Kasier Foundation Health Plan

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 7, 2006

32-CB-005893 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 7, 2006)

JD(SF)–63-06
Walnut Creek, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
DIVISION OF JUDGES

SEIU HEALTHCARE WORKERS WEST
(Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al)

and Case 32-CB-5893-1

CHARLES BARNES, an Individual

Judith J. Chang, Atty., NLRB Region 32,
Oakland, CA, for the General Counsel.

Bruce A. Harland, Atty., (Weinberg, Roger
& Rosenfeld), Alameda, CA, for Respondent.

DECISION

Statement of the Case

WILLIAM L. SCHMIDT, Administrative Law Judge. This case involves the suspension
and removal of Charles Barnes (Barnes or Charging Party) as a shop steward for Environmental
Services Department (EVS) employees represented by SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West
(Union or Respondent) at the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Walnut Creek, California.

Barnes filed this unfair labor practice charge on December 23, 2004. He subsequently
amended it on February 18, and March 30, 2005.1 The Regional Director for Region 32 of the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued a formal complaint pursuant to Section
10 of the National Labor Relation Act (Act) alleging that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
when its agent told its worksite stewards on February 10 that they had a duty to suspend
Barnes for filing an NLRB unfair labor practice charge against the Union. The complaint also
alleges that that Respondent violated the same section by Barnes’ suspension and his
subsequent permanent removal as a steward. Respondent filed a timely answer denying the
unfair labor practices alleged.

I heard this case at Oakland, California, on August 29, 2006. The General Counsel and
Respondent submitted post-hearing briefs. Based on the parties’ arguments, the hearing
record, and my credibility determinations,2 I have concluded that Respondent violated the Act,
as alleged, based on the following

1 Unless shown otherwise, all further dates refer to the 2005 calendar year.
2 The following factors inform my credibility findings: the opportunity to be familiar with the
subjects covered in the testimony given, established or admitted facts, witness bias, testimonial
consistency, corroboration, the strength of any rebuttal evidence, inherent probabilities,
reasonable inferences available from the record as a whole, the weight of the evidence, and
witness demeanor. Critical credibility resolutions are explained in more detail below.

JD(SF)–63-06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
2
Findings of Fact

I. Jurisdiction

The Kaiser system consists of the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (Kaiser) which
provides pre-paid health care services to individuals and groups, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
(Hospitals) which provide hospital facilities and services to Kaiser, and The Permanente Medical
Group, Inc. (Permanente) which provides medical services to Kaiser. Kaiser and Hospitals are
California non-profit corporations. Permanente is a California corporation comprised of member
physicians. In the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the complaint, Kaiser, Hospitals,
and Permanente each received gross revenues in excess of $250,000. In the same period,
Hospitals and Permanente each provided services to Kaiser valued in excess of $250,000. And
in that same period, Kaiser, Hospitals and Permanente each purchased and received goods
and materials valued in excess of $5000 that originated outside the state of California. Based
on the foregoing, I find that Kaiser, Hospitals and Permanente are employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that it would effectuate
the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act for the Board to resolve this labor dispute. I
also find that the Union is a labor organization as defined in Section (5) of the Act.

II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices

A. Relevant Facts

Barnes began working in the EVS department at the Walnut Creek Kaiser Hospital
(Walnut Creek Kaiser) in 2001. During his tenure, Barnes has had two lengthy disability
periods. At relevant times, Barnes worked as a “24-hour float,” a job requiring that he substitute
for absent employees. About 150 employees work in the EVS department.

The Union represents 1500 Walnut Creek Kaiser employees. The Union’s shop
stewards there provide the front line union representation. About 40 employees serve as
stewards, including seven chief stewards. Collectively, these stewards constitute the Walnut
Creek Kaiser Stewards’ Council (Council). The Council meets once a month to provide steward
training, to disseminate and obtain information about Union and hospital operations that may
affect their work, and to discuss pending grievances and other relevant matters connected their
representational functions.3 The Council operates under written guidelines known as the Kaiser
Division Steward Council Structure and Policies. This policy document specifies minimum
steward qualifications and contains procedures for the Council to remove a steward from office.4
Greg Tegenkamp, the Union staff representative/organizer responsible for overseeing Union

3 Typically, the Council meetings last all day and, by agreement with the employer, they are
held at the Walnut Creek Kaiser facility.
4 The Steward Council’s Policies and Guidelines (Respondent’s Exhibit 3: 6) contains this
provision relating to the revocation or suspension of a steward’s authority:

The appropriate Steward’s Council . . . is responsible to enforce the guidelines and
policies for stewards. Where compliance problems cannot be resolved, the Council shall
have the authority to revoke or suspend the steward’s authorization to act for or on
behalf of the Union. Any such suspension or revocation by the worksite steward’s
council (as opposed to a recall by members in the steward’s work area) may be
appealed to the [division-wide steward’s council] for a final disposition.

JD(SF)–63-06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
3
business at Walnut Creek Kaiser, attends and coordinates the monthly Council meetings. Lover
Joyce, then a chief steward, began chairing Council meetings in March 2005.5

The EVS department has five stewards, including chief steward Sammie Garrett. EVS
employees elected Barnes as a shop steward in 2002. Barnes then completed the Union’s
steward training program and became a functioning steward. Although Barnes represented a
number of EVS employees, he had no occasion to file a grievance on behalf of an employee
prior to his suspension in 2005. However, he caused five grievances to be filed on his behalf.

The dispute that eventually led to Barnes’ initial grievance began shortly after he
returned from a medical leave in late 2002. Upon his return, Marie Bates, his supervisor and
herself a former steward, assigned him repeatedly to outside trash duties. Barnes met with
Bates several times about these assignments. He argued that the contract required that this
work be assigned to less senior employees and, in any event, that his disability made it difficult
for him to perform this work. On at least one occasion, Tina Lynch, another EVS steward met
with Barnes and Bates about this issue but they reached no lasting resolution. Instead, Bates
continued to assign Barnes to this work once or twice a week for the next several months.

After a while, Barnes sought out Alisha Blinks, a steward in the Communications
department to file a grievance on his behalf. He chose Blinks because of he knew of her
reputation as an excellent steward. Initially, Blinks felt reluctant to act on Barnes’ behalf
because she did not work in the EVS department but she finally relented to Barnes’ insistence
after receiving the okay from EVS chief steward Garrett, and Michael Daly, her chief steward.
However, they insisted that Blinks keep them both informed about her work on Barnes’ behalf.
Having received the approval of the chief stewards involved, Blinks finally filed Barnes’ trash-
assignment grievance in January 2004.6

Shortly thereafter, Barnes received another of the disputed trash assignments. When he
protested, Bates directed him to either do the work or punch out and go home. Barnes elected
to go home. After learning that he lost the day’s pay, Barnes contacted Blinks who filed another
grievance on his behalf seeking backpay for that particular day. Later, she filed three more
grievances on Barnes’ behalf but the reasons for these added grievances are not known.

In the meantime, Barnes also filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Union in
Case 32-CB-5737 on February 9, 2004. It alleged that the Union had failed to fairly represent
him “in conjunction with a grievance against Kaiser . . . Walnut Creek.” The precise reason
Barnes filed this charge is not known. However, some discord arose between Barnes, Blinks
and Tegenkamp during the processing of Barnes’ grievances. Thus, Blinks sought some
unspecified information from EVS supervisor Bates claiming that she needed it to properly
process Barnes’ grievances. Bates refused to provide the information and when Blinks
continued to insist on it, Bates told her (as well as Barnes and the EVS chief steward) that
Tegenkamp agreed that she need not provide it. Regardless, on April 12 Barnes withdrew Case
32-CB-5737 after becoming satisfied that the Union would properly represent him.

5 Following the March 10 meeting, Joyce was elected as the Union’s executive board vice
president.
6 Prior to her suspension as a steward in February 2005, Blinks had been a steward for
about four years. During that time, she had filed grievances on behalf of several other
employees outside of her department.

JD(SF)–63-06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
4
By late October or early November 2004, all five of Barnes’ grievances had reached step
two of the grievance procedure and the parties scheduled a meeting to deal with them.
Tegenkamp, Blinks and Barnes met with management representatives to discuss Barnes’
pending grievances. When the meeting began to break up after a discussion of everything
except the lost pay grievance, Blinks and Barnes requested to caucus with Tegenkamp. During
this caucus, the two stewards insisted that Tegenkamp also take up the pay grievance up with
management. Tegenkamp claimed to know nothing about the pay grievance but agreed to meet
further with management about this added grievance. At the end, the step two meeting failed to
achieve any resolution satisfactory to Barnes. Shortly afterward, Barnes was injured in an auto
accident and he again went on a disability leave. That leave lasted until July 2005.

Seemingly still dissatisfied with Tegenkamp’s efforts, Barnes filed instant unfair labor
practice charge against the Union on December 23, 2004. The charge alleged that the Union
conspired with management “to deny rights under the contract” but, as detailed below, Barnes
twice amended the charge and the original substance of the charge became submerged by the
events that followed. The language of the original charge strongly suggests that Barnes’ motive
for resorting to the NLRB grew out of the perception harbored by Blinks and himself that
Tegenkamp adamantly blocked access to information they sought from Bates.

Tegenkamp became aware of the December NLRB charge shortly after it was filed. He
decided to take that matter up at the February 10 Council meeting. Tegenkamp began his
presentation by reading from various provisions of the Kaiser Division Stewards Council
Structures and Policies document including the provision related to the revocation or
suspension of a steward’s authority. After that, Tegenkamp began talking about Barnes’ new
NLRB charge. Although he professed that he did not know originally what the charge related to,
he later learned that it concerned the Union’s failure to deal with Barnes’ grievance about the
trash duty assignments. Tegenkamp read the NLRB charge to the Council members,
distributed copies of it to them, and rhetorically questioned why Barnes would make such a
charge when he knew it was not true. He then told the assembled stewards that the charge was
a public record which could be accessed, and used, by employers the Union was attempting to
organize.7 Referring to the charge, Tegenkamp told the stewards that “this person” has nothing
to do except go down and file an NLRB charge a couple of days before Christmas. Tegenkamp
then told the stewards that they had the right to suspend and get rid of Barnes “for filing these
charges at the NLRB.” The Council proceeded to suspend both Barnes and Blinks. Following
the meeting, Dwight Johnson reported to Barnes that he as well as Blinks had been suspended
as stewards.8

7 Tegenkamp claimed during a 611(c) examination by counsel for the General Counsel that
he actually did not recall whether he made this particular statement at the February 10 meeting
or an earlier meeting. During the 611(c) examination, counsel for the General Counsel alluded
a few times to statements Tegenkamp made in an affidavit provided to the General Counsel’s
office in May 2006 after being served with a subpoena. He acknowledged that he had stated in
the affidavit that this statement had been made at the February 10 meeting. Based on my
observations, I concluded that Tegenkamp made a considerable effort to hedge on this and
several other statements he obviously made in his May 2006 affidavit. His demeanor during this
critical questioning has caused me to disregard Tegenkamp’s testimony about the February and
March 2005 Council meetings where it conflicts with that of Barnes and Blinks.
8 Barnes did not attend the February 10 meeting due to his disability leave. No evidence
shows that Barnes knew that the Council would address his conduct at this meeting. Blinks
walked out in protest when Tegenkamp began discussing Barnes’ NLRB charge. Johnson, a
steward, also protested the fairness of considering issues about Barnes in his absence.

JD(SF)–63-06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
5
In a letter dated February 14, Tegenkamp formally notified Barnes that his authority to
act as a SEIU steward had been suspended “[p]ursuant to the . . . Stewards Council’s Policies
and Guidelines.” Although the letter invited Barnes to attend the March 10 meeting “for the
limited purpose of presenting any information you may have that might influence the Council in
making its final decision” about permanently revoking or restoring his authority, it gave no
reason for the suspension or otherwise address the issues that would be treated with at the
March 10 meeting. The letter warned that if he failed to attend on March 10, “the Council will
revoke your authority.”9

On February 18, Barnes amended his pending NLRB charge. In addition to the initial
allegation that Tegenkamp had interfered with the processing of his grievance, the February 18
amendment alleged that the Union, acting through Tegenkamp, suspended Barnes from his
duties as an elected steward because he filed the original charge.

Meanwhile Blinks made arrangements through Lover Joyce to appear at the March 10
Council meeting with Barnes to defend their actions. Following a minor brouhaha on the day of
the meeting, Joyce relented to the insistence by Barnes and Blinks that they appear jointly
before the Council. During their appearance, Barnes and Blinks fielded questions asked
randomly by the stewards in attendance. The substantive accounts provided by Barnes and
Blinks differ considerably from the accounts provided by Tegenkamp and Joyce.

Barnes overheard a steward quiz Blinks about the situation in the EVS department. She
criticized Tegenkamp (apparently as she had done on several prior occasions) for blocking
efforts to obtain information from supervisor Bates that she considered essential to processing
Barnes’ grievances. Tegenkamp shouted a response. Joyce asked both of the suspended
stewards if they wanted to continue as stewards and both said that they did.

Another steward asked Barnes if he had filed an NLRB charge against the Union and
whether he would do it again. Barnes replied “yes” to both questions.10 Those answers
provoked loud sighing from the audience. One of the stewards then accused Barnes of hurting
the Union because of the costs incurred in defending against the charge. Another told Barnes
that a “true shop steward” would never file an NLRB charge against the Union.

Joyce and Tegenkamp both claim that Barnes voluntarily resigned as a steward when he
appeared at the March 10 meeting. By their accounts, Joyce asked Barnes still wanted to be a
steward. Purportedly, Barnes said that he saw no point in being a steward because the Union’s
structure, constitution and bylaws, and the steward guidelines did not work for him so he was
resigning. In response, Joyce purportedly said “that was easy” and Barnes then left. Barnes
emphatically denied that he resigned.

The accounts of Joyce and Tegenkamp about the March 10 meeting strike me as very
improbable. Barnes’ conduct reflects a more combative stance. Thus, he amended his NLRB
charge to protest his suspension, joined Blinks to attend the March 10 meeting even though he
remained on a disability leave, and then fought with Joyce (and perhaps Tegenkamp) over

9 Blinks received an e-mail from Tegenkamp on February 12 setting out similar information.
That e-mail says that the Council had voted unanimously to suspend her.
10 Blinks corroborated Barnes’ testimony about being questioned at the March meeting
concerning the NLRB charge he filed. In view of Tegenkamp’s acknowledgement that he
discussed the charge at some length at the February 10 meeting, I find it highly probable that
stewards at the March meeting questioned Barnes about the NLRB charge.

JD(SF)–63-06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
6
appearing jointly with Blinks before the steward’s council. Yet later on March 30, Barnes again
amended his NLRB charge to allege that his removal as a steward was unlawful. For these
reasons, and as I earlier explained other reasons for discrediting Tegenkamp where his
testimony conflicted with that of Barnes and Blinks, I do not credit the claim that Barnes
voluntarily resigned as a steward when he appeared at the March 10 meeting.

As the meeting progressed it became little more than a shouting match that ended only
when one of the stewards called upon Joyce to conduct the reinstatement vote. Joyce asked
the two suspended stewards if they wanted the Council to vote. Blinks requested a vote but
Barnes disputed the Council’s authority to remove him because the employee-members in his
work area had elected him to be their steward. With that, Joyce asked Barnes and Blinks to
leave while the Council voted. They complied and waited outside the meeting room until the
meeting ended. When stewards began emerging from the meeting, Barnes and Blinks learned
that the Council voted for their removal.11 However, neither received a notice of any kind from
the Union about the outcome of the Council vote.

B. Analysis and Conclusions

Section 8(b)(1)(A) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7. However, the
proviso to 8(b)(1)(A) guarantees the right of a labor organization “to prescribe its own rules with
respect to the acquisition or retention of membership.”

By adding Section 8(b)(1)(A) to the Act in 1947, Congress sought to impose the same
restrictions upon unions that the Wagner Act imposed on employers with respect to violating
employee rights. International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. NLRB (Bernard-
Altman Texas Corp.), 366 U.S. 731, 738 (1961). Although the 8(b)(1)(A) proviso “assures a
union freedom of self-regulation where its legitimate internal affairs are concerned,” any
coercion used to discourage, retard, or defeat access to the Board is beyond the legitimate
interest of a labor organization. NLRB v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, 391 U.S. 418, 424 (1968). Clearly, a union may sanction or remove an
employee-steward from office for dereliction of duty as a steward but it may not lawfully
discipline or remove a steward for filing a charge with the Board. General American
Transportation Corp., 227 NLRB 1695-96 (1977), enf. denied 581 F.2d 473 (5th Cir. 1978).12

In this case, Respondent makes no claim that it had a legal right under the 8(b)(1)(A)
proviso to punish Barnes for filing an NLRB charge. Instead, it asserts that the Council
suspended Barnes in February for other, legitimate reasons, and that he voluntarily resigned his
steward’s position at the March meeting. Since these assertions and the supporting testimony
places the motive for the actions taken against Barnes at those meetings in question,

11 Even though the evidence suggests that Blinks’ situation is closely linked to that of
Barnes, counsel for the General Counsel specifically stated that she sought no remedy on
behalf of Blinks for her suspension and removal as a steward.
12 In Office Employees Local 251 (Sandia National Laboratories), 331 NLRB 1417 (2000),
the Board engaged in a comprehensive discussion of the scope of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Without
reference to the refusal of the court of appeals to enforce the Board’s order in General American
Transportation, the Board nonetheless reiterated the general principle based on Shipbuilders
that 8(b)(1)(A) “proscribes conduct against union members that directly impedes access to the
Board’s processes.” Id. 1424.

JD(SF)–63-06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
7
Respondent argues that this case must be analyzed under Wright Line13 rather than under
Shipbuilders. Although I agree that Respondent’s evidence requires a Wright Line analysis (see
e.g., United Mine Workers (Reitz Coal), 282 NLRB 106, fn 3 (1986)), that case and Shipbuilders
are mutually exclusive. Thus, if the General Counsel meets his Wright Line burden and
Respondent fails to show that it would have taken the same action regardless of the protected
activity involved, the unlawful motive is proven. In cases of this type, if a union’s motive is
shown to be retaliation for the filing of an NLRB charge, then Shipbuilders would support a
conclusion that it violated 8(b)(1)(A). See Denver Newspaper and Graphic Communications
Local 22, 338 NLRB 130 (2002).

The General Counsel established a compelling case that Barnes’ suspension and
removal was motivated by the unfair labor practice charge that he filed in December 2004.
Barnes unquestionably filed the charge and Tegenkamp admitted that he knew about the
charge prior to the February 10 meeting. Blinks credibly testified that Tegenkamp brought the
matter up at the February 10 meeting, distributed copies of the charge to members of the
Council, and called attention to their authority under the guidelines to suspend and remove
stewards, and suggested that they should do so in this case.14 Tegenkamp admitted that he
had made pre-hearing statements to the General Counsel that corroborated much of Blinks’
hearing testimony. The February 14 letter to Barnes establishes that the Council, in fact,
suspended Barnes. Even though the letter fails to address the specific reason for Barnes’
suspension, these circumstances create a compelling basis for inferring this action by the
Council resulted from Tegenkamp’s report about the NLRB charge and his suggestion that
Barnes be suspended. Similarly, counsel for the General Counsel adduced credible evidence
that Council members questioned Barnes at the March 10 meeting about filing an NLRB charge
and disparaged him for doing so before voting for his removal.

Respondent asserts that the Council suspended Barnes because he abused his office
by using his steward’s position “for his own personal benefit” and failing to properly handle
grievances, and because he exhibited disdain for the structure of the Council by refusing to
follow the “proper protocol for Shop Stewards.” These claims apparently allude largely to the
fact Barnes filed no grievances on behalf of other employees and arranged to have grievances
filed on his behalf by Blinks rather than another steward from the EVS department. The Union
provided no evidence that Barnes’ conduct in connection with pursuing his own grievances
violated any Union protocol or even offended anyone within the Union structure at least until he
filed the offending NLRB charge. His initial trash assignment grievance that Blinks filed drug on
for a year but Respondent failed to adduce any evidence that anyone objected to this
representation arrangement until Tegenkamp accused Blinks of serving as Barnes’ “personal
steward” in a January 2005 e-mail following Barnes’ latest NLRB charge. By contrast Blinks
and Barnes credibly testified, without contradiction, that they kept both of their chief stewards
fully informed about their grievance activities and both chief stewards concurred with their
activities. In short, the claim that Barnes abused his steward’s position, failed to properly handle
grievances and exhibited disdain for the Union’s protocols are supported only by Tegenkamp’s
bare assetions. Moreover, the Union’s own guidelines provide for the removal of a steward by a

13 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert denied 455
U.S. 989 (1982).
14 Complaint paragraph 6(a) alleges that Tegenkamp told the shop stewards at the February
10 Council meeting “that it was their duty to suspend” Barnes’ privileges and duties as a shop
steward. Whether Tegenkamp used this precise language is not altogether clear. However, it is
abundantly clear that Tegenkamp, in effect, urged the Council members to suspend Barnes. I
find this conduct analogous to that alleged in complaint paragraph 6(a).

JD(SF)–63-06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
8
worksite council where “compliance problems cannot be resolved.” There’s not a scintilla of
evidence that any Union official or agent addressed any protocol problem with Barnes prior to
Tegenkamp’s sudden and unannounced assault on the absent Barnes at the February 10
Council meeting.

I find, therefore, that Respondent failed to prove that its Council suspended and
removed Barnes for abusing his steward’s position in any manner and that assertions to that
effect are a pretext designed to mask its retaliation against Barnes for filing an NLRB charge.
Where, as here, a respondent’s affirmative defense amounts to a pretext, it not only fails to
meet its Wright Line burden, it also lends added support for a finding that the adverse action at
issue was unlawfully motivated. Jet Star, Inc. v. NLRB, 209 F.3d 671, 678 (7th Cir. 2000). For
these reasons, I find that Respondent violated the Act as alleged in the complaint.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

2. By Tegenkamp’s conduct in urging the Council to suspend Barnes, and by the
Council’s conduct in suspending and then removing Barnes from his position as a steward at
the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Walnut Creek, California, Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.

Remedy

Having found that Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, my recommended order requires that Respondent cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.

As Respondent unlawfully removed Barnes from his steward position, my recommended
order requires Respondent to immediately offer to reinstate him to his former steward’s position
with all rights and privileges he previously enjoyed in that position, or if that position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position.

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended15

ORDER

The Respondent, SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall

1. Cease and desist from

(a) Urging its stewards’ council to suspend a fellow steward for filing an unfair labor
practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board.

15 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Section
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes. Pending motions inconsistent with this recommended order are denied.

JD(SF)–63-06

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
9

(b) Suspending or removing any steward from his/her position for filing an unfair labor
practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board.

(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.

(a) Offer Charles Barnes immediate reinstatement to his former position as a steward at
the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Walnut Creek, California, with all rights and privileges
previously enjoyed in that position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position.

(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its union office in Oakland,
California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”16 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 32, 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 members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for posting by
the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Walnut Creek, California, if willing, at all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted.

(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.

Dated, Washington, D.C. December 7, 2006.

____________________
Administrative Law Judge

16 If a United States court of appeals enters a judgment enforcing this Order, 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(SF)–63-06
APPENDIX

NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND 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 on your behalf with your employer.
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection.
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.

WE WILL NOT urge our stewards’ council to suspend a steward for filing an unfair labor practice charge
with the National Labor Relations Board.

WE WILL NOT suspend or remove any steward from his/her position for filing an unfair labor practice
charge with the National Labor Relations Board.

WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

WE WILL offer Charles Barnes immediate reinstatement to his former position as a steward at the Kaiser
Foundation Hospital in Walnut Creek, California, with all rights and privileges previously enjoyed in that
position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position.

SEIU HEALTHCARE WORKERS WEST
(Labor Organization)

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.
1301 Clay Street, Federal Building, Room 300N
Oakland, California 94612-5211
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
510-637-3300
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, 510-637-3270.