LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN'S

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 31, 2016

21-CA-157007 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

JD(SF)–33–16
Long Beach, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER,
INC. d/b/a LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL
CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S AND
WOMEN’S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
and Case 21–CA–157007
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION/
NATIONAL NURSES UNITED (CNA/NNU)
Lindsay Parker and Molly Kagel, Esqs., for the General Counsel
Adam Abrahms and Kathleen Paterno, Esqs. (Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.), for Respondent
Micah Berul, Esq., for Charging Party
DECISION
JEFFREY D. WEDEKIND, Administrative Law Judge. The complaint in this case
challenges two employee dress code and appearance rules at Long Beach Memorial Medical
Center and Miller Children’s and Women’s Hospital. The rules prohibit employees from
wearing a nonapproved pin or badge reel. The General Counsel alleges that, on their face, the
rules violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act because they are not expressly
limited to immediate patient care areas and restrict the ability of employees to engage in
protected conduct (wearing union pins and badge reels).
The General Counsel also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
disparately enforcing the badge reel rule. Specifically, the General Counsel alleges that
Respondent prohibited two registered nurses, who served as union representatives in their
medical units, from wearing a badge reel with the union logo in patient care areas, while
permitting nurses to wear other badge reels in such areas that did not have the approved logo.
A hearing to address the allegations was held on May 23 and 24, 2016, in Los Angeles.
The parties thereafter filed briefs on July 20. As discussed below, the General Counsel has
adequately established that the pin rule is facially unlawful, but not that the badge reel rule is
facially unlawful or has been disparately enforced.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Respondent is a large urban medical facility. It includes two licensed hospitals and
employs about 6000 employees, including over 2100 registered nurses (RNs) represented by the
California Nurses Association/National Nurses United (CNA/NNU).1

1 There is no dispute, and the record establishes, that the Board has jurisdiction.
JD(SF)–33–16
2
To help maintain safety and security at the facility, Respondent employs its own security
force, including 70 security guards and three K-9 units. Since at least 2012, it has also required
all staff to wear an “ID badge” visible at all times while on the job. The ID badge displays the
employee’s photo, name, and title and is coded electronically to allow the employee appropriate
and necessary access to hospital and parking areas by swiping it across an electronic panel. 5
Some badges also have a color-coded stripe across them; for example, RNs have a blue stripe,
and employees authorized to remove infants and children from their room or unit have a pink
stripe, across their ID badge. (R. Exh. 3; Tr. 109–110, 200–201.)2
Since March 2014, Respondent has also maintained a “dress code and grooming” policy 10
for all employees who work at the facility, including but not limited to those who wear uniforms.
The policy (#318), which is published on Respondent’s intranet, was adopted and established by
Memorial Health Services d/b/a MemorialCare Health System (MHS), Respondent’s parent
corporation. The policy sets forth standards of “appropriate dress, appearance, and grooming” to
“promote an efficient, orderly and professionally operated organization” at all MHS facilities. 15
The policy also lists several “examples of minimum requirements.” Consistent with the
security policy, the first requirement is that all employees must wear their “identification badges”
with the name and picture facing out, at a level that can be readily seen. Other requirements
address such things as hair (no “extreme styles or colors” allowed), and earrings or other jewelry 20
(must be “conservative,” nondangling, and not “prove to be a distraction to others”).
The last requirement (#9) is the subject pin rule, which states, “Only MHS approved pins,
badges, and professional certifications may be worn.” Under this rule, RNs are permitted to clip
various small pins to the top of the badge, including years of service pins and “I Give” pins 25
(indicating that they donate to the medical center) issued by Respondent, and certification pins
issued by professional associations or organizations indicating that they have been certified in a
particular specialty (e.g., pediatric nursing). (GC Exhs. 3, 20–21; Tr. 38, 65–67, 127–131; 209–
211, 265–266.) 3
30
Since October 2014, Respondent has also maintained two new policies applicable only to
employees who provide direct patient care at the facility. Both of these policies are likewise
published on Respondent’s intranet. The first is a “uniform and infection prevention” policy
(PC–261.01), which establishes standards of attire to assist patients in easily identifying their
care providers and to prevent hospital acquired infections. It requires direct care providers to 35

2 Specific citations to the record are provided to aid review, and are not necessarily exclusive
or exhaustive. In making credibility findings, all relevant factors have been considered,
including the interests and demeanor of the witnesses; whether their testimony is corroborated or
consistent with the documentary evidence and/or the established or admitted facts; inherent
probabilities; and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record as a whole. See, e.g.,
Daikichi Corp., 335 NLRB 622, 633 (2001), enfd. 56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003); and New
Breed Leasing Corp. v. NLRB, 111 F.3d 1460, 1465 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 522 U.S. 948 (1997).
3 Policy #318 was modified in certain respects in July 2014; for example, a requirement was
added stating that “clothing must cover the back, shoulders, thighs, midriff, and must not be
excessively short, tight, or revealing” (GC Exh. 4.) However, the pin rule was retained without
change.
JD(SF)–33–16
3
wear a standard hospital uniform, color coded by discipline and embroidered with the approved
logo and their discipline when on duty. Pursuant to this new policy, RNs who provide direct
patient care may no longer wear scrubs of any color or pattern. Rather, they must wear navy
blue scrubs provided by Respondent with the MHS name and logo (a medical cross in a circle
design) and their discipline (RN) embroidered in white on the upper left side of the scrub top. 5

To help prevent infections, the policy also establishes a “bare below the elbows” rule.
The rule prohibits RNs and other direct care providers from wearing such things as long-sleeved
jackets or wristwatches in direct patient care areas. It also specifically prohibits them from
wearing lanyards around their neck to attach and extend their ID badge for inspection or swiping. 10
As a result, RNs must either attach the badge to a retractable badge reel or attach and detach the
badge directly to and from their uniform. (GC Exh. 5; see also GC Exh.7; and Tr. 51, 78, 202–
205, 233, 249.)
The second new policy applicable to direct patient care providers is an “appearance, 15
grooming, and infection prevention” policy (PC–261.02). Like the new uniform and infection
prevention policy, it establishes standards of appropriate appearance for those employees who
provide direct patient care in order to assist patients in easily identifying them and to prevent
hospital acquired infections. Indeed, it references and repeats portions of that policy. For
example, it contains a similar “bare below the elbows” rule. It also sets forth numerous specific20
appearance and grooming requirements. For example, like the MHS policy, it states that
“identification badges” shall be worn with the name and picture facing forward. It specifically
adds, however, that the badges must be worn at collar level, on the right side, so they can be
readily seen. Pursuant to this rule, the new RN uniform has a small piece of fabric sown onto the
scrub top on the right side so that the badge reel or badge itself can be attached to it with a clip. 25
The policy also includes the subject badge reel rule (#12), which states, “Badge reels may
only be branded with MemorialCare approved logos or text.”4 Pursuant to this rule, Respondent
provided each RN and other direct care provider with a new badge reel displaying the same MHS
medical-cross logo as the uniform. At least some received the new MHS badge reel with their 30
new uniform order in November or December 2014. Others received it directly from their
managers. Respondent also provided a replacement on request if the badge reel broke, which it
often did. Indeed, Respondent had its vendor modify the construction of the badge reel twice in
the first 6 months to make it more durable. (GC Exhs 6, 8; R. Exhs. 10–13; Tr. 85–86, 113, 148–
149; 238–240, 294–298.)35
Finally, all of the foregoing policies state that it is the responsibility of the supervisors to
“consistently enforce compliance” with the standards and requirements by taking appropriate
corrective or disciplinary action with employees who violate them. 5

4 This is the only rule where badge reels are specifically addressed. There is no mention of
badge reels in the MHS dress code and grooming policy or Respondent’s uniform policy.
5 The subject pin and badge reel rules were apparently adopted and implemented without the
Union’s agreement. See Tr. 308–310. There is no contention that the Union waived the RNs’
right under the Act to wear union insignia in non-direct patient care areas. See generally AT&T,
362 NLRB No. 105, slip op. at 5 (2015).
JD(SF)–33–16
4
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged Unlawful Maintenance of the Pin and Badge Reel Rules
It is well established that, absent special circumstances, employees have a right under the 5
Act to wear union insignia at work. However, due to concerns about disrupting patient care, the
Board has adopted certain rules unique to healthcare facilities. In such facilities, a ban on
wearing any nonofficial insignia in immediate patient care areas is presumptively valid.6
However, restrictions on wearing insignia in other areas are presumptively invalid. A hospital or
other healthcare facility must therefore establish special circumstances justifying such 10
restrictions; specifically, that the restrictions are necessary to avoid disruption of healthcare
operations or disturbance of patients. See HealthBridge Management, LLC, 360 NLRB No. 118
(2014), enfd. 798 F.3d 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2015); and Washington State Nurses Assn. v. NLRB, 526
F.3d 577, 580 (9th Cir. 2008), and cases cited there.
15
Here, the General Counsel contends that Respondent’s pin and badge reel rules on their
face apply—or would reasonably be construed by employees to apply—even in non-direct
patient care areas of the facility; that the rules are therefore presumptively invalid; and that
Respondent has failed to establish special circumstances justifying the application of the rules to
such areas.20
1. The Pin Rule
As indicated above, the MHS dress code and grooming policy containing the pin rule
applies to all employees, including non-direct patient care providers.7 Thus, it is clear that the 25
pin rule is not limited to direct patient care areas of the facility. Accordingly, the rule is
presumptively invalid, and Respondent must show that the restriction on any employees wearing
nonapproved pins in non-direct patient care areas is necessary to avoid disruption of its
operations or disturbance of patients.
30
Respondent has failed to make the required showing. Respondent argues that the ban on
wearing nonapproved pins on ID badges in all areas is justified because ID badges are part of the
hospital safety and security protocol (Br. 39–42, 46–47). However, there is no substantial
evidence indicating that pins are part of the safety and security protocol. As indicated above, the
pin rule is set forth exclusively in the MHS dress code and grooming policy. Cf. Boch Honda, 35
362 NLRB No. 83, slip op. at 3 (2015), enfd. --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 3361733, at *14 (1st Cir.

6 The presumption of validity applies only to a ban on all nonofficial insignia in immediate
patient care areas; it does not apply to a selective ban on only union or certain union insignia. St.
Johns Health Center, 357 NLRB 2076, 2079 & n. 3 (2011).
7 Judith Fix, Respondent’s senior vice president of patient care services and chief nurse
officer, testified that the MHS policy applies only to non-direct patient care providers, as that
policy was superseded by Respondent’s subsequent policies applicable to direct patient care
providers (Tr. 217–218). However, she later testified that direct patient care providers are still
prohibited by the appearance policy from wearing nonapproved pins on their badge or when in
uniform (Tr. 250–251, 265–266, 271). Further, she acknowledged that the source of that
prohibition is the MHS policy (Tr. 276).
JD(SF)–33–16
5
June 17, 2016) (rejecting employer’s assertion that its ban on unofficial pins was necessary for
safety purposes, as the ban was contained in the “dress code and personal hygiene policy,” which
did not include any statement linking it to safety). Further, employees are permitted under the
rule to wear a variety of pins on their badge in addition to professional certifications, including “I
Give” pins distributed by Respondent. Cf. London Memorial Hospital, 238 NLRB 704, 709 5
(1978) (rejecting hospital’s contention that its ban on nonprofessional insignia was imperative
for patient care, given that the hospital encouraged employees to wear “I Care” buttons). Finally,
Judith Fix, who as noted above is Respondent’s senior vice president of patient care services and
chief nurse officer, acknowledged that there is no limit to how many pins employees can wear on
their ID badge, as long as the badge remains readable (Tr. 267).8 10
In any event, the rule on its face is not limited to wearing nonapproved pins on ID
badges. Respondent argues that “no reasonable employee would read, in the context of the
whole, the challenged [rule] as restricting the wearing of pins anywhere except for on an
employee’s ID badge” (Br. 48). However, Respondent cites no provision in its dress code and 15
grooming policy or other policies that would reasonably be interpreted by employees to narrow
the otherwise broad restriction to only badge pins.
Respondent also argues that there is no explicit ban on wearing union insignia in the
policy; thus, “when read in the context of the whole,” the rule “would not make a reasonable 20
employee think they were prohibited from wearing union insignia” (Br. 50). However, on its
face, the ban on all nonapproved pins would include union pins. Cf. Albertsons, Inc., 351 NLRB
254, 256–57 (2007) (employer’s restriction on wearing badges or pins other than name badges
on its face covered union badges and pins of all types and sizes). And, again, Respondent cites
no specific provision that would reasonably be interpreted by employees to narrow the otherwise 25
broad restriction to only nonapproved pins other than union pins.
Citing Fix’s testimony, Respondent also argues that employees are not prohibited from
displaying union insignia in other ways while working at the facility. Fix testified that
Respondent does not prohibit non-direct patient care employees, who are not required to wear a 30
standard uniform, from wearing other items, such as jackets, lanyards, earrings, and necklaces,
that display union or other insignia. Indeed, she testified that even uniformed direct care
providers may display the union logo on earrings and necklaces, and could also tattoo it on

8 The General Counsel argues that Respondent has also permitted employees, particularly
those in the pediatric units, to wear pins with cartoon characters on their badge, such as Ariel the
Mermaid, Mickey Mouse, and Bugs Bunny. In support, the General Counsel cites the testimony
of RN/Union Representative Brandy Welch and former RN/Union Representative Theresa
Stewart, who retired in January 2016 (Tr. 65, 74, 126). However, as indicated by Respondent,
their testimony is too vague and insubstantial to establish that employees have worn such pins
with any regularity or frequency, or that Respondent has permitted them to do so expressly or
impliedly through lax enforcement of the pin rule.
JD(SF)–33–16
6
their forearm or paint it on their fingernails.9 However, there is no evidence that Respondent has
communicated this to employees (other than by not explicitly prohibiting it).10 Nor is there any
evidence that Respondent’s employees have regularly or routinely displayed union or other logos
in such a manner at the facility during the relevant period. To the extent Respondent’s brief (pp.
21–22) suggests otherwise, it is incorrect. 5
In any event, Respondent’s burden is not satisfied simply by showing that all possible
alternatives to union pins are not likewise expressly banned. Rather, as indicated above,
Respondent must show special circumstances justifying the ban on union pins. This is
illustrated by the very cases Respondent cites. For example, in Albis Plastics, 335 NLRB 923 10
(2001), enfd. 67 Fed. Appx. 253 (5th Cir. 2003), the Board upheld the employer’s ban on
nonapproved helmet stickers because the employer had shown that union or other nonapproved
stickers on the employees’ helmets would pose a threat to safety. The same was true in Standard
Oil Co. of California, 168 NLRB 153 (1967). Although in both cases employees were free to
display union insignia elsewhere on their clothing, the Board did not rely on this as a basis for 15
upholding the helmet sticker ban in Albis, and cited it only as an additional (“furthermore”)
reason for upholding the similar ban in Standard Oil.
Respondent also argues that there is no evidence that any employee was actually
prohibited from wearing a union pin.11 However, in the absence of special circumstances, 20
requiring management preapproval is itself an unlawful interference with employee rights under
the Act, as the requirement may chill employees from exercising those rights. See Lily
Transportation Corp., 362 NLRB No. 54, slip op. at 6 (2015); and Middletown Hospital Assn.,
282 NLRB 541, 552–553 (1986), and cases cited there. As discussed above, Respondent has
failed to show special circumstances.25
Finally, Respondent argues that there was no actual approval process for pins at the
facility, citing Fix’s testimony that “MHS approved pins” really means “MHS distributed pins”
(Tr. 273). However, as Fix acknowledged, the rule does not say that. Nor is there a substantial
evidentiary basis to conclude that employees would reasonably interpret the rule to mean that. In 30
any event, even if they did, and therefore knew for certain that union pins could not be worn, the
resulting chilling effect on their rights would be no less.

9 See Fix’s testimony, Tr. 218, 261–263. The MHS and Respondent dress code, grooming,
and appearance policies prohibit visible tattoos except for employees with direct patient care
responsibilities who, for infection control purposes, are not allowed to wear any clothing below
the elbows to cover such a tattoo. Thus, the written policies appear to prohibit employees in
non-direct patient care areas from displaying a union tattoo on their forearm.
10 As indicated above, the MHS dress code and grooming policy requires earrings and other
accessories and jewelry to be “conservative” and not “distracting.”
11 There is no evidence that employees have worn union pins while working during the
relevant period. RN Welch, who as noted above is a union representative and has worked at the
facility for 18 years, testified that she had seen a union pin on an employee’s ID badge; however,
she was not sure when or if it was during the past 2 years (Tr. 73–74).
JD(SF)–33–16
7
2. The Badge Reel Rule
As indicated above, unlike the MHS policy, Respondent’s appearance, grooming, and
infection prevention policy containing the badge reel rule is expressly limited to direct patient
care providers. Nevertheless, the General Counsel argues that, like the pin rule, the badge reel 5
rule is facially unlawful because it “does not clearly state whether it is applicable to patient or
non-patient care areas and any ambiguity in this regard should be construed against Respondent”
(Br. 24). 12
The argument is unpersuasive. It is true that ambiguities in employee conduct rules are 10
construed against the employer. See, e.g., Valley Health System LLC, 363 NLRB No. 178, slip
op. at 1 (May 5, 2016); and Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 828 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52
(D.C. Cir. 1999). However, a rule is not ambiguous merely because it could be interpreted to
apply to protected activity; the test is whether employees would reasonably interpret it to apply
to such activity. Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 647–648 (2004). 15
Here, employees would not reasonably conclude that the badge reel rule applies in non-
direct patient care areas. Respondent’s appearance, grooming, and infection prevention policy
clearly states that its purpose is to assist patients in easily identifying their direct patient care
providers and to prevent hospital acquired infections. Further, although the badge reel rule does 20
not itself reference patient care or patient care areas, some of the other provisions and rules do.
See p. 1, purpose #4 (bare-below-elbows approach is intended to prevent infection in “patient
care areas”), and p. 2, policy #4 (long hair must be tied back or pulled up “during care”).
Moreover, the policy specifically provides (p. 2, policy #1) that employees who come 25
into the hospital for education or meetings, rather than to provide patient care, may wear
“business casual” attire instead of “MHS logo” attire. And there is no contention or evidence
that the badge reel rule has ever been applied to employees when they are not providing direct
patient care. Cf. Mt. Clemens General Hospital, 335 NLRB 48, 50–51 (2001), enfd. 328 F.3d
837 (6th Cir. 2003) (hospital’s ban on a particular union button protesting forced overtime was 30

12 The allegation that the badge reel rule is facially unlawful was added to the complaint on
the first day of hearing, after Respondent’s counsel cited it in his opening statement and the
General Counsel’s first witness, Respondent’s HR Director and custodian of records, testified
about it. The General Counsel explained the delay in alleging the violation on the ground that
the Regional Office was previously unaware of the rule. Respondent disputed this, asserting that
the rule was quoted in the position statement it filed during the Region’s investigation of the
Union’s charge, and therefore objected to adding the allegation. Respondent renews this
objection in its posthearing brief (p. 30 n. 30), and requests that the allegation be stricken. The
request is denied, essentially for the same reasons that the General Counsel’s amendment was
granted (Tr. 47–48). Even if Respondent had informed the General Counsel of the badge reel
rule during the investigation of the other allegations, the allegation that the rule is facially
unlawful is closely related to the complaint allegation that Respondent disparately required RNs
to remove the union badge reel; the new allegation was added early in the hearing during the
General Counsel’s case in chief; and Respondent does not assert that it was denied sufficient
time to prepare its defense or otherwise suffered any prejudice.
JD(SF)–33–16
8
overbroad because supervisors required RNs to remove the button at times when they were in
non-patient care areas, such as nurses lounges).13
B. Alleged Disparate Enforcement of the Badge Reel Rule
Even if an employer’s rule is facially lawful, the disparate enforcement of that rule 5
against union or other protected concerted activity violates the Act. See, e.g., Shelby Memorial
Home, 305 NLRB 910, 919 (1991), enfd. 1 F.3d 550, 565 (7th Cir. 1993) (nursing home’s
selective enforcement of its rule restricting pins or badges against union insignia but not other
insignia was unlawful). See also Stabilus, Inc., 355 NLRB 836, 839 (2010); and Nestle Co., 248
NLRB 732, 737 (1980), affd. mem. 659 F.2d 252 (D.C. Cir. 1981). The General Counsel alleges 10
that such disparate enforcement occurred here when Respondent refused to allow two RNs,
Brandy Welch and Theresa Stewart, to continue wearing a union badge reel in July and October
2015, respectively. As discussed below, however, the evidence fails to adequately support this
allegation as well.
15
As noted above, both Welch and Stewart were union representatives for their respective
medical units during the relevant period. It is undisputed that, notwithstanding the new
appearance policy, they both regularly wore a union badge reel during much or most of 2015
without incident. The union badge reel was identical in size, shape, and function to the MHS
badge reel. The only significant difference was that the face displayed the union (CNA) logo 20
rather than the MHS logo and was encased in red rather than white plastic. Welch testified that
she began wearing the union badge reel in February 2015, after the first MHS badge reel she was
given broke. Stewart testified that she began wearing the union badge reel well before the new
rule, and resumed doing so shortly after the new rule when her first MHS badge reel likewise
broke. Elizabeth Castillo, another RN/union representative who works in the diabetes medical 25
surgical unit, 14 testified that she also wore a union badge reel throughout most of 2015. (Tr. 54–
55, 75–76, 85, 88, 115, 170–171; GC Exh. 10.)
Eventually, in July 2015, Welch was told by the clinical director of her pediatric unit,
Colleen Coonan, that she could no longer wear the union badge reel. Welch had been talking30
with Coonan and another manager just outside the pediatric unit door about a grievance matter.
As Welch was leaving the conversation to enter the unit, Coonan told her that she could not wear
the badge reel, she had to wear the MHS badge reel. (Tr. 58, 304.) About 3 months later, in
October 2015, Stewart was likewise told to remove her union badge reel by one of the two
assistant unit managers in her outpatient surgery unit, Robin Johnson. Stewart was caring for a 35
patient when Johnson entered the room, gave her an MHS badge reel, and told her she needed to

13 As discussed infra, RN Welch was just outside the patient care area when she was told to
remove her union badge reel. However, she was on her way into that area. See Tr. 58, 304, and
GC Br. 17. And the General Counsel does not cite this incident as evidence that the badge reel
rule was applied outside immediate patient care areas.
14 There are about 50 union representatives at Respondent’s facility (Tr. 315–316). There is
no record evidence whether the other 47 likewise wore union badge reels or were told to remove
them.
JD(SF)–33–16
9
wear it under the new policy. About 2 months later, in December 2015, Castillo was also told by
a manager that she had to wear the MHS badge reel.15 (Tr. 115–117, 149, 170–171, 283–284.)16
The parties presented conflicting testimony regarding whether RNs and other direct care
providers were allowed to continue wearing other types of non-MHS badge reels during the 5
relevant period. For example, Fix, who is responsible for all patient care, testified that the MHS
badge reel is considered part of the standard uniform and that no other type of badge reel is
permitted. Further, she testified that she has never seen anyone wearing a non-MHS badge reel,
even though she frequently observes and interacts with the staff during her multiple daily rounds
in the patient care units and has seen other violations such as clothing below the elbows. (Tr. 10
233, 239, 247–248, 264).
Coonan likewise testified that the MHS badge reel is part of the uniform. She testified
that she told the staff in her unit this at the time the new rule was implemented, and that she
thereafter reminded anyone she saw who was not wearing the MHS badge reel. She testified 15
that, other than Welch, she has had to remind only about four employees of the rule, whom she
observed during daily “huddles” between June and September 2015 wearing a badge reel with
Hello Kitty, a frog, or a princess on it. (Tr. 295, 299–305.)
Johnson similarly testified that she looked for anyone without an MHS badge reel,20
because the hospital director told the assistant unit managers to distribute the MHS badge reels in
accordance with the policy. She testified that, in addition to Stewart, she saw only one other RN
without the MHS badge reel, and that she gave her one too. Moreover, she testified that she did
not even notice what kind of badge reels they were wearing, only that they were not the MHS
badge reel. (Tr. 284–285.)25
The General Counsel’s witnesses, on the other hand, painted a distinctly different picture.
Welch testified that she was unaware until the July 2015 incident with Coonan that only the
MHS badge reel was allowed. Further, she testified that both before and after that incident she
saw other RNs wearing badge reels with cartoon characters (Ariel the Mermaid, Spiderman, 30
Sponge Bob, Mickey Mouse, and Batman), badge reels decorated with jewelry, and badge reels
with logos for breast cancer research and organ donation (One Legacy). She testified that she
saw RNs wearing such badge reels daily, including on the patient care floor, and was not aware
of any manager asking that they be removed. (Tr. 58–59, 60, 64, 76, 95–96.) She also submitted
a photograph she took in July 2015 (the same day as the incident with Coonan) of another RN 35
working on her unit who was wearing a One Legacy badge reel (GC Exh. 13).17
Similarly, Stewart testified that she had never been instructed to wear the MHS badge
reel prior to the October 2015 incident with Johnson; that it was merely recommended to be
worn. She further testified that, after the incident until her retirement in January 2016, she saw 40

15 Unlike the July and October incidents involving Welch and Stewart, this December
incident involving Castillo is not alleged as a violation in the complaint.
16 Coonan and Johnson are admitted supervisors of Respondent.
17 Welch also submitted a photo she took the same day of an RN wearing a badge reel with
Ariel the Mermaid on it. However, the RN was not in uniform or working in a direct patient care
area at the time. (GC Exh. 12; Tr. 61, 94–95).
JD(SF)–33–16
10
nurses wearing “I Give” badge reels, badge reels with logos for the Oncologic Nurse Society
(ONS), Vascular Access Certification (VAC), and Care Ambulance (an ambulance service used
by the hospital), badge reels with decorative flowers (made out of the plastic safety tops of vials),
and badge reels with nothing at all on them. Like Welch, she testified that she did not see any
nurses being told to remove such badge reels. (Tr. 118–125.) She also submitted three5
photographs she took during that period. See GC Exh. 16 (close up of a VAC badge reel on an
RN’s uniform); GC Exh. 18 (close up of a plain black badge reel on an RN’s uniform); and GC
Exh. 19 (close up of an “I Give” badge reel on an RN’s uniform).18
Castillo testified that she has also seen RNs wearing other badge reels notwithstanding 10
the new policy. Like Welch and Stewart, she testified that she has seen One Legacy badge reels,
badge reels with cartoon characters, and badge reals that say nothing at all. She has also seen
badge reels covered in rhinestones, and badge reels that say PACU (one of the units in the
hospital). She testified that she has seen RNs wearing such badge reels on the patient care floor,
even during the past 6 months, and that no one to her knowledge said they had to be removed. 15
(Tr. 162–164, 180.) She also submitted a photo she took on her unit floor in May 2016. See GC
Exh. 23 (RN badge attached to a heart-shaped badge reel covered with rhinestones).
None of the foregoing testimony, by either the Respondent’s or the General Counsel’s
witnesses, was particularly credible or persuasive. For example, it seems highly unlikely, based 20
on the record as a whole (including the undisputed fact that the MHS badge reels frequently
broke), that Fix has never noticed any RNs or other direct care providers wearing a non-MHS
badge reel, and that Johnson has seen only one RN in addition to Stewart wearing a non-MHS
badge reel. There is also reason to doubt Johnson’s testimony that she did not notice or know
what type of badge reel Stewart was wearing. As discussed above, Stewart was a union 25
representative and had been wearing the CNA badge reel for months.
However, there is also substantial reason to discount the testimony of Welch, Stewart,
and Castillo. As indicated above, Respondent employs thousands of RNs and other direct care
providers. Yet, not one confirmed personally wearing a cartoon-character or other type of non-30
MHS badge reel during the relevant period (none were called or subpoenaed to testify). Further,
between the three of them, Welch, Stewart, and Castillo could offer only five photographs
purporting to show an RN wearing a non-MHS badge reel in a patient care area. No explanation
for this was given and none is obvious. According to their testimony, their fellow RNs are
unafraid to openly wear nonapproved badge reels in front of their supervisors on a daily basis. 35
And it is undisputed that Respondent has never actually disciplined an RN or other direct patient
care provider for violating the badge reel rule or any of the other new uniform and appearance
rules.
Moreover, as discussed above, Welch, Stewart, and Castillo admitted that Respondent did 40
not tell them to remove their union badge reels until approximately 6, 9, and 11 months,
respectively, after they began wearing them. On its face, this seems inconsistent with the theory
that Respondent more strictly enforced the rule against union badge reels. Cf. University of
Richmond, 274 NLRB 1204, 1210 (1985) (finding no disparate enforcement in part because a

18 The three photos do not show the RN’s face or badge and Stewart did not otherwise
identify them.
JD(SF)–33–16
11
union supporter was asked to remove her union button only twice even though she wore it
throughout the organizing campaign); and Hanes Hosiery, Inc., 219 NLRB 338, 346–347 (1975)
(finding no disparate enforcement in part because the employer did not prohibit all of the
employees from wearing union buttons). And neither the General Counsel nor the Union offers a
rationale for disregarding it.5
All things considered, therefore, the truth is likely in the middle: some, but not many, of
the RNs and other direct patient care providers have worn non-MHS badge reels at various times
since the new rule became effective, and Respondent’s enforcement of the new rule has been soft
and sporadic, but not selective against union badge reels. Accordingly, as this falls short of a 10
disparate-enforcement violation, the General Counsel has failed to carry the burden of proof.19
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act by maintaining a 15
rule, set forth in the MemorialCare Health System (MHS) dress code and grooming policy
applicable to all employees, including employees in non-direct patient care areas, which states,
“Only MHS approved pins, badges, and professional certifications may be worn.”
2. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act as alleged in the complaint.20
REMEDY
The appropriate remedy for the violation found is an order requiring Respondent to cease
and desist from its unlawful conduct and to take certain affirmative action. Specifically, 25
Respondent will be required to rescind the unlawful MHS rule at its facility and to advise the
employees that it has done so.20 Respondent will also be required to post a notice to employees
assuring them that it will not violate their rights in the same or any like or related manner in the
future.
30
ORDER
The Respondent, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Long Beach
Memorial Medical Center & Miller Children’s and Women’s Hospital Long Beach, its officers,
agents, succesors, and assigns, shall 35

19 The two cases cited in the General Counsel’s and the Union’s posthearing briefs—
Raley’s Inc., 311 NLRB 1244, 1245 (1993) and Holyoke Visiting Nurses Assn., 313 NLRB
1040, 1047 (1994)—are factually distinguishable for the reasons indicated above. They also
lack any precedential weight, as no exceptions were filed in either case to the relevant ALJ
findings regarding disparate enforcement. See generally Operating Engineers Local 39 (Mark
Hopkins Intercontinental Hotel), 357 NLRB 1683 n. 1 (2011); and Trump Marina Associates
LLC, 354 NLRB 1027 n. 2 (2009), reaffd. 355 NLRB 585 (2010), enfd. 435 Fed.Appx. 1 (D.C.
Cir. 2011).
20 The complaint does not name MHS as a party respondent and neither the General Counsel
nor the Union request an order requiring MHS to rescind the rule set forth in its policy or to take
any other affirmative action at its other facilities.
JD(SF)–33–16
12
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a rule at its facility that prohibits all employees, including employees
in non-direct patient care areas, from wearing any pins, badges, and professional certifications 5
that have not been approved by MemorialCare Health System (MHS).
(b) 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.
10
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the rule at its facility, set forth in the MHS dress code and grooming
policy applicable to all employees, which states, “Only MHS approved pins, badges, and
professional certifications may be worn.”15
(b) Publish on its intranet and distribute to all of its current employees a revised
policy that does not contain the unlawful rule or that contains a lawfully worded rule.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Long Beach, 20
California copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”.21 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed 25
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these 30
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since July
1, 2015.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a 35
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. 22

21 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.”
22 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(SF)–33–16
13
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 31, 2016

Jeffrey D. Wedekind5
Administrative Law Judge
c r----ge-f
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 maintain a rule at our facility that prohibits all of our employees, including
employees in non-direct patient care areas, from wearing any pins, badges, and professional
certifications that have not been approved by MemorialCare Health System (MHS).
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the rule at our facility, set forth in the MHS dress code and grooming policy
applicable to all employees, which states, “Only MHS approved pins, badges, and professional
certifications may be worn.”
WE WILL publish on our intranet and distribute to all current employees a revised policy that
does not contain the unlawful rule or that contains a lawfully worded rule.
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER,
INC., d/b/a LONG BEACH MEMORIAL
MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S
AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)

The Administrative Law Judge's decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/21-ca-157007 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.
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.
888 South Figueroa Street, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5449
(213) 894-5200, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-157007 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, (213) 894-5184.