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

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 2018

366 NLRB No. 66 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 66
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a
Long Beach Memorial Medical Center & Miller
Children’s and Women’s Hospital Long Beach
and California Nurses Association/National
Nurses United (CNA/NNU). Case 21–CA–
157007
April 20, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PEARCE, MCFERRAN, AND EMANUEL
On August 31, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Jef-
frey D. Wedekind issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions, a supporting brief, an
answering brief to the Respondent’s cross-exceptions,
and a reply brief. The Charging Party filed exceptions, a
supporting brief, and an answering brief to the Respond-
ent’s cross-exceptions. The Respondent filed cross-
exceptions, a supporting brief, an answering brief, and a
reply brief to the General Counsel’s and Charging Par-
ty’s answering briefs. The National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs
and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,
and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.1
Facts
The Respondent, Long Beach Memorial Medical Cen-
ter, Inc., is an independent, non-profit subsidiary of Me-
morial Health Services (MHS), which does business as
MemorialCare. The Respondent operates two licensed
hospitals in an urban area of Long Beach, California,
employing approximately 6000 employees, including
over 2100 registered nurses represented by the Charging
Party Union. To help maintain safety and security, the
Respondent issues identification badges to all its staff,
who are required to wear them visibly at all times while
on hospital premises. Each badge includes a photograph
of the employee, his or her name and job title, and elec-
tronic coding that provides the employee with access to
authorized areas of the hospital.
The Respondent also requires that all direct care pro-
viders wear standard hospital uniforms. Registered nurs-

1 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to include the
Board’s standard remedial language for the violations found, and we
shall substitute a new notice to conform to the language in the Order as
modified.
es (RNs) must wear navy blue scrubs provided by the
Respondent with the MHS name and logo and their RN
discipline embroidered on the upper left side of the scrub
top. RNs must either affix their identification badge di-
rectly to their uniform, detaching it each time it must be
inspected or swiped, or attach it to a retractable string
pulley connected to a badge reel. Since March 2014, the
Respondent has maintained a “Dress Code and Groom-
ing Standards” policy (Policy #318), which requires, in
relevant part, that “[o]nly MHS approved pins, badges,
and professional certifications may be worn.” Since Oc-
tober 2014, the Respondent has also maintained an “Ap-
pearance, Grooming and Infection Prevention Standards
for Direct Care Providers” policy (PC-261.02), which
states, in relevant part, that “[b]adge reels may only be
branded with MemorialCare approved logos or text.”
Thus, PC-261.02 prohibits employees from wearing
badge reels branded with union insignia.
Discussion
We agree with the judge, for the reasons stated in his
decision, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
maintaining Policy #318’s overly broad prohibition of
non-approved pins and badges. Policy #318 is presump-
tively invalid because it is not limited to direct patient
care areas of the Respondent’s facility, and the Respond-
ent failed to show special circumstances warranting the
restriction. See Healthbridge Mgmt. LLC, 360 NLRB
937, 938 (2014), enfd. 798 F.3d 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2015).2
However, we reverse the judge and find that the badge
reel provision in PC-261.02 is unlawful because it ap-
plies to all areas of the hospital including non–patient
care areas, and the Respondent has not demonstrated
special circumstances justifying such an absolute prohi-
bition on the display of union insignia on employee
badge reels.
The judge found that the badge reel rule only applied
in immediate patient care areas and was therefore pre-
sumptively lawful. He reasoned that PC-261.02 “is ex-
pressly limited to direct patient care providers” and its
stated “purpose is to assist patients in easily identifying
their direct patient care providers and to prevent hospital
acquired infections.” He further noted that other provi-
sions of the policy also reference patient care or patient
care areas. Our dissenting colleague endorses the judge’s
analysis, but in light of Board and judicial precedent, we
do not.

2 In affirming the judge’s findings with regard to Policy #318, we
do not pass on whether the prohibition at issue would be lawful if it
were limited to attaching non-approved pins and badges to the employ-
ee identification badges.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is well established that employees have a protected
right to wear union insignia at work in the absence of
special circumstances. See George J. London Memorial
Hospital, 238 NLRB 704, 708 (1978); The Ohio Masonic
Home, 205 NLRB 357, 357 (1973), enfd. 511 F.2d 527
(6th Cir. 1975); see also Republic Aviation Corp. v.
NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801–803 (1945). In healthcare
facilities, the Board and the courts have modified this
general rule due to concerns about the possibility of dis-
ruption to patient care. Restrictions on wearing union
insignia in immediate patient care areas are presumptive-
ly valid. See NLRB v. Baptist Hospital. Inc., 442 U.S.
773, 781 (1979). However, following the general rule,
restrictions on wearing union insignia in non–patient care
areas are presumptively invalid and violate the Act un-
less the employer establishes special circumstances justi-
fying its action. See Casa San Miguel, 320 NLRB 534,
540 (1995).
As noted above, the badge reel provision of PC-261.02
states that “[b]adge reels may only be branded with Me-
morialCare approved logos or text.” On its face, this
requirement applies in all areas of the hospital, including
non–patient care areas. Contrary to the judge and our
dissenting colleague, neither the language of other provi-
sions within PC-261.02 nor the stated purpose of that
policy establishes that it is limited to immediate patient
care areas. The fact that the rule may only apply to “di-
rect patient care providers” (emphasis added) does not
establish that it only applies in immediate patient care
areas. See George J. London Memorial Hospital, 238
NLRB at 708 (policy prohibiting insignia other than “of
a professional nature” unlawful because, on its face, pol-
icy applies outside immediate patient care areas). Direct
patient care providers necessarily move throughout the
hospital and spend time in non-patient care areas. For
instance, policy 1 of PC-261.02 acknowledges that direct
care providers are at the hospital for reasons other than
providing direct patient care, such as for education and
meetings. In addition, nothing in the rule precludes the
Respondent from applying it to non-patient care areas,
notwithstanding its stated purposes of allowing patients
to identify their direct care providers and preventing in-
fection. The fact that other provisions of PC-261.02 ex-
plicitly state they only apply in immediate patient care
areas does not alter this analysis.3 To the contrary, those

3 The judge cited PC-261.02’s reference to the Respondent’s “bare
below the elbows” approach required in all patient care areas and poli-
cy 4 of PC-261.02, which states: “Hair (if below the shoulder) is to be
tied back or pulled up to prevent any ‘swing’ into the patient area dur-
ing care.” The judge also cited policy 1, which allows employees to
wear business casual clothing in addition to “MHS logo” attire when
coming to the hospital for education or meetings, but policy 1 does not
mention—much less narrow the scope of—the badge reel provision.
provisions’ explicit limitation to patient care areas fur-
ther suggests that the badge reel rule, which contains no
similar language, is not so limited.4 At the very least,
this language creates an ambiguity about the scope of the
policy, which must be construed against the Respondent
as the drafter. Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 828
(1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Absent spe-
cial circumstances, then, the badge reel provision is un-
lawful.5
Within the healthcare setting, the Board will find spe-
cial circumstances where an insignia restriction is “nec-
essary to avoid disruption of healthcare operations or
disturbance of patients.” Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB,
437 U.S. 483, 507 (1978). The Board has found special
circumstances justifying proscription of union insignia
and apparel when their display may “jeopardize employ-
ee safety, damage machinery or products, exacerbate
employee dissension, or unreasonably interfere with a
public image that the employer has established, as part of
its business plan, through appearance rules for its em-
ployees.” Bell-Atlantic-Pennsylvania, 339 NLRB 1084,
1086 (2003), enfd. Communications Workers of America,
Local 13000 v. NLRB, 99 Fed.Appx. 233 (D.C. Cir.
2004). However, “a rule that curtails employees’ Section
7 right to wear union insignia in the workplace must be
narrowly tailored to the special circumstances justifying
maintenance of the rule, and the employer bears the bur-
den of proving such special circumstances.” Boch Hon-
da, 362 NLRB No. 83, slip op. at 2 (2015), enfd. 826
F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2016); see also W San Diego, 348
NLRB 372, 373–374 (2006) (special circumstances that
justified employer’s ban on buttons worn in public areas
did not justify a ban on buttons worn in nonpublic areas).
Here, the Respondent has presented no evidence show-
ing that employees in any way disrupted healthcare oper-
ations or disturbed patients by wearing badge reels
branded with union insignia. The union-branded badge

4 Citing the same factors discussed above, our dissenting colleague
argues that the badge reel policy should be read to apply only in imme-
diate patient care areas. As we have explained, there is no merit to this
view. Our colleague’s suggestion that the Respondent’s enforcement of
the policy only with respect to immediate patient care areas supports
his position is similarly misplaced. See London Memorial Hospital,
supra (hospital’s overbroad rule unlawful despite evidence it had only
been enforced in immediate patient care areas).
5 Our dissenting colleague argues that PC-261.02’s stated scope
“demonstrates that it was promulgated not to restrict employees’ rights
but to protect its patients” and would reasonably be read accordingly.
But this argument gives too little weight to the broad language of the
badge reel provision. And, of course, the Board need not find discrimi-
natory motive in order to conclude that the policy is unlawful. Rather,
the question is whether the policy as written applies outside immediate
patient-care areas—which we find it does—and, if so, whether the
Respondent demonstrated special circumstances, which we conclude it
has not.
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL 3
MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
reels are the same size and shape as the Respondent’s
and similarly contain only a logo. Rather than point to
any evidence of a disturbance or disruption, the Re-
spondent, relying principally on W San Diego, supra,
argues that PC-261.02’s badge reel provision is justified
because the Respondent’s “business objective was to
provide a standardized, easily-identifiable, customized,
consistent and professional look in accordance with its
business strategy of providing quality patient[] care.”
Contrary to the employer in W San Diego, the Respond-
ent presented no evidence that its rule prohibiting union
badge reels in public, non-direct patient care areas is
necessary to create a unique experience distinct from its
competitors. See Boch Honda, supra, slip op. at 2 & fn.
6. While the Respondent does require unit employees to
wear a standardized uniform, a uniform requirement
alone is not a special circumstance justifying a union
insignia prohibition. P.S.K. Supermarkets, 349 NLRB
34, 35 (2007) (“The Board has consistently held that cus-
tomer exposure to union insignia, standing alone, is not a
special circumstance which permits an employer to pro-
hibit display of such insignia. Nor is the requirement
that employees wear a uniform a special circumstance
justifying a button prohibition.”) (internal citations omit-
ted).6
Furthermore, the badge reel provision is not “narrowly
tailored” to address the Respondent’s purported concerns
of providing a uniformed image of top-quality patient
care. See Boch Honda, supra, slip op. at 3. In Casa San
Miguel, the Board recognized that special circumstances
justified a nursing home’s prohibiting a nursing assistant
from wearing a smock with a union slogan and emblem
printed on it outside of patient care areas where it was
not “practical or possible” for the employee to change
out of the smock each time the employee entered a pa-
tient care area. 320 NLRB at 540. The badge reels at
issue here, in contrast, are readily detachable from em-
ployees’ uniforms, and nothing prevents employees from
removing a union-branded badge reel and affixing the
identification badge directly to the employee’s uniform
when entering patient care areas. See Enloe Medical
Center, 345 NLRB 874, 876 (2005) (“That employees
might find it cumbersome to remove and later put back
on their badges when moving in and out of patient care
areas—and might even ultimately find it impractical to
do so—does not justify the Respondent’s effectively de-
ciding this for them by flatly prohibiting employees from
wearing the union badges in both patient-care and nonpa-

6 Our dissenting colleague therefore errs when he contends that the
Respondent’s “standardized uniform rules” alone establish special
circumstances.
tient-care areas.”). Accordingly, even though it would be
presumptively lawful if the Respondent had restricted it
solely to direct patient care areas, the Respondent’s ban
on employees wearing union insignia, including on their
badge reels, in other areas of the hospital is unlawful.
For these reasons, we reverse the judge and find that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining
PC-261.02’s badge reel policy.7
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for the judge’s Conclusions of
Law:
1. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by maintaining a provision in the Memorial Health Ser-
vices (MHS) “Dress Code and Grooming Standards”
policy, applicable to all employees, including employees
in non–patient care areas, that states, “Only MHS ap-
proved pins, badges, and professional certifications may
be worn.”
2. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by maintaining a provision in the MHS “Appearance,
Grooming and Infection Prevention Standards for Direct
Care Providers” policy, applicable to all employees, in-
cluding employees in non–patient care areas, that states,
“Badge reels may only be branded with MemorialCare
approved logos or text.”
3. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act as
alleged in the complaint.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that 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, Long
Beach, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining an overly broad provision of the
“Dress Code and Grooming Standards” policy that pro-
hibits all employees, including employees in non–patient
care areas, from wearing pins, badges, and professional
certifications that have not been approved by Memorial
Health Services (MHS).
(b) Maintaining an overly broad provision of the “Ap-
pearance, Grooming and Infection Prevention Standards
for Direct Care Providers” policy that prohibits all em-
ployees, including employees in non–patient care areas,

7 In reversing the judge’s dismissal, and finding PC-261.02’s badge
reel provision facially unlawful, we need not and do not pass on wheth-
er the provision was disparately enforced in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1).
Such a violation would not materially affect the remedy, given our
finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by maintaining the
badge reel provision.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from wearing badge reels that are not branded with Me-
morialCare approved logos or text.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the overly broad provision of the “Dress
Code and Grooming Standards” policy, or revise it to
make clear that it does not prohibit employees in non–
patient care areas from wearing pins, badges, and profes-
sional certifications that have not been approved by
MHS.
(b) Rescind the overly broad provision of the “Ap-
pearance, Grooming and Infection Prevention Standards
for Direct Care Providers” policy, or revise it to make
clear that it does not prohibit employees in non–patient
care areas from wearing badge reels that are not branded
with MemorialCare approved logos or text.
(c) Notify all current employees that the overly broad
provisions of the “Dress Code and Grooming Standards”
and “Appearance, Grooming and Infection Prevention
Standards for Direct Care Providers” policies have been
rescinded or, if they have been revised, provide them a
copy of the revised rules.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Long Beach, California facility copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable 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 penden-
cy of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, 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.

8 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 21 a sworn certifi-
cate 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. April 20, 2018
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER EMANUEL, dissenting in part.
The Respondent is an acute-care hospital. Its principal
concern is for the safety and well-being of its patients.
To that end, in October 2014, it adopted an Appearance,
Grooming and Infection Prevention Standards for Direct
Care Providers Policy “to promote an efficient, orderly,
safe and professionally operated organization while ad-
hering to evidence-based best practice.” At the begin-
ning of the Policy, the Respondent explains that “[b]est-
practice literature provides strong evidence for the attire
of healthcare providers which may prevent hospital ac-
quired infections” and “perception of patients regarding
appearance and attire has been well established in the
literature.” It continues by noting that one of the purpos-
es of the Policy is that “[p]atients may lack confidence
and trust in individuals that are not easily identified as
healthcare professionals” and “[p]romoting standard at-
tire will assist patients in easily identifying their care
providers and in promoting satisfaction.” The Policy
also states that “[d]ress, appearance and grooming play
an important role in conveying an image of high quality,
professional healthcare to the communities we serve and
maintaining our excellent reputation.” Thus, in accord-
ance with the professional literature, the Respondent
adopted the Policy to provide the best possible care for
its patients.
Under the Policy, direct care providers must wear
identification badges that can be readily seen while on
hospital premises. If employees choose to use a badge
reel, it “may only be branded with MemorialCare ap-
proved logos or text.”1 It is undisputed that the Re-

1 “Appearance, Grooming and Infection Prevention Standards for
Direct Care Providers” (PC-261.02).
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL 5
MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
spondent lawfully imposed this requirement in immedi-
ate patient care areas. Nonetheless, the General Counsel
argues that the badge reel rule is 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.” The judge
found this argument unpersuasive because, as discussed
below, “employees would not reasonably conclude that
the badge reel rule applies in non-direct patient care are-
as.” My colleagues, however, reverse the judge and find
the rule unlawful by broadly interpreting it to apply in all
areas of the hospital. I respectfully disagree and would
adopt the judge’s finding that the mere maintenance of
the badge reel rule does not interfere with the exercise of
Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.2
The Board applies special rules when evaluating re-
strictions on union insignia in healthcare facilities due to
concerns about the possibility of disruption to patient
care. Although restrictions on wearing union insignia are
presumptively invalid in non-patient care areas, re-
strictions on wearing union insignia in immediate patient
care areas are presumptively valid. See Casa San Mi-
guel, 320 NLRB 534, 540 (1995); see also NLRB v. Bap-
tist Hospital, 442 U.S. 773, 781 (1979). In determining
the scope of a disputed rule, the Board must consider it in
its entirety without parsing its language or reading parts
of it in isolation. Applying these principles, and consid-
ering the Respondent’s badge reel rule in context, I be-
lieve that it was lawful.
First, as noted above, the title of the Policy in which
the badge reel rule appears is “Appearance, Grooming
and Infection Prevention Standards for Direct Care Pro-
viders” (emphasis added). I believe that, because the
Policy is only directed towards “direct care providers,”
the badge reel rule would be understood to only apply in
immediate patient care areas where direct care providers
work. This conclusion about the rule’s limited applica-
bility to immediate patient care areas is reinforced by the
Policy’s stated scope. It applies to “all those who work
in any capacity in providing direct patient care,” even
students, volunteers, and contractors, which demonstrates
that it was promulgated not to restrict employees’ rights
but to protect its patients—all of whom are necessarily
located in immediate patient care areas. Second, the Pol-
icy’s stated purposes further demonstrate that the badge

2 I agree with my colleagues and the judge that the Respondent vio-
lated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining that portion of Policy #318
that prohibits employees from wearing unapproved pins and badges. I
also agree with my colleagues that it is unnecessary to pass on whether
this policy provision would be lawful if it restricted only the attachment
of pins and badges to employee identification badges.
reel rule only applies in immediate patient care areas.3
The Policy is to prevent the transmission of hospital-
acquired infections and to promote patient trust and con-
fidence by allowing them to readily identify their care
providers. Achieving these objectives is only relevant in
immediate patient care areas where patients are present
and receive treatment.4 Third, there is no evidence or
contention that the badge reel rule has ever been applied
to employees when they are not providing direct patient
care.5 The judge further found—and my colleagues do
not dispute—that the General Counsel failed to establish
that the Respondent disparately enforced the badge reel
rule by only prohibiting badge reels with union logos.6
Fourth, even if the badge reel rule were applicable in
non–patient care areas, I believe that it was justified by
special circumstances. The Board has found special cir-

3 The Policy’s Purpose section, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
1. The Professional Appearance and Grooming Policy is intended to
establish appropriate appearance, grooming and infection control
standards for those who are direct patient care providers at Communi-
ty Hospital Long Beach, Long Beach Memorial, and Miller Chil-
dren’s and Women’s Hospital Long Beach, including off-site clinics
and satellite work locations. …
2. BACKGROUND: The Medical Center is committed to the safest
care of patients including the prevention AND transmission of patho-
gens. Best-practice literature provides strong evidence for the attire of
healthcare providers which may prevent hospital acquired infections.
This policy provides clear guidance on the best method to prevent
contamination by attire and its potential contribution to hospital ac-
quired infections.
3. Additionally, perception of patients regarding appearance and attire
has been well established in the literature. Patients may lack confi-
dence and trust in individuals that are not easily identified as health
care professionals. Promoting standard attire will assist patients in eas-
ily identifying their care providers and in promoting satisfaction.
Dress, appearance and grooming play an important role in conveying
an image of high quality, professional health care to the communities
we serve and maintaining our excellent reputation.
4 My colleagues find that the badge reel rule is not limited to imme-
diate patient care areas. In doing so, they fail to read the rule in its
entirety. The rule applies only to direct patient care providers, includ-
ing even nonemployees, and its stated purpose is to improve the quality
of patient care. In my view, direct care providers would reasonably
understand that the rule, which is solely concerned with their interac-
tions with patients to improve patient care, does not apply in areas
where there are no patients.
5 In light of the rule’s stated scope and purposes, it is understanda-
ble that the Respondent has limited its application to immediate patient
care areas even though, as my colleagues observe, direct patient care
providers necessarily move throughout the hospital and spend time in
non–patient care areas.
6 The judge properly found that unlawful disparate treatment is not
established merely because enforcement may have sometimes been
“soft and sporadic.” See, e.g., Stabilus, Inc., 355 NLRB 836, 840
(2010) (lax enforcement of a rule by some supervisors did not prove
that an exacting supervisor’s enforcement of the rule against union
supporters was disparate treatment).
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cumstances justifying the proscription of union slogans
or apparel when their display “may jeopardize employee
safety, damage machinery or products, exacerbate em-
ployee dissension, or unreasonably interfere with a pub-
lic image that the employer has established, or when nec-
essary to maintain decorum and discipline among em-
ployees.” Komatsu America Corp., 342 NLRB 649, 650
(2004). Here, the Respondent has established that it
promulgated the badge reel rule as part of a comprehen-
sive set of clothing and identification requirements. Em-
ployees covered by the rule are required to wear standard
uniforms that display the Respondent’s embroidered logo
on the upper left shoulder and the Respondent’s logo on
the badge reel on the upper right shoulder. As noted
above, these standardized uniform rules prevent infec-
tions, insure that patients can readily identify their
healthcare provider, and promote “an image of high qual-
ity, professional healthcare to the communities [the Re-
spondent] serve[s].” I believe that this evidence is suffi-
cient to show that allowing unofficial badge reels would
unreasonably interfere with the Respondent’s public im-
age. See, e.g., W San Diego, 348 NLRB 372, 373
(2006); United Parcel Service, 195 NLRB 441, 441
(1972); see also United Parcel Service v. NLRB, 41 F.3d
1068, 1073 (6th Cir. 1994).7
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from my col-
leagues’ finding that the Respondent violated the Act by
maintaining its badge reel rule.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 20, 2018
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

7 In finding that the Respondent did not establish special circum-
stances, my colleagues contrast this case with the facts in W San Diego,
supra, where a hotel’s restrictions on union insignia in public areas
were found lawful based on evidence that the hotel sought to create a
unique “Wonderland” atmosphere. However, I agree with the view of
former Chairman Miscimarra that the Board is not empowered to pass
judgment on the sophistication or novel nature of the public image that
may be at issue in a particular case. See In-N-Out Burger, 365 NLRB
No. 39, slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2017) (separate views of Acting Chairman
Miscimarra). In the United Parcel Service cases cited above, for ex-
ample, the Board and the court upheld restrictions on the wearing of
buttons and pins primarily based on the trademark brown uniforms
worn by UPS employees. Similar considerations warrant upholding the
restriction on badge reels at issue in this case.
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain an overly broad provision of
our “Dress Code and Grooming Standards” policy that
prohibits all employees, including employees in non–
patient care areas, from wearing pins, badges, and pro-
fessional certifications that have not been approved by
MHS.
WE WILL NOT maintain an overly broad provision of
our “Appearance, Grooming and Infection Prevention
Standards for Direct Care Providers” policy that prohib-
its all employees, including employees in non–patient
care areas, from wearing badge reels that are not branded
with MemorialCare approved logos or text.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL rescind the overly broad provision of the
“Dress Code and Grooming Standards” policy or revise it
to make clear that it does not prohibit employees in non–
patient care areas from wearing pins, badges, and profes-
sional certifications that have not been approved by
MHS, and WE WILL notify all employees that the policy
provision has been rescinded or revised.
WE WILL rescind the overly broad provision of the
“Appearance, Grooming and Infection Prevention Stand-
ards for Direct Care Providers” policy or
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL 7
MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
revise it to make clear that it does not prohibit employees
in non–patient care areas from wearing badge reels that
are not branded with MemorialCare approved logos or
text, and WE WILL notify all employees that the policy
provision has been rescinded or revised.
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER,
INC., D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL
CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S
HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
The Board’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.
Lindsay Parker and Molly Kagel, Esqs., for the General Coun-
sel.
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 Re-
spondent 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 ade-
quately established that the pin rule is facially unlawful, but not
that the badge reel rule is facially unlawful or has been dispar-
ately enforced.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Respondent is a large urban medical facility. It includes two
licensed hospitals and employs about 6000 employees, includ-
ing over 2100 registered nurses (RNs) represented by the Cali-
fornia Nurses Association/National Nurses United
(CNA/NNU).1
To help maintain safety and security at the facility, Respond-
ent 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. 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 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 intra-
net, was adopted and established by Memorial Health Services
d/b/a MemorialCare Health System (MHS), Respondent’s par-
ent 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.
The policy also lists several “examples of minimum re-
quirements.” Consistent with the security policy, the first re-
quirement 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 (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 permit-
ted to clip various small pins to the top of the badge, including
years of service pins and “I Give” pins (indicating that they
donate to the medical center) issued by Respondent, and certifi-
cation pins issued by professional associations or organizations

1 There is no dispute, and the record establishes, that the Board has
jurisdiction.
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).
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
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 wear a standard hospital uni-
form, color coded by discipline and embroidered with the ap-
proved 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.
To help prevent infections, the policy also establishes a “bare
below the elbows” rule. The rule prohibits RNs and other di-
rect care providers from wearing such things as long-sleeved
jackets or wristwatches in direct patient care areas. It also spe-
cifically prohibits them from wearing lanyards around their
neck to attach and extend their ID badge for inspection or swip-
ing. As a result, RNs must either attach the badge to a retracta-
ble 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 pro-
viders is an “appearance, grooming, and infection prevention”
policy (PC–261.02). Like the new uniform and infection pre-
vention policy, it establishes standards of appropriate appear-
ance 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 specific
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.
The policy also includes the subject badge reel rule (#12),
which states, “Badge reels may only be branded with Memori-
alCare approved logos or text.”4 Pursuant to this rule, Re-
spondent provided each RN and other direct care provider with

3 Policy #318 was modified in certain respects in July 2014; for ex-
ample, 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.
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 groom-
ing policy or Respondent’s uniform policy.
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 new uniform order in November or December
2014. Others received it directly from their managers. Re-
spondent also provided a replacement on request if the badge
reel broke, which it often did. Indeed, Respondent had its ven-
dor 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.)
Finally, all of the foregoing policies state that it is the re-
sponsibility of the supervisors to “consistently enforce compli-
ance” with the standards and requirements by taking appropri-
ate corrective or disciplinary action with employees who vio-
late them.5
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged Unlawful Maintenance of the Pin and Badge
Reel Rules
It is well established that, absent special circumstances, em-
ployees have a right under the Act to wear union insignia at
work. However, due to concerns about disrupting patient care,
the Board has adopted certain rules unique to healthcare facili-
ties. In such facilities, a ban on wearing any nonofficial insig-
nia 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
restrictions; specifically, that the restrictions are necessary to
avoid disruption of healthcare operations or disturbance of
patients. See HealthBridge Management, LLC, 360 NLRB 937
(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.
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 presump-
tively invalid; and that Respondent has failed to establish spe-
cial circumstances justifying the application of the rules to such
areas.
1. The Pin Rule
As indicated above, the MHS dress code and grooming poli-
cy containing the pin rule applies to all employees, including
non-direct patient care providers.7 Thus, it is clear that the pin

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).
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 2078, 2076, 2079 & fn. 3 (2011).
7 Judith Fix, Respondent’s senior vice president of patient care ser-
vices 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 pro-
viders (Tr. 217–218). However, she later testified that direct patient
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL 9
MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
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 non-
approved pins in non-direct patient care areas is necessary to
avoid disruption of its operations or disturbance of patients.
Respondent has failed to make the required showing. Re-
spondent 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, 362 NLRB No. 83, slip op.
at 3 (2015), enfd. --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 3361733, at *14 (1st
Cir. 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). Fur-
ther, 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 (1978) (rejecting hos-
pital’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
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 any-
where except for on an employee’s ID badge” (Br. 48). How-
ever, Respondent cites no provision in its dress code and
grooming policy or other policies that would reasonably be
interpreted by employees to narrow the otherwise broad re-
striction to only badge pins.
Respondent also argues that there is no explicit ban on wear-
ing union insignia in the policy; thus, “when read in the context
of the whole,” the rule “would not make a reasonable employee
think they were prohibited from wearing union insignia” (Br.
50). However, on its face, the ban on all nonapproved pins

care providers are still prohibited by the appearance policy from wear-
ing nonapproved pins on their badge or when in uniform (Tr. 250–251,
265–266, 271). Further, she acknowledged that the source of that pro-
hibition is the MHS policy (Tr. 276).
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 testimo-
ny 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.
would include union pins. Cf. Albertsons, Inc., 351 NLRB 254,
256–257 (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 broad restriction to only
nonapproved pins other than union pins.
Citing Fix’s testimony, Respondent also argues that employ-
ees are not prohibited from displaying union insignia in other
ways while working at the facility. Fix testified that Respond-
ent does not prohibit non-direct patient care employees, who
are not required to wear a 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 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 evi-
dence 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.
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, Re-
spondent 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 (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 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, requiring
management preapproval is itself an unlawful interference with

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 re-
quires 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, testi-
fied 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).
10 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee rights under the Act, as the requirement may chill
employees from exercising those rights. See Lily Transporta-
tion Corp., 362 NLRB No. 54, slip op. at 6 (2015); and Mid-
dletown Hospital Assn., 282 NLRB 541, 552–553 (1986), and
cases cited there. As discussed above, Respondent has failed to
show special circumstances.
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 con-
clude that employees would reasonably interpret the rule to
mean that. In 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.
2. The Badge Reel Rule
As indicated above, unlike the MHS policy, Respondent’s
appearance, grooming, and infection prevention policy contain-
ing 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 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 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. Luther-
an Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 647–648 (2004).
Here, employees would not reasonably conclude that the
badge reel rule applies in non-direct patient care areas. Re-
spondent’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

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 vio-
lation 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 fn. 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.
hospital acquired infections. Further, although the badge reel
rule does 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 into the hospital for education or
meetings, rather than to provide patient care, may wear “busi-
ness 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 over-
broad 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 against union or other protected con-
certed 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 that such disparate enforcement occurred here when
Respondent refused to allow two RNs, Brandy Welch and The-
resa 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.
As noted above, both Welch and Stewart were union repre-
sentatives for their respective medical units during the relevant
period. It is undisputed that, notwithstanding the new appear-
ance 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 rather than the MHS logo and was en-
cased 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 surgical unit, 14 testified that she also wore a union

13 As discussed infra, RN Welch was just outside the patient care ar-
ea 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 like-
wise wore union badge reels or were told to remove them.
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL 11
MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
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 di-
rector of her pediatric unit, Colleen Coonan, that she could no
longer wear the union badge reel. Welch had been talking with
Coonan and another manager just outside the pediatric unit
door about a grievance matter. As Welch was leaving the con-
versation 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 patient when Johnson en-
tered the room, gave her an MHS badge reel, and told her she
needed to 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 wheth-
er RNs and other direct care providers were allowed to continue
wearing other types of non-MHS badge reels during the rele-
vant period. For example, Fix, who is responsible for all pa-
tient 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. 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 thereaf-
ter reminded anyone she saw who was not wearing the MHS
badge reel. She testified that, other than Welch, she has had to
remind only about four employees of the rule, whom she ob-
served during daily “huddles” between June and September
2015 wearing a badge reel with Hello Kitty, a frog, or a prin-
cess on it. (Tr. 295, 299–305.)
Johnson similarly testified that she looked for anyone with-
out an MHS badge reel, 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.)
The General Counsel’s witnesses, on the other hand, painted
a distinctly different picture. Welch testified that she was una-
ware 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

15 Unlike the July and October incidents involving Welch and Stew-
art, this December incident involving Castillo is not alleged as a viola-
tion in the complaint.
16 Coonan and Johnson are admitted supervisors of Respondent.
reels with cartoon characters (Ariel the Mermaid, Spiderman,
Sponge Bob, Mickey Mouse, and Batman), badge reels deco-
rated 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 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 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 deco-
rative flowers (made out of the plastic safety tops of vials), and
badge reels with nothing at all on them. Like Welch, she testi-
fied that she did not see any nurses being told to remove such
badge reels. (Tr. 118–125.) She also submitted three photo-
graphs 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 uni-
form).18
Castillo testified that she has also seen RNs wearing other
badge reels notwithstanding 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 rhine-
stones, 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. (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 rhine-
stones).
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 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,

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).
18 The three photos do not show the RN’s face or badge and Stewart
did not otherwise identify them.
12 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Stewart was a union representative and had been wearing the
CNA badge reel for months.
However, there is also substantial reason to discount the tes-
timony 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 car-
toon-character or other type of non-MHS badge reel during the
relevant period (none were called or subpoenaed to testify).
Further, between the three of them, Welch, Stewart, and Cas-
tillo 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. And it is undisputed that Respondent has never actually
disciplined an RN or other direct patient care provider for vio-
lating 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 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 strict-
ly enforced the rule against union badge reels. Cf. University of
Richmond, 274 NLRB 1204, 1210 (1985) (finding no disparate
enforcement in part because a 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 en-
forcement 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 disregard-
ing it.
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 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 rule, set forth in the MemorialCare
Health System (MHS) dress code and grooming policy applica-
ble to all employees, including employees in non-direct patient

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 Intercontinen-
tal Hotel), 357 NLRB 1683 fn. 1 (2011); and Trump Marina Associates
LLC, 354 NLRB 1027 fn. 2 (2009), reaffd. 355 NLRB 585 (2010), enfd.
435 Fed.Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
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.
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,
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.
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
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a rule at its facility that prohibits all em-
ployees, 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).
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate 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.”
(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 fa-
cility in Long Beach, 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 con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates

20 The complaint does not name MHS as a party respondent and nei-
ther 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.
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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D/B/A LONG BEACH MEMORIAL 13
MEDICAL CENTER & MILLER CHILDREN’S AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since July 1, 2015.
(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. 22
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 31, 2016
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

22 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
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, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed 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 profes-
sional 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
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.