L.A.X. Medical Clinic Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 861 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

LAX.X MEDICAL CLINIC INC. 861
L.A.X. Medical Clinic, Inc.; L.A.X. Medical Center,
Inc.; 815 Sepulveda Group; Sepulveda Manage-
ment Corporation; Imperial Pharmacy d/b/a
L.A.X. Pharmacy and Hospital and Service Em-
ployees Union, Local 399, Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-
8741
March 31, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
On January 9, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
William J. Pannier III issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, 2 and conclusions 3 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondents, L.A.X. Medi-
cal Clinic, Inc.; L.A.X. Medical Center, Inc.; 815
Sepulveda Group; Sepulveda Management Corpo-
ration; Imperial Pharmacy d/b/a LA.X. Pharma-
cy, El Segundo, California, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
i Counsel for the General also moves to strike a document, attached to
Respondents' brief as Exh A. The motion is granted. Counsel for Re-
spondents attempted to submit this exhibit at the hearing and subsequent-
ly withdrew it. Since the document was not received into evidence at the
hearing, it is not a part of the record.
2 Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
a Member Penello agrees with the Administrative Law Judge's conclu-
sion that Respondents violated Sec. (a(5) and () of the Act by formu-
lating new terms and conditions of employment after operations had
commenced, for the reasons set forth in his separate opinion in Spruce Up
Corporation, 209 NLRB 194, 207 (1974)
248 NLRB No. 112
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM J. PANNIER III, Administrative Law Judge:
This matter was heard by me in Los Angeles, California,
on October 10, 1 979 .' On April 10, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing, based on
an unfair labor practice charge filed on February 13 and
amended on March 14, alleging violations of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the
Act. On September 18, the Regional Director for Region
31 issued an amended complaint and notice of hearing
based on a second amended charge filed on August 28,
alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
All parties have been afforded full opportunity to appear,
to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to file briefs. Based on the entire record,
upon the briefs filed on behalf of the parties, and upon
my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material, L.A.X. Medical Clinic, Inc.,
herein called Respondent L.AX., has been a professional
corporation duly organized under and existing by virture
of the laws of the State of California, with an office and
principal place of business located in El Segundo, Cali-
fornia, where it engages in the business of providing
health care services. At all times material, L.A.X. Medi-
cal Center, Inc., herein called Respondent Medical
Center, has been a professional corporation duly orga-
nized under the laws of the State of California, with an
office and principal place of business located in El Se-
gundo, California, where it engages in the business of
providing health care services. At all times material, 815
Sepulveda Group, herein called Respondent 815, has
been a partnership with an office and principal place of
business located in El Segundo, California, where it is
engaged in the business of providing office space, goods,
property management, and related services to occupants
of the premises located at 815 Sepulveda Boulevard, El
Segundo, California. At all times material, Sepulveda
Management Corporation, herein called Respondent Se-
pulveda Management, has been a corporation duly orga-
nized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the
State of California, with an office and principal place of
business located in El Segundo, California, where it is
engaged in the business of providing management, per-
sonnel, administrative, and related services for occupants
of the premises located at 815 Sepulveda Boulevard, El
Segundo, California. At all times material, Respondent
Imperial Pharmacy d/b/a L.A.X. Pharmacy, herein
called L.A.X. Pharmacy, has been a professional corpo-
ration duly organized under and existing by virtue of the
laws of the State of California, with an office and princi-
pal place of business located in El Segundo, California,
I Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 1979
LAX. MEDICAL C INIC INC
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
where it is engaged in the retail sale of pharmaceutical
and related goods. Respondent L.A.X., Respondent
Medical Center, Respondent 815, Respondent Sepulveda
Management, and Respondent L.A.X. Pharmacy are col-
lectively referred to herein as Respondents.
It is admitted that Respondents are employers engaged
in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and, further, that Respondent L.A.X. and Respondent
Medical Center are health care institutions within the
meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. It is further ad-
mitted that, at all times material, Respondents have been
affiliated business enterprises with common officers,
ownership, directors, management, and supervision; have
formulated and administered a common labor policy af-
fecting employees of their operations; have shared
common premises and facilities; have shared common
payroll and checking accounts; have provided services
for and to each other; have interchanged pe:rsonnel with
each other; and have held themselves out to the public as
a single integrated business enterprise. Respondents deny
that they constitute a single integrated business enterprise
and a single employer within the meaning of the Act, but
the existence of the foregoing factors clearly establish
that such a conclusion is warranted. See, e.g. Sakrete,
Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 902, 905, fn. 4 (9th Cir. 1964),
cert. denied 379 U.S. 961. Therefore, I find that at all
times material, Respondents have constituted a single in-
tegrated enterprise and a single employer within the
meaning of the Act.
Respondents also admit the following allegations: that
by projecting their volume of business already conducted
during their initial calendar or fiscal year of operations,
they will sell goods or provide services valued in excess
of $50,000 to customers or business enterprises within the
State of California, each of which, in turn, meet one of
the Board's jurisdictional standards, other than the indi-
rect inflow or indirect outflow standards; that by pro-
jecting their volume of business already conducted
during their initial calendar or fiscal year of operations,
they will purchase goods or provide services valued in
excess of $50,000 to customers or business enterprises lo-
cated outside the State of California; that Respondent
L.A.X. and Respondent Medical Center each will derive
gross revenues in excess of $250,000 by projecting their
volume of business already conducted during their initial
calendar or fiscal year of operations; and that Respon-
dent 815 and Respondent Sepulveda Management each
will derive gross revenues in excess of $100,000 by pro-
jecting their volume of business already conducted
during their initial calendar or fiscal year of operations.
Therefore, I find, as admitted by Respondents, that at
all times material, Respondents have been employers en-
gaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and, further, that Respondent L.AX. and Respondent
Medical Center have been health care institutions within
the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOIVED
At all times material, Hospital and Service Employees
Union, Local 399, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
11I. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
The basic issue in this case is whether Respondents
became a successor employer and, if so, whether they
thereafter refused to continue recognizing the Union as
the bargaining representative of their employees and, fur-
ther, made changes in terms and conditions of employ-
ment without affording the Union prior notification and
an opportunity to bargain about those changes in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.2
Sepulveda Medical Group is engaged in the business
of providing health care services at a number of facili-
ties. Prior to December 30, 1978, one of the facilities at
which it provided those services was located at 815
North Sepulveda Boulevard in Los Angeles. Employees
who worked at that facility had been included in a multi-
facility bargaining unit, represented by the Union, and
were covered by a collective-bargaining agreement,
having a stated term of November 1, 1977, through Oc-
tober 31, 1980.3 On December 31, 1978, or on January 1,
1979, Respondents commenced operating the 815 North
Sepulveda Boulevard facility, having purchased the
assets of Sepulveda Medical Group.4 It is undisputed
that Respondents have engaged in substantially the same
business operations, at the same location, using substan-
tially the same equipment and providing the same ser-
vices to substantially the same individuals as had Sepul-
veda Medical Group.
2 In addition, the complaint alleges that Respondents independently
violated Sec. 8(a)(l) of the Act when, in January, then Administrator
George Harrison, an admitted supervisor and agent of Respondents
during that month, had threatened employees with discharge for asking
questions about work evaluations and wage increases. Senior receptionist,
Melissa Moothart, testified that when she and receptionist Linda Sanchez
had inquired about whether they would be receiving a raise scheduled
under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, Harrison had re-
torted that Respondent L.A.X's president and administrator of Respon-
dents, Sabbath Korn (admittedly a supervisor and agent of Respondents
at all times material), had said to get rid of any employees who were not
happy with their working conditions or wages. Though she had difficulty
recalling Harrison's precise words, Sanchez' testimony tended to cor-
roborate that of Moothart regarding what he had said that day. Harrision
agreed that the conversation had occurred and that he had.repeated what
Korn had earlier told him. While he described his statement as being that
Korn had said that, if the employees did not like it, they could go some-
where else, he did not deny having said that Korn had threatened to dis-
charge those employees who were unhappy. I credit Moothart's account
of what he had said. Thus, I find that Harrision did make the threat al-
leged in the complaint.
3 It is admitted that the following contractual bargaining unit is appro-
priate within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act: All warehouse persons,
drivers, file clerks, medical record clerks, pharmacy clerks, senior phar-
macy clerks, pharmacy clerks/pharmaceutical supply, clerk typists, hospi-
tal monitors, accounting pricers, insurance clerks, appointment clerks, re-
ceptionist (including telephone, medical, dental, and x-ray), receptionist/
pricer/insurance clerk, registered dental assistants, dental assistants,
dental x-ray technicians and LVNs; excluding all other employees, pro-
fessionals, medical doctors, registered nurses, confidential secretaries,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4It is undisputed that Respondents did not commence operating the
pharmacy until approximately mid-April. However, there is no conten-
tion that this temporary bifurcation of operations at 815 North Sepulveda
Boulevard had any effect on the unit nor on the determination of Re-
spondents' successorship status
L.AXX MEDICAL CLINIC, INC. 863
Employees were given the option of transferring to
other facilities operated by Sepulveda Medical Group or
of interviewing for employment with Respondents.
When Respondents commenced operating the 815 North
Sepulveda Boulevard facility, 12 of the 18 employees
who had been employed by Sepulveda Medical Group in
unit classifications were hired by Respondents. 5 More-
over, these 12 employees were the only ones hired by
Respondents during January to work in unit positions,
with the result that these classifications were staffed
wholly by former employees of Sepulveda Medical
Group. By the end of February, Sheila Anderson had re-
signed and Peggy Anderson had been promoted to a
nonunit position. Two new receptionists Gwen Crumby
and Edie Heikle, had been hired. Neither had ever
worked for Sepulveda Medical Group. Moreover, phar-
macy employee Debbie Moore had departed and had
been replaced. Thus, of the 12 or 13 unit employees (de-
pending on Hughes' status), only 3 had never worked at
815 North Sepulveda Boulevard prior to Respondents'
purchase of the assets. The parties stipulated to the com-
position of the unit on three subsequent dates: As of
April 1, 8 or 9 of the 13 or 14 unit employees (depending
on Hughes' status) had been employees at 815 North Se-
pulveda Boulevard prior to assumption of operations by
Respondents; as of July 1, 8 or 9 of the 15 or 16 employ-
ees employed by Respondents in unit positions had been
employed by Sepulveda Medical Group;6 and, as of Oc-
tober 1, 6 or 7 of the 14 or 15 employees working in unit
classifications had worked in those classifications prior to
December 31, 1978.
Korn admitted that after commencing operations at
815 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Respondents had made
changes in terms and conditions of employment of em-
ployees working in unit classifications. Indeed, the
record discloses that in February, for example, Respon-
dents had announced changes that had the effect of in-
creasing the minimum employment period required to
qualify for pro rata vacation payments for employees
whose employment was terminated during the first year
of work; of reducing the wage rate of employees who
I The parties do not agree on whether Ind. Sec/Med Rec. Patricia
Hughes should be included in the unit. Since her status is not determina-
tive of the Union's majority status and inasmuch as the record contains
no evidence upon which a disposition of her status could be made, I
make no determination as to whether she should be included in the unit.
Moreover, in addition to the 12 employees hired by Respondents initially,
Debbie Moore continued working in the pharmacy for at least part of
January. Consequently, during that month, there were 12 or 13 employ-
ees (depending on Hughes' status) working in unit positions at 815 North
Sepulveda Boulevard who had been working there prior to December
31, 1978.
6 In their brief, Respondents argue, contrary to their own stipulation,
that there had only been seven or eight former employees of Sepulveda
Medical Group working on July 1. This, apparently, is based on a mis-
transcription of the first name of one employee, Linda Sanchez, which, at
p. 113, 1. 19, of the transcript, is recited as "Elizabeth." However, not
only is "Linda Sanchez" named as having been among the employee
complement on April I and October I, but no Elizabeth Sanchez is listed
as having been employed on October 1. Respondents' own payroll re-
cords (G.C. Exh. 2) lists no Elizabeth Sanchez, and the payroll records
do not show that Linda Sanchez had ever been terminated from employ-
ment with Respondents. Accordingly, I find that the transcript incorrect-
ly refects the first name of Linda Sanchez and that there were, in fact,
eight or nine former employees of Sepulveda Medical Group employed
by Respondents on July 1.
worked on holidays from 2-1/2 to 1-1/2 their normal
hourly rate; and, of reducing the amount of sick leave
accorded employees, particularly those in the first year
of their employment, for each month that they worked
for Respondents. Similarly, in March, Respondents intro-
duced a new health and welfare program that had the
effect of substantially changing the benefits provided to
employees. It is undisputed that these and other changes
had been effected by Respondents without prior notifica-
tion to the Union and without affording it the opportuni-
ty to bargain concerning those changes. Further, Re-
spondents presented no evidence that any of the changes
made after they had commenced operations at 815 North
Sepulveda Boulevard had been finalized before they had
begun operations at that location.
On January 15 and, again, on February 7, the Union
sent letters to Respondents, requesting "a meeting to dis-
cuss wages, hours, conditions of employment and all
other provisions to be contained in a Collective Bargain-
ing Agreement .... " When he testified, Korn was most
vague regarding when he had been contacted by the
Union and he claimed that he did not "recall" having
been contacted by the Union prior to May. Nevertheless,
he did not deny Harrison's testimony that he had been
shown both letters by Korn shortly after each had been
received. Therefore, I find that, whatever confusion may
have been created by the change in operator at 815
North Sepulveda Boulevard, Respondents were well
aware that the Union was demanding continued recogni-
tion as the representative of the unit employees working
there.
Essentially, Respondents argue that they were under
no obligation to continue recognizing the Union as the
representative of the unit employees nor to bargain about
the changes in employment terms made after commenc-
ing operations at 815 North Sepulveda Boulevard be-
cause they had not hired their full complement of em-
ployees prior to late September. In advancing this argu-
ment Respondents rely primarily upon the decision in
Pacific Hide & Fur Depot, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 553 F.2d 609
(9th Cir. 1977). However, the circumstances presented in
that case differ markedly from those present in the in-
stant case. For, in Pacific Hide, the employee comple-
ment had "steadily expanded as planned, the period of
time involved was short, less than sixty days, and the
"full complement' was . . .just one more than [the prior
employer's] complement when it ceased operations."
Id.at 614. Here, while it is true that Respondent's com-
plement had been less in number than when Sepulveda
Medical Group had ceased most of its operations at 815
North Sepulveda Boulevard in late December 1978, and
while interviews had been conducted with applicants for
employment, Respondents produced no evidence of any
"plan" to substantially expand the complement of unit
employees beyond the 12 who had been hired orginally,
as had been the case in Pacific Hide. The absence of any
evidence of such a plan to expand the employee comple-
ment is a crucial distinction between that case and the in-
stant one.
Further, examination of Respondents' hiring record
during its first 6 months of operation fails to disclose any
basis for concluding that such a plan had existed. Thus,
LAX. MEDICAL C INIC, INC.
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no additional employees had been hired in January. Two
employees were hired in February, but during that same
month one unit employee had resigned and another had
been promoted to a nonunit position with the result that
the total number of employees in the unit remained
stable after 60 days of operation. Three new employees
were hired in unit positions during March (Annabelle
Johnson, Julia McAdams, and Maria Santana) However,
during March, unit employee Sheila Anthony had re-
signed, leaving the total number of employees in the unit
only two more than when Respondents had commenced
operations at 815 North Sepulveda Boulevard. More-
over, Respondents' payroll records disclos.e that no
added unit employees were hired during either April or
May. The only change during these 2 months was that
Respondents had commenced operating the pharmacy.
However, as noted above, there is no contention that the
temporary bifurcation of operation of the pharmacy had
affected the unit status of the employee who had worked
there. Consequently, while one employee had been
added to Respondents' payroll during that 2-month
period, that employee had already been part of the bar-
gaining unit from January through mid-April.
An employer which commences operating a business
which it has taken over may well need "some time to
change the character of the new business." N.L.R.B. v.
Houston Distribution Services, Inc., 573 F.2d 250, 266 (5th
Cir. 1978). However, the allowance of such a period is
not intended to arm purchasing employers with a
weapon which they can brandish to defer continued rec-
ognition of the historic bargaining representative in the
hope that normal attrition and turnover will at some
point ravage the representative's majority status. The
rights of employees who continue to be employed by
purchasing employers may not so cavaliarly be ignored.
Here, Respondents have offered no evidence that
would show, as was the fact in Pacific Hide, that they
had a plan to steadily expand the bargaining unit. When
they commenced operations, there were 13 employees in
the unit (including Hughes and the employee working in
the pharmacy). Over the course of the next 9-month
period, the unit expanded by, at most, three employees in
number-hardly "so many new employees as to under-
mine the evident 'majority' existing at the point of ta-
keover." Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a Alondra
Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital, 242 NLRB No.
85, fn. 4 (1979). In sum, there is simply no basis on
which to predicate a finding that Respondents did not
employ a "full employee complement" until some point
after they had commenced operations at 815 North Se-
pulveda Boulevard. Therefore, I find that Respondents
did employ a full complement of unit employees at the
time that they commenced operations at that location.
Moreover, inasmuch as the unit consisted of majority of
the employees employed in the unit by Sepulveda Medi-
cal Group and, once Respondents commenced operations
there, was staffed totally by employees who had been
employed in the unit previously, I find that Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by ignoring
the Union's recognition and bargaining requests and by
refusing to continue recognizing and bargaining with the
Union.
Still remaining for consideration is the question of
whether Respondents had formulated "new terms prior
to or simultaneously with [their] invitation to the previ-
ous work force to accept employment .... " Spruce Up
Corporation, 209 NLRB 194, 195 (1974). For, "where the
new employer's offer of different terms was simultaneous
with the expression of intent to retain the predecessor's
employees, the Board has found no duty to bargain over
initial employment terms." Charles Starbuck and Diane
Starbuck d/b/a Starco Farmers Market, 237 NLRB 373.
(1978). Here, there is no evidence that Respondents had
formulated any new terms and conditions of employment
for the unit employees working at 815 North Sepulveda
Boulevard, prior to commencing operations there. To
the contrary, it is undisputed that in December 1978,
Korn had reviewed a copy of the collective-bargaining
agreement and had assured Harrison that Respondents
intended to retain the "status quo" for the present.
During a meeting with the employees during that same
month, Korn offered them employment with Respon-
dents without announcing any changes in their terms and
conditions of employment, but rather assured them that
their benefits would remain the same or comparable to
what they had been receiving. Thus, the record does not
support a conclusion that Respondents had finalized any
plans regarding changes in benefits. See D.R.C., Incorpo-
rated, 233 NLRB 1409, 1420 (1977). To the contrary, so
far as the record discloses, all decisions regarding the
terms and conditions of employment had been made after
the employees had been hired and after operations had
been commenced by Respondents at 815 North Sepul-
veda Boulevard. Therefore, by making these changes
after a full employee complement had been hired without
notifying the Union and affording it an opportunity to
bargain about the changes, Respondents violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section I,
above, occurring in connection with operations described
in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. L.A.X. Medical Clinic, Inc.; L.A.X. Medical
Center, Inc.; 815 Sepulveda Group; Sepulveda Manage-
ment Corporations; and, Imperial Pharmacy d/b/a
L.A.X. Pharmacy constitute a single integrated business
enterprise and a single employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Hospital and Service Employees Union, Local 399,
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
L.AX MEDICAL CLINIC, INC. 865
3. By threatening to discharge employees for asking
questions about work evaluations and wage increases,
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. A unit appropriate for collective bargaining is:
All warehouse persons, drivers, file clerks, medical
record clerks, pharmacy clerks, senior pharmacy
clerks, pharmacy clerks/pharmaceutical supply,
clerk typists, hospital monitors, accounting pricers,
insurance clerks, appointment clerks, receptionists
(including telephone, medical, dental and x-ray), re-
ceptionist/pricer/insurance clerks, registered dental
assistants, dental assistants, dental x-ray technicians,
and LVNs employed by Respondents at 815 North
Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, California; ex-
cluding all other employees, professional employees,
medical doctors, registered nurses, confidential sec-
retaries, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
5. At all times material since December 30, 1978, the
Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit described in para-
graph 4, above.
6. By failing and refusing on and after January 15,
1979, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
representative of the employees in the unit described in
paragraph 4, above, Respondents violated Section 8(1)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
7. By unilaterally changing wages, fringe benefits, and
working conditions of the employees in the unit de-
scribed in paragraph 4, above, without prior notification
to the Union and without affording it the opportunity to
bargain about those changes, Respondents violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that they
take certain affirmative actions to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Because Respondents made unilateral
changes in terms and conditions of employment, I shall
recommended that they be ordered to reinstate those em-
ployment terms which existed at the time that they com-
menced operating the facility at 815 North Sepulveda
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, as are requested by
the Union and that they make the employees whole for
any losses of wages and benefits which would have ac-
crued to them under those wages and benefits which are
reinstated, with interest to be paid on the amounts of
wages, if any, lost. See Bel/ingham Frozen Foods, a Divi-
sion of San Juan Packers, 237 NLRB 1450 (1978); Fitzpa-
trick Electric, Inc., 242 NLRB No. 109, (1979).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issued the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 8
The Respondents, L.A.X. Medical Clinic, Inc.; L.A.X.
Medical Center, Inc.; 815 Sepluveda Group; Sepulveda
Mangement Corporation; Imperial Pharmacy d/b/a
L.A.X. Pharmacy, their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to discharge employees for asking
questions about work evaluations, wage increases, and
other conditions of employment.
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
Hospital and Service Employees Union, Local 399, Ser-
vice Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the appro-
priate bargaining unit set forth in Conclusions of Law 4,
above.
(c) Discontinuing or changing terms and conditions of
employment of employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit described in Conclsuions of Law 4, above, without
first giving notice to and affording Hospital and Service
Employees Union, Local 399, Service Employees Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, an opportunity to bargain
about discontinuing or changing those terms and condi-
tions of employment.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Hospital
and Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employ-
ees employed in the bargaining unit heretofore found ap-
propriate in Conclusions of Law 4, above, respecting
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms
and conditions of employment and, should any under-
standings be reached, embody such understandings in a
signed agreement.
(b) Upon request by Hospital and Service Employees
Union, Local 399, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, reinstate any terms of employment
existing on December 30, 1978, when the employees in
the bargaining unit heretofore found appropriate in Con-
clusions of Law 4, above, were employed by Sepulveda
Medical Group, and make those employees whole for
any losses incurred by them as a result of the unilateral
discontinuances and changes in their terms of employ-
ment in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
N In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
LAX. MEDICAL CLINIC, INC.
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Post at its 815 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Los
Angeles, California, facility, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after
being duly signed by their authorized representative,
shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof by Re-
spondents and be maintained by Respondents fobr 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents
to insure that said notices are not altered, Clefaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
9 In the event that 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the 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 Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all such
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you for
asking questions about work evaluations, wage in-
creases, and other conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain
collectively with Hospital and Service Employees
Union, Local 399, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of:
All warehouse persons, drivers, file clerks, medi-
cal record clerks, pharmacy clerks, senior phar-
macy clerks, pharmacy clerks/pharmaceutical
supply, clerk typists, hospital monitors, account-
ing pricers, insurance clerks, appointment clerks,
receptionists (including telephone, medical, dental
and x-ray), receptionist/pricer/insurance clerks,
registered dental assistants, dental assistants,
dental x-ray technicians and LVNs employed by
us at 815 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Ange-
les, California; excluding all other employees,
professional employees, medical doctors, regis-
tered nurses, confidential secretaries, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discontinue or change terms and
conditions of employment of employees in the
above-described appropriate bargaining unit without
first giving notice to and affording the above-named
labor organization an opportunity to bargain about
discontinuing or changing those terms and condi-
tions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with any of your rights set forth above
which are guaranteed by the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
the above-named labor organization as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit described above respecting rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other terms and
conditions of employment and, if any understand-
ings are reached, embody such understandings in a
signed agreement.
WE WILL, upon request by the above-named
labor organizations, reinstate any terms of employ-
ment existing when we took over the 815 North Se-
pulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, facility
for the employees in the above-described appropri-
ate bargaining unit and make whole the employees
in that unit for any losses sustained as a result of
our discontinuances or changes in those terms of
employment.
L.A.X. MEDICAL CLINIC, INC.; L.A.X.
MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; 815 SEPULVEDA
GROUP; SEPULVEDA MANAGEMENT COR-
PORATION; IMPERIAL PHARMACY D/B/A
L.A.X. PHARMACY