unflattering
reference was made.
20
(b) Rescind the rule threatening discipline for employees if they miss breaks.
(c) Make unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the change in the policy regarding the coverage of meal breaks.10
25
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Commerce Township,
Michigan facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”11 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, 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 30
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 altered, defaced, or 35
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved
in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a

10 Such payments shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
11 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD–37–19
11
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since June 6, 2017.
(e) 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 5
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 29, 2019
10
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge
C~,~~,G~`'`~~t. ~ ~~~ti~Q/►'~--
JD–37–19
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT enforce our prohibition against combining meal and other breaks without
negotiating such a prohibition with the Michigan Nurses Association.
WE WILL NOT cover meal breaks with clinical coordinators instead of bargaining unit nurses
without negotiating such a practice with the Michigan Nurses Association.
WE WILL NOT apply a rule threatening discipline against unit employees for missing breaks
without negotiating such a rule with the Michigan Nurses Association.
WE WILL NOT retaliate against bargaining unit members on account of the conduct of union
representatives.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Michigan Nurses Association with relevant information it
requests and if the requested information contains confidential information WE WILL propose a
reasonable accommodation to the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the change to our Meal and Break Policy which provides that unit employees
may be disciplined for missing breaks.
WE WILL provide the Michigan Nurses Association with the information it requested on June
6, 2017 including all exit interviews completed by former nurses since June 6, 2016. The names
and ID numbers of the nurse completing the form will be redacted as will the names of any other
individual to whom there are unflattering references.
JD–37–19
WE WILL make whole with accrued interest any nurse who suffered an economic loss by virtue
of the change in policy regarding the coverage of breaks.
HURON VALLEY-SINAI HOSPITAL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 300, Detroit, MI 48226-2569
(313) 226-3200, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-201332 or
by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (313) 226-3244.