Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 20, 2007

01-CA-043432 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 20, 2007)

JD–49—07
Pawtucket, RI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF RHODE ISLAND
And Case 1-CA-43432
1-CA-43722
UNITED NURSES & ALLIED
PROFESSIONALS, LOCAL 5082
A. Susan Lawson, Esq.,
Of Boston, Massachusetts
For the General Counsel
Christopher Callaci, Esq.,
Of Providence, Rhode Island
For the Charging Party
John D. Doran, Esq., and
Stephen Melnick, Esq.,
Of Providence, Rhode Island
For the Respondent
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WALLACE H. NATIONS Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Pawtucket,
Rhode Island on March 19 and 20, 2007. United Nurses & Allied Professionals, Local 5082
(Union) filed a charge in this case on August 28, 2006. The Regional Director for Region One
issued Complaint and Notice of Hearing on November 30, 2006.1 The Complaint alleges that
Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island (Respondent or Hospital) has engaged in certain activity in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). Respondent filed a
timely answer.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General Counsel, I make the
following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent, a corporation, with an office and place of business in Pawtucket,
Rhode Island, has been engaged in the operation of an acute care hospital. Annually,

1 All dates are in 2006 unless otherwise noted.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Respondent, in conducting its business derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and
purchases and receives at its facility goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from points
outside the State of Rhode Island. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and is a health
care provider within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. It is admitted and I find that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.2
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The issues framed by the Complaint.
The Hospital employs about 1800 employees in a number of occupations. The Union
represents a unit of about 380 employees, with the remainder of employees being either in
supervisory or management positions or in non-bargaining unit jobs. The unit employees have
been covered by a series of collective bargaining agreements, with the one involved in this
proceeding set to expire on August 5. Negotiations for a successor agreement began in June
and were contentious. The parties had not reached a contract by the expiration date of the old
one and they did not reach agreement until September 1. On July 21, the Union’s membership
voted to reject the Hospital’s offer on the table at that time and authorized the Union’s Executive
Board to issue a ten day strike notice if that became necessary. The Executive Board decided to
go on strike and the Union gave such a ten day notice of its intention to strike on August 22. On
September 1, the membership again voted whether to go out on strike or to accept the
Hospital’s current contract offer. The members voted to accept the proffered contract.3
This case has two main issues for determination. First, did the Hospital unlawfully
interrogate employees about whether they would cross a picket line in the event of a strike?
Second, is a clothing sticker used by the Union lawful under Board law? If it is lawful, did the
Hospital violate the Act by requiring employees to remove the sticker and disciplining them if
they refused?
The complaint alleges that at all material times, the following named individuals held the
positions set forth opposite their names and have been supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Lisa Pratt VP, Human Resources
Deborah Page Nurse Supervisor
Kathleen Jarvis Nurse Supervisor
Donna Dupuis Nurse Manager
Joe Jackson Nurse Manager
Ron Sciamacco Nurse Manager

2 Respondent amended its Answer at the hearing to admit the jurisdictional allegations of
the Complaint.
3 During the period following the expiration of the old contract and the signing of a new one,
the Hospital did not observe the expired union security provisions, dues check off and arbitration
provisions of the old contract.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Liz Madeiros Nurse Manager
Arlene Walker Payroll Manager
Hilda Wright Nurse Manager
Sharon Gothberg Nurse Manager
D. Percievez Nurse Manager
The specific allegations of the Complaint are as follows:
1. (a) On or about August 15, Respondent, by Donna Dupuis, in the Cancer
Center in the Hospital, interrogated employees regarding whether or not they would cross a
picket line in the event of a strike.
(b) On or about August 15, Respondent, by Cathy Smith, on Hodgson 5 at the
Hospital, interrogated employees regarding whether or not they would cross a picket line in the
event of a strike.
(c) On or about August 22, Respondent by Cathy Smith on the telephone,
interrogated employees regarding whether or not they would cross a picket line in the event of a
strike.
2. Since about August 25, 2006, Respondent orally promulgated, and has since
maintained, a rule prohibiting employees from wearing in patient care areas of the Hospital a
union sticker (hereinafter the Know Respect sticker) that reads as follows:4
KNOW
RESPECT
United Nurses & Allied Professionals
The Know Respect sticker has the letters K and W in the word KNOW printed in a lighter
shade than the letters than the letters N and O. The effect of this shading is to make the sticker
at first glance or from a few feet appear to read “NO RESPECT.” In the context of the Union’s
public relations campaign during negotiations for a contract during the summer of 2006, it is
clear that the sticker was meant to be read as “NO RESPECT.” In the context of this decision
the words button, pin and sticker have the same meaning.
3. The Complaint alleges a number of specific instances of Respondent’s alleged
unlawful enforcement of the above rule in clear patient care areas of the Hospital. In each of the
following instances the person named on the date noted, told employees that they would have
to remove the Know Respect sticker. These instances are as follows:
a. On or about August 25, by Sciamacco, in the Emergency Department;
b. On or about August 25, by Dupuis, in the Cancer Center;
c. On or about August 27, by Page, in the Medical/Surgical unit called “Wood 6;”
d. On or about August 28, by Jarvis, in the Maternity and Obstetrics unit, called “Wood

4 Because of the way Respondent defines patient care areas, this rule applies in virtually
every area of the hospital to which the public has access. Thus virtually the entire hospital is off
limits for the wearing of the sticker.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
2;”
e. On or about August 29, by D. Pereivez, in the Medical/Surgical unit called “Wood 6;”
f. On or about August 29, by Rothberg, in the Medical/Surgical unit called “Wood 6;”
g. On or about August 30, by Sciamacco, in the Emergency Department;
h. On or about August 30, by Sciamacco, in the Emergency Department;
i. On or about August 30, by Jackson, in the Cardiac Catherization Laboratory;
4. The Complaint alleges a number of specific instances of Respondent’s alleged
unlawful enforcement of the above rule in what General Counsel considers non-patient care
areas of the Hospital. In each of the following instances the person named on the date noted,
told employees that they would have to remove the Know Respect sticker. These instances are
as follows:
a. On or about August 28, by Pratt, in the Hospital Cafeteria;
b. On or about August 28, by Madeiros, in the break room in the Emergency
Department;
c. On or about August 30, by Dupuis, by telephone call to an office in the Internal
Medicine Clinic;
d. On or about August 30, by Dupuis, by telephone call to an office in the Family Care
Center;
e. On or about August 30, by Walker, in the Hospital Cafeteria;
5. On or about August 30, Respondent, by Jackson, in the Cardiac Catherization
Laboratory (a patient care area), threatened employees with written discipline if they failed to
remove the Know Respect sticker.
6. Respondent disciplined employees for wearing the Know Respect sticker in patient
care areas of the Hospital, as follows:
a. On or about August 27, Respondent issued a verbal warning to employees Rita
Owens and Michelle McCann for wearing the Know Respect sticker while in the
Medical/Surgical unit called “Wood 6;”
b. On or about August, 28, Respondent issued a verbal warning to its employee Rita
Brennan while in the Maternity and Obstetrics unit, called “Wood 2;”
c. On or about August 28, Respondent issued a verbal warning to its employee Mary
Fernandes for wearing the Know Respect sticker while in the Emergency
Department;
d. On or about August 29, Respondent issued a verbal warning to its employees Patty
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Tomkiewicz and Mary Jane Loughlin while in the Medical/Surgical unit called “Wood
6;”5
e. On or about August 30, Respondent issued a verbal warning to its employee
Michelle Brennan-Emond for wearing the Know Respect sticker while in the Cardiac
Catherization Laboratory.
f. On or about August 30, Respondent issued a written warning to its employee Bill
George for wearing the Know Respect sticker while in the Emergency Department.
g. On or about August 30, Respondent issued a written warning to its employee Mary
Fernandes for wearing the Know Respect sticker while in the Emergency
Department.
7. Respondent disciplined employees for wearing the Know Respect sticker in non-
patient care areas of the Hospital, as follows:
a. On or about August 28, Respondent issued a verbal warning to its employee Bill
George for wearing the Know Respect sticker while in the break room of the
Emergency Department.
b. On or about August 28, Respondent issued a verbal warning to its employee Barbara
Pelletier for wearing the Know Respect sticker while in an office in the Internal
Medicine Clinic.
c. On or about August 30, Respondent issued a written warning to its employee
Barbara Pelletier for wearing the Know Respect sticker while in an office in the
Family Care area.
Respondent’s conduct alleged above is alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
B. Evidence adduced related to the alleged unlawful interrogations
Margaret Lebeau is a registered nurse and Union member who works in the Hospital’s
Cancer Center. She has been employed by the Hospital for twenty one years. She testified that
a vote authorizing a strike was taken on July 21. On or about August 18, Lebeau had a
conversation at her nurses’ station with her manager Donna Dupuis. Dupuis approached
Lebeau and two other nurses who were with Lebeau. The other nurses were Debbie Owens and
Nancy Fisher. The three nurses were at the end of their shift and were doing required
paperwork. Dupuis began a conversation with the nurses and in the course of the conversation
said, “I can ask you this.” “Would you cross the picket line?” Though she described her feelings
at this point as very uncomfortable, Lebeau answered, “Definitely not.” Dupuis did not state why
she was asking the question and gave no assurances that it did not matter how Lebeau

5 Though Tomkiewicz did not testify, a copy to the warning given to her is in evidence as GC
Ex. 6, and reflects that this employee was verbally warned by supervisor Sharon Gothberg on
August 29 for refusing to remove the Know Respect sticker. A similar warning is in the record as
GC Ex. 7 for Mary Jane Loughlin. Vice President for Human Resouces Lisa Pratt acknowledged
these warnings were given for the employees’ refusal to remove the Know Respect sticker.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
answered or that her answer would not affect her employment status in any way. Dupuis also
asked the same question of the other two nurses present. According to Lebeau, Owens looked
upset and did not give a specific answer. Lebeau testified that she felt Owens’ non-answer was
better because Lebeau felt the question should not have been asked. She did not testify about
Fisher’s response. The conversation ended when Dupuis stated: “Ultimately we’re here for the
patients.” Lebeau reported this incident to Union Officer Barbara Pelletier.
Nurse employee Nancy Fisher appeared and gave corroborating testimony about this
interrogation.
Donna Dupuis is a registered nurse and holds the title of Assistant Director of Ambulatory
Services for the Hospital. She manages various outpatient areas including the Family Care
Center, the Internal Medicine Center, the Cancer Center and the Ambulatory Specialties Area.
She has worked at the Hospital for 32 years. She was a member of the Hospital’s negotiating
team for the 2006 negotiations.
Dupuis denied interrogating employees about crossing a picket line. She denied ever telling
employees that they would have to answer a question seeking to find out if the employee would
cross a picket line. Upon receipt of the strike notice, the Hospital had a plan in place to
downsize so that supervisory staff could safely care for the patient population. She testified that
employees were aware that a strike notice would result in downsizing. In the same timeframe,
Dupuis attended a number of large meetings of managers and supervisors. She testified that no
one in these meetings asked her to ask employees if they would cross a picket line. When
asked by General Counsel whether or not she had conversations with employees about
crossing a picket line, Dupuis answered “Yes.” She testified that just before the Hospital
received the strike notice, employees would ask her whether or not they would be able to work
during the strike. She would take their names if they were willing to work if work were to be
available. However she actually took no names as apparently no employees who asked her
about work during the strike indicated they wanted to work.
When asked by the Hospital’s counsel whether she had had any conversations with
employees about crossing a picket line, Dupuis reversed field and answered “No.”
Given Dupuis conflicting and confusing testimony on this topic, I credit the testimony of
Lebeau and Fisher and discredit Dupuis’s testimony. Accordingly I give full credit to the
testimony of Lebeau and find that Dupuis in fact did interrogated Lebeau, Fisher and Owens
about whether they would cross a picket line without giving them any assurances that their
employment would not be affected in any way by their answers.
Maria Lariviere has worked as a nurse at the Hospital for twenty one years, the last two
as a registered nurse. She works in a medical/surgical telemetry unit in the part of the Hospital
known as Hodgson 5. She is a member of the Union. About a week before the Union sent out
the strike notice on August 22, Lariviere had a conversation with her supervisor, Cathy Smith.
Both women were on the unit and seated at the nurses’ station. Smith stated to Lariviere that
she had to ask a question as to whether or not Lariviere would be willing to cross the picket line
if there were a strike. Lariviere answered “No.” Smith then said that “they” were making her ask
everyone that question. The question, answer and Smith’s comment comprised the entire
conversation. Smith did not say why she was asking the question and did not give assurances
that it did not matter how Lariviere answered or that her answer would not affect her job status.
After this brief interrogation, Lariviere asked other nurses on the unit whether Smith had
similarly interrogated them. Two nurses, Amy Correira and Angela Fernandes, said they had
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
also been asked. Other nurses, whose names she could not remember, also said they had been
asked whether they would cross the picket line in the event of a strike.
On the evening of August 22, after the strike notice had been given, Smith called
Lariviere at home and again asked her if she would cross the picket line. Lariviere again
answered “no.” Smith again did not say why she was asking the question or give Lariviere
assurances that her answer would not affect her job status. Smith did say that the closure date
on her unit would be August 30 and that Lariviere would have to have her locker cleaned out by
that date. She also told her to check with her supervisors on August 31 and September 1 to see
if she would be needed on other units. These were the only conversations she had with Smith in
any way relating to the potential strike or the ongoing negotiations. Other employees told her
that Smith had also asked them if they would cross the picket line in the event of a strike. The
instruction to clean out her locker was the first notice she had about the Hospital’s planned
layoff prior to the strike date. On August 30, Lariviere cleaned out her locker and she was
asked by fellow employees why she was leaving. She told them what Smith had told her and
they were surprised because none of them had been asked to clean out their lockers.
Supervisor Cathy Smith did not testify. I credit Lariviere’s testimony as set out above.
The Hospital’s Vice-President of Human Resources, Lisa Pratt, testified that the Hospital
knew for sometime before August 22 that the Union membership had voted to authorize its
Executive Board to call a strike. She testified that asking employees about their willingness to
cross a picket line was a line of questioning that could not lawfully be pursued and testified that
supervisors were aware that they could not interrogate employees about this issue. Pratt
testified that she was asked by staff if they could cross the picket line in the event of a strike and
her position was that she, and all supervisors, could answer that question if asked by staff.
Upon receiving the strike notice from the Union, Pratt and her labor counsel prepared a
document for supervisors called “Questions and Answers” that provides answers to questions
being asked in the face of the potential strike. With regard to the question “Are we able to ask
employees if they would be willing to cross the picket line?” the document advises “No, but if an
employee initiates a conversation on this subject you are free to speak with them about it.” Pratt
also testified that supervisors were never instructed to ask employees if they would cross a
picket line. On the other hand, she has no knowledge as to whether the supervisors followed
her instructions. Nurse managers Joe Jackson and Ron Sciamacco testified that they were
never told to ask employees whether they would cross a picket line.
C. Evidence relating to the promulgation, maintenance and enforcement of the rule
prohibiting the wearing of the Know Respect sticker.
1. Events leading up the wearing of the Know Respect sticker.
Christopher Callaci is a field representative for the Union and in that capacity gives
advice and legal counsel on labor relations matters. He handles arbitrations and is the Union’s
chief negotiator in contract negotiations. The Union represents professional employees at the
Hospital in a bargaining unit of approximately 400 employees. With Callaci acting as chief
negotiator for the Union, the parties engaged in bargaining during the summer of 2006 for a
successor agreement to the one set to expire on August 5. Bargaining commenced in June and
culminated in a new agreement on September 1.
During negotiations, the Union engaged in informational picketing on one day. It also
engaged a public relations firm during negotiations as the negotiations were not going well and
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
a strike was possible. The public relations firm was hired to educate the community about the
Union’s positions on the issues in order to gain their support in the event of an ongoing labor
dispute or a strike. This firm sent a plan of action to Callaci on July 18. This plan targeted
members of the Local Union, Management and Trustees of the Hospital and area leaders and
decision makers. The plan called for the Union to stress by various media that the Hospital
management has no respect for unionized employees, that quality of care for patients may
suffer and that it is time to treat everyone fairly. The Union had produced buttons and stickers to
be worn on clothing, and flyers that stressed its message and distributed them. It also took out
advertising time on local cable television creating two 30 second ads, one featuring Union
member and hospital employee Michele Brennan-Emond and the other employee Rita Owens.
These ads were run frequently during the period July 28 though August 2 and again August 9
though 11. The first set of ads reached approximately 115,000 households in the Providence
area. The second reached over 300,000 households. Both ads stressed the lack of respect by
management for the Hospital’s union employees. Advertisements were also placed in the local
newspaper, the Pawtucket Times. The Know Respect sticker was also developed as part of the
Union’s public education plan.
General Counsel introduced in evidence two flyers that were publicly distributed after
July 18. The issues addressed in these flyers are mandatory overtime, the refusal of the
Hospital to let employees use funeral time if a loved one dies during an employee’s vacation
and the Hospital’s limits on the employees’ choice concerning which hospital employees use for
health care. Both stress the Union’s position that the Hospital has no respect for its employees.
The flyers were put on telephone poles, including those near the hospital. They were also
handed out at sporting events, in shopping malls and parking lots around Pawtucket. They were
not distributed in the Hospital. These messages were also reproduced in the newspaper ads
that ran in the Pawtucket Times.
From time to time the Union issues buttons and stickers to members and they wear them
to work at the Hospital. Callaci testified that the Hospital has no written policy about the wearing
of buttons or stickers on clothing at the Hospital. No proposal was made by the Hospital during
negotiations for such a policy. However, on May 25, Lisa Pratt, the Hospital’s Vice President for
Human Resources, sent a memorandum to the Hospital’s Managers and Supervisors which
reads:
“Pleased be advised that the bargaining unit employees may begin wearing buttons and
pins to support those issues they feel they need to ‘press’ during the upcoming negotiations.
We need to make certain that our patients and their families feel safe in our
environment. Any button or pin that is worn, while on the premises at MHRI, addressing patient
safety, must be brought to my attention immediately.
If you have a question about the message that any button or pin portrays, you should
contact me immediately at ex …. There is no hard and fast rule to say which buttons and pins
will or will not be authorized to wear during the work day. They must be reviewed by me if there
is any doubt in your minds about it appropriateness.”
Callaci testified that this memorandum was not made available to him or any other union
member and no request to bargain over its contents was ever made.
On July 24, Callaci sent a letter to the Hospital’s labor counsel, John Doran. The letter
raised two issues. The first was related to a nurse being asked to remove a button that said
“Stop Mandatory Overtime” and the second had to do with the enforcement of dress code policy
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
against employee Paul Levin. Callaci’s letter asserted that the nurse had worn the button in
question for months prior to being asked to remove it. It also asserted that Levin had worn the
same clothing to work for years without incident. Following the letter, Callaci and Doran worked
out the problem to their mutual satisfaction. As part of the solution, the nurse was allowed to
continue to wear the button.
Other buttons or stickers employees were allowed to wear say:
“Who Cares? We Do Support Safe Hospital Staffing”
“Be Fair to those who Care, United Nurses & Allied Professionals”
“Together We Stand, Vote Accept, MHRI Offer”
One Union button that the Hospital would not allow to be worn reads: “Unsafe!
Mandatory Overtime Unfair! No ULP charge was filed over the Hospital’s rejection of this
button.
On August 8, Callaci received a letter from Doran expressing his disappointment that
the contract had expired without the parties reaching agreement on a successor contract. Doran
then informed Callaci that the Hospital would no longer comply with the Union security
provisions, dues check off and the arbitration provisions.
On August 22, Callaci wrote Doran a letter announcing that the Union would go on strike
in ten days, the strike to commence at 7:00 am on Saturday, September 2.
On August 23, the Pawtucket Times ran as its lead headline story the announcement of
the pending strike. The paper also ran a long letter to the editor from nurse employee and Union
member Karen Raymond which spelled out the Union’s positions and the reasons behind them.
On August 24, Callaci wrote Doran that employees would begin wearing the Respect
Sticker and warned that any effort by management to have employees remove the stickers
would result in the filing of an unfair labor practice charge. This was the first time the Union had
given advance notice to the Hospital of the wording of a button or sticker before employees
began wearing them. Callaci gave notice because of the problem with the Stop Mandatory
Overtime button.
Following this letter Callaci and Doran had a conversation about the sticker. They left the
conversation with Callaci taking the position that employees had the right to wear the Know
Respect sticker and Doran stating that the Hospital would discipline employees who did not
remove the sticker upon the request of management.
On August 28, Doran wrote Callaci a letter memorializing their conversation. The letter
notes that the manner in which the Know Respect sticker was printed would lead one looking at
it to see only No Respect. Doran added “Memorial Hospital believes these buttons or stickers
are inappropriate to wear in patient care areas. It is not clear from reading the button that the
message is related to negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the
Hospital and UNAP. As a result, a patient reading the button without knowing the context could
be disturbed and caused unnecessary stress. Accordingly, employees have been instructed to
remove these buttons.”
Doran then challenges Callaci’s legal opinion that the employees have a legal right to
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
wear the involved sticker and cites Sacred Heart Medical Center, 347 NLRB No. 48 (2006) in
support of the Hospital’s position. Doran asserts in his letter that this case stands for the
proposition that a health care facility may lawfully restrict buttons which are “likely to disturb
patients and their families.”
The Union distributed the Know Respect sticker on August 24 and employees began
wearing them that day and in the days following. It began getting calls from members on August
25 saying that they had been told to remove the stickers or face discipline. He has not been told
that any patient of the Hospital complained about the stickers. The Union instructed its members
to say, when asked to remove the Know Respect sticker, “I respectfully decline to remove the
sticker.”
2. Employee testimony concerning the Hospital’s response to the wearing of the Know
Respect sticker.
a. Nurse employee Margaret Lebeau received her Know Respect sticker in the mail on
August 26 and first wore it to work on August 28. On that day, though she wore it while working
in the Cancer Center, no one mentioned the sticker. She again wore it all day of August 30, her
next scheduled work day. Again, no one from management told her to remove the sticker. On
that day however, a fellow nurse, Virginia Ferreria, told her that nurse supervisor Dupuis had
asked Ferreria to remove the Know Respect sticker she was wearing. Lebeau was never told by
a supervisor to remove her sticker and she continued to wear it. She agreed with Respondent’s
counsel on cross examination that if a patient felt that the nurse treating him or her felt the nurse
had no respect for him or her, it would be a problem. Lebeau testified that no patient expressed
any concern about the Know Respect sticker on the days she wore it. She testified that patients
did express support for the nurses in the negotiations. She also testified that the patients
seemed to have some knowledge about the negotiations.
b. Rita Brennan works at the Hospital as a registered nurse. She has worked there over
22 years. She currently works in the Obstetrical Unit, Wood 2. She is also a Union Vice-
President and is on the Executive Board of the Union. She was a member of the Union’s
negotiating team in the summer of 2006.
She testified that she has worn at work the Union’s Stop Mandatory Overtime button
every day since it was introduced in 2003 or 2004. She has been observed wearing the button
by supervisors, managers and even the Hospital’s top executives. She was told to stop wearing
the button in the summer of 2006. Nurse Manager Donna Dupuis told her to take the button off
while Brennan was working on her shift. Brennan was at the unit’s nurses’ station and Dupuis
approached with another woman that Brennan did not know. When they got to the station
Dupuis ordered Brennan, “Take that button off.” As Brennan was wearing a number of buttons,
she asked which one Dupuis meant. Dupuis pointed to the Stop Mandatory Overtime button.
Brennan then inquired why she was being asked to remove the button. Dupuis stated, “Because
it make the patients nervous.” At this point a patient approached and Brennan became engaged
in helping the patient and Dupuis and the other woman left.
Brennan notified the Union President Bill George about the incident. He called Callaci
who wrote to Doran about the matter as noted earlier. Brennan also notified her immediate
nurse supervisor, Kathleen Jarvis. Jarvis indicated that she would look into the matter and get
back to Brennan. A few days later she again spoke to Jarvis about the button. Jarvis asked to
see it, compared it to something she had on a paper at her desk, and then told Brennan that it
would be okay to wear the button.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
Brennan began wearing the Know Respect sticker after its distribution. She wore it
without incident for one day, but on the second day, August 28, she was told to remove it by
Jarvis. Brennan responded that she respectfully declined to remove the sticker and was given a
verbal warning by Jarvis. Brennan observed Jarvis tell two other nurses to remove the stickers.
The nurses were Margaret Crosby and Patricia Whelan. No patients commented to Brennan
about the sticker. Notwithstanding the verbal warning, Brennan continued to wear the sticker.
When asked how patients would know what the Know Respect sticker meant, Brennan
answered that they would have to ask her. According to Brennan, no patient asked what the
sticker meant.
c. William George is a registered nurse, Union President, and a 26 year employee of the
Hospital. He testified that the bargaining unit ranges from 360 to 380 members. In his role as
Union President, George was a vocal part of the Union’s negotiating team.
George discussed the matter of stickers and buttons with Lisa Pratt in the spring of 2006
during a comprehensive conversation about a number of issues. George noted to Pratt that the
Union would be using stickers and buttons during negotiations as part of a campaign. When
asked what would be acceptable to the Hospital, Pratt answered, “It depends.”
Following this meeting, George sent a letter to Pratt covering the issues discussed. With
respect to buttons and stickers, George wrote: “Apparently you have confused a lot of staff and
managers with your ‘it depends’ as to the wearing of buttons and pins. Could you please be
more specific? We are planning to have a program of wearing buttons and pins during the up-
coming negotiations with the hospital.”
Pratt responded to issues raised in George’s letter with one of her own on May 25. With
regard to buttons and stickers, she wrote: “Unfortunately I cannot be more specific than I have
been. It will depend upon the button or pin worn by the employees as to whether or not it will be
allowed. If you would like to produce them in advance for my review and approval, I will do so.
Otherwise it will be on a case by case basis.”
The Union’s Executive Board sent a letter to the Hospital’s Board of Trustees on July 20.
The letter, signed by all members of the Executive Board, discusses the key points of contention
in negotiations and gives the Union’ positions on each point. George also noted a strike vote
was taken, but could not give a date for the vote. He noted that the Union engaged in
informational picketing at the Hospital on July 24. Following the picketing, an article appeared in
the Pawtucket Times on July 25, addressing the picketing, the reasons for the picketing and the
Hospital’s response. The Pawtucket Times also published a letter from George on August 8
which again sets out the Union’s primary positions on the issues in contention in negotiations.
On August 22, George sent a letter to the Union’s membership telling them that a ten
day strike notice had been given to the Hospital. In pertinent part it notes that the Hospital would
began giving layoff notices and reminds members that a vote on the proposed contract would
be taken before the strike commenced. It also reiterates the respect theme of the Union’s
campaign.
On August 24, George sent another letter to members and enclosed the Know Respect
sticker, urging the members to wear it to work. It also notes that members have a legal right to
wear it and that it would be unlawful for the Hospital to refuse to allow members to wear it.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
Union officers and representatives also passed out this sticker to employees at the Hospital.
George and five other members of the Union working in the Emergency Department
began wearing the sticker on August 25. On that date, the nurse manager for the ER, Ron
Sciamacco, told George to remove the sticker. George was in a patient care area at the time,
though it made no difference as Sciamacco made no distinction between patient care areas and
non-patient care areas. George obeyed the command. After work, George spoke with Callaci
who told him that he had a right under federal labor laws to wear the sticker and to respectfully
decline to remove it when asked to do so.
On George’s next schedule work day, August 28, he wore the sticker to work. Elizabeth
Medieros, ER assistant nurse manager, told George to remove the sticker while he was sitting
in the ER break room, an area George considers a non-patient area. According to George,
Medieros drew no distinction between wearing the sticker in a non-patient area and in a patient
care area. George respectfully refused to remove the sticker saying it was permitted under
federal labor law. Medieros then gave him a verbal warning.
Later that day, George was in the Hospital cafeteria in the company of two other
employees one of whom was fellow nurse, Mary Fernandes. Lisa Pratt came to their table and
she and George discussed the ongoing negotiations. As she left, Pratt told George, “Take that
sticker off.” George gave her the same response he had given Medieros. According to George,
Pratt did not make a distinction between wearing the sticker in a patient care area as opposed
to a non-patient area.
On August 30, George’s next work day, he was told by Sciamacco to remove the sticker.
Again, no distinction was made between wearing the sticker in a patient versus non-patient care
area. George respectfully refused, citing federal labor laws. Later in the day, Sciamacco called
George into a room and George asked that a Union representative be present. Sciamacco then
asked him to remove the sticker and when he refused, Sciamacco gave George a written
warning. The warning is for insubordination and notes the earlier verbal warning given by
Medieros. The warning also instructs George to remove the sticker when in a patient care area,
a distinction that had not been made previously with George by Medieros, Pratt or Sciamacco. It
notes that a further offense may result in termination.
George testified that no member of management explained why the Know Respect
sticker was offensive and no patient ever asked him questions about it. George also testified
that: “In all the years I’ve worked at Memorial Hospital, buttons and stickers were never
prohibited to my knowledge and I am not aware that employees were ever disciplined for
wearing them.”
George gave his interpretation of the meaning of the Know Respect Sticker thusly, “In
my own words, I would say the [meaning of the] Know Respect [sticker] was that the Hospital
had no respect for us and they didn’t change any mandatory overtime language, they wouldn’t
let us go to a hospital of our choice and they wouldn’t let us use vacation time if a loved one
passed away, we would have to use our funeral leave time.” He expanded on this statement
saying that “us” meant “our families and patients.” He added they [the Hospital] “have no
respect for us, our patients and families through us.” “They didn’t respect us and therefore they
wouldn’t care if we worked a 16 hour shifts to take care of their patient when we were tired.” He
had previously written the membership a letter in which he stated that the members of the
negotiating team “look forward to our continued fight for a fair contract and the respect, we, our
families and our patients deserve.” My understanding of George’s testimony in this regard is that
the Hospital had no respect for the nurses because it forced them to work 16 hour shifts thereby
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
forcing the employees to care for patients when the nurses were tired. I would also have to say
this means George is also saying that the Hospital’s mandatory overtime reflects a degree of
lack of respect for the patients, having them served by tired nurses, thus potentially
compromising patient care.
Respondent’s Counsel also cited a line from a flyer distributed by the Union which
states, inter alia, “Management at Memorial Hospital has hit a new low when it comes to
respecting the quality of patient care and the welfare of its unionized employees.” The next
sentences explains this statement insofar as patient care is concerned by stating: “The hospital
continues their practice of ‘locking in’ employees, forcing them into mandatory overtime and
jeopardizing patient care.”
On the afternoon of August 30, George and a number of other Union members attended
a rally held by some state legislators supporting the Union’s negotiating position. An article
about the rally appeared in the Pawtucket Times the next day. Inter alia, the article notes the
dispute over the Know Respect sticker and the discipline given George for wearing the sticker
after being told to remove it.
d. Mary Fernandes is a union member and registered nurse working in the Emergency
Room. Near the end of August, she was given a Know Respect sticker by George in the ER
break room. She wore it and was spoken to by Sciamacco. She was in a group that included
George, and nurse Gina Sheridan. Sciamacco told them to remove the sticker and they did.
George said he would look into the matter. Sciamacco made no distinction between wearing the
sticker in a patient care area versus a non-patient care area. George later reported to her that
she could wear the sticker and respectfully refuse to remove it if told to do so. She again wore
the sticker on her next work day in both patient care areas and non-patient care areas. She was
told by Sciamacco that if she did not remove it, she would get a verbal warning which would be
followed by a written warning if the sticker was not removed. In the next two days, she
continued wearing the sticker and was given a verbal and written warning by Sciamacco. Her
written warning is dated August 30 is identical to the one given George.
On August 29, the day before her written warning, Fernandes was eating in the Hospital
cafeteria and was wearing the Know Respect sticker. As she was leaving the cafeteria she
stopped by a table where nurse manager Arlene Walker was sitting and asked Walker about the
status of Walker’s brother who was a patient at the Hospital. During their conversation, Walker
saw the sticker and told her to take it off. Fernandes said she would remove hers if Walker
removed a sticker she was wearing. Walker responded, “Mary, I’m not kidding, I can’t talk to
you with that sticker on.” Fernandes did not take off her sticker, and asked Walker, “Do you
mean I can’t ask how Frank is doing because I’m wearing a sticker?” Walker ended the
conversation and left. Walker was wearing a pro-Hospital sticker reading “Together We Stand,
Vote Accept, MHRI Offer.” Fernandes had observed many non-bargaining unit employees
wearing this sticker.
Fernandes was also told to remove her Know Respect sticker by Maria Brennan, head of
Admitting. Fernandes gave Brennan, who was wearing a pro-Hospital sticker, the same answer
she had given Walker. Fernandes testified that no patient commented on the Know Respect
sticker or asked her about it. Like George, Fernandes believed the Know Respect sticker spoke
to the issue of mandatory overtime and the Union’s belief that this issue demonstrated a lack of
respect for the unionized employees.
e. Michele Brennan-Emond has worked as a register nurse at the Hospital for 16 years. At
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
the time of the events in question, she was working in the Cardiac Catherization lab. She was a
Critical Care float, and worked occasionally in the Pre-Anesthesia Care Unit, Endoscope,
Intensive Care and the Coronary Care Unit. She is a Vice President of the Union and was on
the 2006 negotiating team. During negotiations she took part in the informational picketing and
the leafleting activity.
Brennan-Emond testified that the Stop Mandatory Overtime, and Who Cares? We Care
buttons had been worn by employees for more than a year. Respondent’s supervisors
attempted to stop at least two employees from wearing these buttons, but generally they were
allowed without comment by management. She testified that the Unsafe! Unfair! Mandatory
Overtime buttons was put out by the Union in the summer of 2006. Brennan-Emond testified
that she had worn the button without problem. She also testified that other employees had worn
this button.
She got her Know Respect sticker on August 24 and first wore it at work on August 25.
On that date she worked part of the day in Intensive Care and along with another nurse, Anna
Hughes, assisted a nurse helping a patient who was nurse manager Donna Dupuis’ mother in
law. Both nurses were wearing the Know Respect sticker at the time. Hughes had called to
Brennan-Emond to come into the room where the patient needed assistance. As she entered
she passed Dupuis. Hughes then told Brennan-Emond “Oh, my god. If looks could kill you
would be dead right now,” speaking of the look Dupuis had given Brennan-Emond. No one
asked her to remove her sticker on his work day.
On her next day at work, August 30, she again wore the Know Respect sticker. Joe
Jackson, the nurse manager for the Catherization Lab, approached Brennan-Emond and told
another employee standing nearby to leave. He then told Brennan-Emond to remove the sticker
and she respectfully refused. He then gave her a verbal warning and told her if she wore it
another day, she would be given a written warning. Brennan-Emond testified that the lab she
was in was a non-patient area. On the other hand, she admitted she wore the sticker in patient
care areas as well. No patient commented about the sticker. After this date, Brennan-Emond
was laid off.
Brennan-Emond testified that she went to a disciplinary meeting with Barbara Pelletier,
acting as Pelletier’s Union representative. Management was represented by Donna Dupuis.
Dupuis told Pelletier that she was giving her a written warning because she had not removed
her Know Respect sticker. Brennan-Emond asked Dupuis if she were not embarrassed giving a
warning for wearing a sticker. Dupuis countered that this was part of her job and that the sticker
“gives a negative connotation towards patients.” Pelletier then asked Dupuis if any patient had
complained about the sticker. According to Brennan-Emond, Dupuis then hemmed and hawed
and then said her mother in law had complained. She was the patient Brennan-Emond had
assisted. Brennan-Emond then testified that the patient could not complain because she had a
tube down her throat which prevented her from talking. At a later point in the record, Dupuis
testified that her mother in law indeed could not talk and had not complained. She added that
the “complaint” had come from her husband and two sisters in law, who simply asked her what
the Know Respect sticker stood for. Dupuis did not deny that she had told Pelletier and
Brennan-Emond that her mother in law had complained about the sticker.
Brennan-Emond appeared on camera in one of the 30 second TV spots that ran during
the negotiations. The message of her spot was that the Hospital had no respect for its
employees regarding health care choices. The Hospital was limiting the hospitals that unionized
employees could use and be reimbursed.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
f. Barbara Pelletier works at the Hospital as a registered nurse and is a 33 year employee.
She works in a number of units at the Hospital. She is a Vice President of the Union. She
testified that the Stop Mandatory Overtime button has been around for years. The only time a
question was raised about the button was when Dupuis told Rita Brennan to stop wearing it.
Shortly after this incident, Brennan was told it was okay to wear it.
When the Know Respect stickers were distributed, Pelletier began wearing hers to work.
The first day she wore the sticker was August 25. Dupuis saw her and told her and a fellow
nurse, Virginia Ferreria, to remove the sticker. Both nurses complied with this directive. Pelletier
asked Dupuis how she could demand they remove their stickers when Dupuis was wearing a
pro-Hospital sticker. Dupuis replied that the Know Respect sticker probably had a negative
impact on the patients. She added that she believed the sticker meant the nurses had no
respect for the patients. Pelletier took issue with this statement saying “We would never do
anything against the patients.” Dupuis then stated that she did not want the stickers worn in
patient areas.
Pelletier again wore her Know Respect sticker on August 28. On that date she was working
in an office doing telephone triage, taking calls from patients and answering their questions. In
this job, she does not come into physical contact with patients. During the day, she received a
call from Dupuis who asked her if she were wearing the sticker. Pelletier said she was and told
her she had a legal right to wear it. Dupuis then gave her a verbal warning.
On her next work day, August 30, Pelletier was again doing telephone triage, again with no
physical patient contact. Dupuis again called and asked if she were wearing the sticker and
Pelletier again said she was. Dupuis gave her another verbal warning and told Pelletier to meet
with her later in the day. She went to the meeting with Brennan-Emond. With Dupuis at the
meeting was Nurse Manager Kathy Jarvis. Dupuis gave Pelletier a written warning. The warning
was almost identical to the ones given to Fernandes and George and banned Pelletier from
wearing the Know Respect sticker in patient care areas. Pelletier’s account of the meeting was
the same as Brennan-Emond. Pelletier testified that no patient had commented to her about the
sticker. Jarvis did not testify.
g. Rita Owens works as a registered nurse for the Hospital. She has worked there for 38
years. She holds the position of Vice President in the Union and was a member of the Union’s
2006 negotiating team. She also participated in the informational picketing and actively leafleted
with the flyers in evidence in this case. She has worn all the Union buttons and stickers
referenced in this decision. Up to the Know Respect sticker, the only one she had been asked to
remove was the Unsafe! Unfair! Mandatory Overtime button. On one occasion when she wore
that button, nurse manager Sharon Gothburg told her to remove and Owens complied. This
event occurred in early summer. According to Owens, other employees were told to remove this
button. Owens continued to wear the button publicly, but not in Hospital work areas.
Owens first wore the Know Respect sticker on August 27 when she was working on Wood 6.
During that day, she and fellow nurses Liz DaPina and Michelle McCann were wearing the
stickers and were together at the nurse’s station. Nursing supervisor Deborah Page came to
them and asked them to remove the sticker. Owens told Page the employees had a legal right
to wear the sticker and the two senior nurses respectfully declined to remove the sticker.
DaPina was a new nurse and she removed her sticker. Page continued asking them to remove
the sticker, telling the nurses that the sticker could have a negative meaning. Owens said she
had been wearing it all day without a problem. One patient asked Owens what the sticker said
and Owens responded that it was a “respect button.” No patients complained to her about the
sticker. Page then gave Owens and McCann verbal warnings for not removing the sticker.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
Owens wore the sticker at work on August 31 and no one spoke to her about it though she
had interaction with supervisors during the day. She testified that other employees were also
wearing the Know Respect sticker that day in both patient care and non-patient care areas.
3. Respondent’s evidence relating to the Know Respect sticker.
Lisa Pratt is Vice President of Human Resources for the Hospital. The Hospital has no
written policy with respect to the wearing of stickers or buttons. It does have a dress code
policy, but it does not cover stickers, which the Hospital obviously tolerates as it encouraged its
non-Union employees to wear pro-Hospital stickers during negotiations.
Prior to the 2006 negotiations, the question of the appropriateness of stickers would
occasionally come up. Supervisors would ask Pratt if a particular sticker was appropriate and
her answer would be “it depends” and she would ask to see the sticker in question. As noted
earlier, the Union, through President Bill George, raised the issue in May in both a conversation
and then a written memorandum to Pratt. With respect to her memo to supervisors about
buttons and stickers, there is no distinction made between patient care areas and non-patient
care areas. There is also nothing said about buttons or stickers that would be intimidating to
patients or make them feel uncomfortable. This memo was handed out to supervisors at a
meeting and its contents have been set out earlier in this decision.
Pratt testified that her goal with stickers was to “make certain that our patients and their
families felt safe in their environment and that there was nothing that was going to be
intimidating to them . . .” Essentially then, what was acceptable was simply Pratt’s judgment call.
She then gave her opinion about the stickers discussed in this record. Looking first at the
“Unsafe! Unfair! Mandatory Overtime” button, Pratt testified that she believed that this button
threatened patient safety and care in the Hospital and that it could be intimidating. According to
Pratt the Union did not object to her decision to ban this button. On cross examination, Pratt
admitted she had no memory of ever notifying the Union of this decision. She also testified that
the word “Unsafe!” was what she found objectionable in this button. Other than one call from a
supervisor asking about this button, she did not remember hearing about this button again.
Looking next at the “Who Cares? We Do. Support Safe Hospital Staffing” button, Pratt
testified that she found this button objectionable because of the word “Safe,” because it
“addresses safety and I felt that that was not appropriate in the work place.” She testified that
the only place she saw this button during negotiations was at the bargaining table and she saw
no employees wearing the button in the work place. On cross examination, Pratt testified that a
supervisor named Mary Fitzgerald asked her about this button and she advised that it was
inappropriate for wear in the Hospital. No notice of this decision was given to the Union.
With regard to the “Stop Mandatory Overtime” button, Pratt testified that the only time she
saw this button was at the bargaining table, though the credible evidence suggests that it was
worn by Union employees in the work place. When asked by a supervisor whether the button
was appropriate for wear around patients, Pratt said it was because it “did not speak to safety or
anything that would make the patient uncomfortable, in my opinion.”
The pro-Hospital button, “Together We Stand, Vote Accept MHRI Offer” was prepared
by the Hospital’s public relations staff. Managers were told at meetings that these buttons were
available at the Public Relations Office and in the office of Human Resources. Employees were
told they could get the buttons at these two offices or from their supervisors. There was no
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
restriction placed on where these buttons could be worn.
Pratt testified that she first became aware of the Know Respect sticker about August 25,
three days after the date the Union’s strike notice had been given. Nurse managers Joe
Jackson and Donna Dupuis immediately asked her whether employees could wear this sticker.
In response to Pratt’s request to see the sticker, Dupuis brought her a copy of one late in the
day of August 25. Upon seeing the copy, Pratt decided it was inappropriate to wear in the work
place. She felt this way because “[it] didn’t really speak to anything, it was pretty ambiguous,
who was it, you know, targeted towards? You know, who was it directed at? What did it mean?
What was somebody supposed to interpret it to mean?” For these reasons, Pratt felt the sticker
was objectionable. For some unexplained reason and apparently for the first time, Pratt looked
for support in her opinion and took the sticker to the Hospital’s President and one of the senior
Vice Presidents. She testified that she simply asked them for their opinion of the sticker. Pratt
testified that both Hospital officers agreed with her that it was not appropriate for the same
reasons she gave in her testimony. Again, for an unexplained reason, Pratt took the unusual
step of seeking legal advice from the Hospital’s labor counsel, John Doran. Without detailing his
reasoning, Pratt testified that he agreed with the Hospital’s decision to ban the sticker.
Pratt then gave instructions to her supervisors and managers to tell employees they saw
wearing the sticker to remove it when working in patient care areas. Some supervisors and
managers were given this instruction in individual meetings on or about August 25. The
instructions were given to majority of managers and supervisors on or about August 28, at a
meeting she had with them as a group. She testified that she told the supervisors and managers
that “this was one of the stickers that employees were not allowed to wear because it was
ambiguous, potentially intimidating, threatening to a patient or their family. It didn’t say who the
‘Know Respect’ was for, toward, you know, who it was directed at. It really didn’t say anything, it
was just like ‘Know Respect’ and patients are supposed to feel safe and comfortable, they’re
coming in when they’re vulnerable, they’re coming in to be taken care of and they don’t want to
know that there’s a conflict between staff members, amongst them and their managers,
amongst them and it get taken out on them, the patient. So, you know, who knew what it
meant.” According to Pratt, the supervisors and managers asked whether there was any area
where employees could wear the sticker and she responded, “It really shouldn’t be worn in
patient care areas.” It must be noted that the Hospital has no written definition of what
constitutes a patient care area. Virtually every management witness had a different definition.
As will be seen, Pratt’s view of a patient care area is any area in the Hospital that a patient or
family member might gain access to.
With regard to what is or is not a patient care area, Pratt had a very broad definition of what
is a patient care area. In her opinion, the following are patient care areas, the Hospital lobby,
cafeteria, gift shop, anywhere a patient could conceivably be. The only places she clearly does
not believe are patient care areas are employee break rooms. She also considers to be patient
care areas laboratories where no patients are allowed. Pratt agreed that there is no way an
employee would know what constituted a patient care area unless they just happened upon the
same definition that Pratt had adopted. Similarly, she had no discussion with supervisors
concerning what constitutes a patient care area. Pratt did not consider Barbara Pelletier to be in
a patient care area when she was giving telephone triage. When she left the office where she
was working, Pratt said she entered a patient care area. However, Pratt was given a verbal
warning and notice of an impending written warning over the phone while she was in offices that
Pratt does not consider patient care areas.
After giving her instructions to her supervisors, she soon heard back from Ron Sciamacco
and Donna Dupuis who told her that employees were wearing the sticker and what should they
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
do about it. She advised them to follow the Hospital’s discipline policy, giving them first a verbal
warning and if the employee continued to refuse to remove the sticker, further disciplinary
action. Thereafter formal written discipline was given to Patty Tomkiewicz, Mary Jane Loughlin,
Mary Fernandes, Bill George and Barbara Pelletier. These five documents are the only ones
related to discipline for not removing the Know Respect sticker. Pratt testified that verbal
warnings are not always documented in writing and thus there could be others that she is not
aware of.
Pratt conceded that she instructed Bill George to remove his Know Respect sticker in the
Hospital’s cafeteria in late August. She considers the cafeteria to be a “patient care area” as
patients and their families eat there. At the time she gave George the order to remove his
sticker, Pratt was aware that George’s Nurse Manager Sciamacco had already instructed
George to remove the sticker.
An article in the Pawtucket Times dated August 26, quotes a press release from the
Hospital, as follows:
“The Hospital has consistently been sheltering patients from any instability and anxiety
caused by the ongoing contract dispute with UNAP Local 5082.” “However, union members
began wearing on Friday inflammatory buttons on the job and in front of patients who come to
Memorial…” “Memorial Hospital apologizes to its patients for the undue stress caused by the
Union’s actions and assures patients it will do whatever it can to protect patients from this
unnecessary, disrespectful and unprofessional interference with their care.”
Even though she met with the Hospital’s President on the date before the article was
published, she testified that she had no knowledge that the Hospital was issuing a press release
about the Know Respect sticker. One must remember that Pratt also testified that the Hospital’s
President agreed with her decision to ban the sticker for the same reasons she gave in her
testimony. Certainly from her testimony, there is no showing she found the sticker inflammatory,
just ambiguous.
Pratt testified that television was available to patients as was the Pawtucket Times.
Thus to the extent that patients availed themselves of these two media sources, they could well
have seen one or more of the TV ads placed by the Union and read the newspaper’s continuing
coverage of the ongoing labor dispute and seen the newspaper ads placed by the Union. No
effort was made by the Hospital to censor the television shows patients could watch or their
reading of the Pawtucket Times.
The only patient who allegedly complained about the Know Respect sticker was Donna
Dupuis’ mother in law and that information came from Donna Dupuis. As noted above, that
“complaint” consisted of one or more of Dupuis family members, not patients themselves,
asking what the sticker meant. The Hospital has no written records of any patient complaint
about the sticker. Pratt, in extremely vague testimony, said the gist of the complaint was that
Dupuis’ family did not like the sticker and did not understand it. She could not remember hearing
any other complaint about the sticker from any patient or their family.
Joseph Jackson is a nurse manager at the Hospital. He testified that he first saw the Know
Respect sticker on the clothing of Michele Brennan-Emond in the Catherization Lab. This is a
patient care area where various procedures are performed on patients. Acting on Pratt’s
memorandum regarding stickers and buttons, Jackson called Pratt about the sticker. A few
hours later, Pratt told Jackson to have Brennan-Emond remove the sticker. He also instructed
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
another, unnamed, nurse wearing the sticker in a patient care area to remove it. This nurse
complied with his request, Brennan-Emond respectfully declined. Jackson warned her that not
following his instructions in this regard could lead to discipline being taken against her. Jackson,
however, did not discipline her or any other employee over the refusal to remove the Know
Respect sticker. Jackson did not recall seeing Brennan-Emond wearing the Unsafe! Unfair
Mandatory Overtime button. Jackson denied being asked by higher management to ask
employees whether they would cross a picket line.
Ronald Sciamacco is a nurse manager in the Emergency Room. He first saw the Know
Respect sticker being worn by a few of employees in the ER. Bill George was one of these
employees. He reported his sighting to Pratt who later told him that the sticker was
unacceptable. Following this direction from Pratt, Sciamacco told George and fellow nurse Mary
Fernandes to remove the sticker. They respectfully declined to do so and he warned them that
their refusal would lead to discipline. He thereafter issued written warning to both employees.
Sciamacco testified that he did not think the sticker was appropriate for the ER because patients
there are distraught and did not need to be involved in a dispute between the Union and the
Hospital. “I didn’t want them to have to get in the middle of a Know Respect, whether they
thought that they weren’t being respected, we weren’t being respected or generally just get in
the middle between – that argument…” Sciamacco had never before seen the Unsafe! Unfair!
Mandatory Overtime sticker before this hearing. Sciamacco testified that he sometimes wore the
pro-Hospital button at work as did other employees in the Hospital. Sciamacco did not believe
the Hospital’s cafeteria or the ER break room to be a patient care area. He received no
complaints from patients about the Know Respect sticker nor did any patients ask him what the
sticker meant.
Dupuis testified that she first saw the Know Respect sticker on an employee in late August
and immediately went to Pratt to talk about the sticker. She had been told to report any stickers
or buttons she observed which “showed disrespect for the patient” or indicated “it was unsafe in
the patient care area.” According to Dupuis, Pratt told her to have the employee remove the
sticker. Thereafter, she told employees to remove the stickers, though she could not say how
many she told. The only person she could name that she asked to remove the sticker was
Barbara Pelletier. She admitted that on August 25, she told an employee in the Cancer Center
to remove the sticker and further, that on August 28, she told Barbara Pelletier by telephone to
remove the sticker. Dupuis testified that she had heard from another employee that Pelletier
was wearing the Know Respect sticker. She testified that she had previously asked Pelletier not
to wear the sticker at work. She made a similar telephonic request of Pelletier on August 30.
She also admitted giving Pelletier the written warned described elsewhere. She evidently
disagreed with Pratt’s opinion that when Pelletier was in the office giving telephone triage she
was not in a patient care area as Dupuis testified that patient could go into the office and ask
Pelletier questions. She testified that she had seen patients enter the office, but could not
remember when. Pelletier disagreed with this statement. When Dupuis told Pelletier to remove
the sticker she did not indicate that it would be appropriate to wear it in non-patient areas.
Dupuis testified as to her reasons for believing the Know Respect sticker to be
inappropriate at work, even though she had no input into the decision as to whether it was or
was not appropriate. Had Pratt, and other top management of the Hospital decided it was
appropriate, she would have had to live with the decision. She testified: “I think as part of
Memorial Hospital, we have a mission and the mission of the Hospital is to provide primary care
to provide preventive care, research and education and it’s crucial that part of the mission we
have values at Memorial that supports our mission and part of those values are respect, caring,
innovation, collaboration and excellence in care. And I feel as a clinician that that [the sticker]
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
goes against one of our values and it does a disservice to the patient when they were to look at
that sticker.”
She testified that she received a complaint about the sticker from her mother in law’s two
daughters and Dupuis’ husband. She agree with Brennan-Emond that her mother in law was
unable to communicate with her. According to Dupuis, their complaint amounted to asking what
the Know Respect sticker stood for. According to Dupuis, she gave them no answer. Dupuis
testified that she reported this complaint to Mary Fitzgerald, nurse manager for the Intensive
Care Unit. She did not know if Fitzgerald took any action in response to the information.
She testified that managers, supervisors and non-bargaining unit employees wore the
Hospital generated pro-Hospital button throughout the non-clinician areas of the Hospital. It is
clear from Pratt’s testimony that there was no restriction on where employees could wear the
pro-Hospital button. Dupuis denied wearing one herself. She does not believe it appropriate for
clinicians to wear buttons containing messages of any type. She admitted telling Rita Brennan
to remove the Stop Mandatory Overtime button for this reason. She testified that she did not
notice if Brennan was wearing other buttons or stickers on this occasion. Dupuis believes that
the Hospital’s dress code prohibits the wearing of any buttons or stickers, and in this regard,
only allows ID badges.
I have before in this decision questioned Dupuis’s credibility. She appeared to me to be
defensive in her testimony, and had a selective memory. She appeared to be very much against
the Union. To the extent that her testimony conflicts with any other witnesses testimony, I credit
the other testimony.
4. Analysis and conclusions
a. Did Respondent promulgate, maintain and discriminatorily enforce its rule prohibiting
the wearing of the Know Respect sticker?
The validity of rules regarding union buttons and insignia in the hospital setting depends,
in the first instance, upon whether the restriction is being applied to a patient care or a non-
patient care area of the facility. Rules prohibiting the wearing of union buttons and insignia in
“immediate patient care areas” are presumptively valid, while such rules applied outside of
immediate patient care areas are presumptively invalid. Sacred Heart Medical Center, 347
NLRB No. 48, slip op. at 2 (2006). The presumption in each case can be overcome. For
example, an employer may rebut the presumption that insignia cannot be prohibited outside of
immediate patient care areas by demonstrating that such a rule is “necessary to avoid disruption
of health-care operations or disturbance of patients.” Mesa Vista Hospital, 280 NLRB 298
(1986), quoting Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 507 (1978). Thus, a showing of
“special circumstances,” would allow a hospital to ban the wearing of insignia in non-patient
care areas, as well as in immediate patient care areas. See, e.g., Sacred Heart Medical Center,
supra, and Casa San Miguel, 320 NLRB 534, 540 (1995).
In Mt. Clemens General Hospital, 335 NLRB 48 (2001), the Board affirmed the judge’s
conclusion that the Employer had violated Section 8(a)(1) by instructing employees to remove
buttons worn throughout the hospital that were designed to protest forced overtime. (The
buttons contained the letters FOT with a line through them.) The employer defended its
prohibition by claiming that patients might ask questions about the FOT button that would then
instigate discussions between nurses and patients regarding the hospital’s overtime policies. In
finding the employer’s action unlawful, the judge noted that the rule had been applied across the
board, in non-patient care areas as well as in patient care areas without distinction. In addition,
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
the Board affirmed the judge’s conclusion that, in these circumstances, the presumption of
validity regarding application of the rule to patient care areas had been overcome. There was no
evidence that any patient or family member had complained; there was no evidence that the
FOT button had caused any patient-nurse dialog regarding its meaning; there was no disruption
of patient care associated with nurses wearing this button; and the employer had previously
allowed employees to wear union buttons that could be considered just as “controversial” as this
one was.
In St. Luke’s Hospital, 314 NLRB 434, 435 (1994), the Board considered the fact that
employees were wearing pins and stickers “in an effort to encourage their co-workers to support
the Union’s bargaining position” and rejected the employer’s argument that it could ban the
wearing of buttons that read, “United to Fight for our Health Plan” throughout the hospital
because of the possibility that patients might be upset if they thought the Employer and its
employees were “at odds” with one another. In noting that the record did not support such a
conclusion, the Board stated that “there is no evidence that any patient complained of, or even
noticed, the stickers and buttons at issue in this case.” Id. at 435.
The Board did not spend much time examining the presumptive validity of the hospital’s
decision to prohibit employees wearing buttons that read “RNs Demand Safe Staffing” in patient
care areas in Sacred Heart Medical Center, supra. Noting that “ a reasonable person would
construe the ‘Safe Staffing’ button as a claim that Respondent’s staffing levels are unsafe,” the
Board quickly moved beyond immediate patient care areas and evaluated whether the Hospital
in that case could lawfully extend the ban to other, non-patient care areas. The Board relied
upon NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, 442 U.S. 773, 782-784, (1979), in holding that evidence of
actual disturbance is not required in order to show “special circumstances” that would justify a
prohibition on wearing union insignia outside of immediate patient care areas. Instead, taking
direction from NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, the Board found that, in the facts presented by Sacred
Heart, the “reasoned judgment of health care professionals” was sufficient to establish a
showing of “special circumstances.” Sacred Heart, supra, at 7. The Board noted that the direct
supervisors of nurses who were wearing the “Safe Staffing” buttons “expressed concern over
the impact the button may have on patients. This evidence supports a finding of special
circumstances.”
In Sacred Heart, the Board contrasted its earlier decision in St. Luke’s Hospital, supra,
by emphasizing that, there, “the Board relied not only on the absence of patient complaints, but
also on the innocuous ‘message conveyed by the buttons’ (‘United to Fight for our Health
plan’).” Sacred Heart, slip op. at 7, quoting St. Luke’s Hospital. The Board also noted that its
decision in Mt. Clemens General Hospital, 335 NLRB 48 (2001), was “factually distinguishable”
in at least two respects:
“First, in Mt. Clemens, the button’s message was cryptic, and the respondent’s rationale
for banning it rested on a chain of inferences: that patients would ask what ‘FOT’ meant, and
that nurses would respond with an explanation that disturbed the patients. Here, by contrast, the
“RNs Demand Safe Staffing” button sends a clear message to patients; current staffing levels at
the hospital are unsafe, and medical care is thus being compromised. No inferential leap is
required in order to conclude that a reasonable patient would be disturbed by this message.”
“Second, in Mt. Clemens, even if patients and their families were able to understand the
button’s message, they would have discerned that the union-management dispute concerned
the RN’s own terms and conditions of employment. The complaint was not that ‘forced overtime’
would harm patients. Rather, the complaint was that employees would be forced to do
something that they did not wish to do. Here, by contrast, the message on the ‘Rns Demand
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
Safe Staffing’ button relates directly to issues and patient care and hospital safety. . . [T]he ‘RNs
Demand Safe Staffing’ message speaks primarily to safety and not simply to bargaining over
staffing levels.”
Sacred Heart, slip op. at 8. Thus, the Board did not disturb the holding of either St. Luke’s
Hospital or Mt. Clemens; rather, by comparing and contrasting the cases, it distinguished the
facts and circumstances present in St. Luke’s Hospital and in Mt. Clemens from those present in
Sacred Heart where the employer had a legitimate concern that patients and their families
might, based on the button’s message, worry about the safety of patients.
I believe that the facts in the instant case are much more like those in Mt. Clemens than
those in Sacred Heart. They are also just as easily distinguishable. As with Mt. Clemens, the
message of the Know Respect sticker is cryptic and ambiguous. It does not speak to the safety
of patients or the level of patient care in the Hospital. As was the case in Mt. Clemens, at most
the Know Respect sticker might arouse the curiosity of patients or family members who might
ask its meaning. But in actuality, it did not arouse sufficient curiosity to cause any patient or
family member, save perhaps for one, to inquire as to its meaning. The only alleged complaint
lodged against the button came from the relatives of nurse manager Dupuis who she alleges
simply asked what it meant. She testified that she gave them no answer. To the extent that one
believes this testimony and I have serious doubts about it, it certainly does not rise to the level
of a complaint or even an objection to the wearing of the sticker.
The Know Respect sticker, if it conveys any message at all is that there was a labor-
management dispute taking place. I know of no Board case holding that this message is in itself
sufficient to justify banning a sticker carrying it in the workplace. At the time the Know Respect
sticker was worn, and for a considerable period preceding the wearing, the fact of an ongoing
labor dispute and the Union’s positions were set out in articles and advertisements in the local
newspaper, in advertisements on the local cable television, in leaflets handed out to the public
at a number of places in Pawtucket. Indeed the sticker distributed by the Hospital’s
management and worn throughout the Hospital by non-Union employees at the same time the
Know Respect sticker was being worn, would send the same message.
The Know Respect sticker clearly did not violate the only written policy put out by the
Hospital concerning buttons. Though Pratt’s primary response to the appropriateness of buttons
was the answer “It depends,” she did send a memo to supervisors and managers on this
subject. That memo stated “We need to make certain that our patients and their families feel
safe in our environment. Any button or pin that is worn while on the premises at MHRI,
addressing patient safety must be brought to my attention immediately.” Following the issuance
of this policy, one entirely within the guidelines of Sacred Heart, Pratt found a button reading
“Stop Mandatory Overtime,” to be appropriate. She then found a button reading “Who Cares?
We do. Support Safe Hospital Staffing,” to be inappropriate because it included the word ‘safe.”
She likewise found objectionable a button reading “Mandatory Overtime Unsafe! Unfair!” as in
her opinion it “threatened patient safety and care in the Hospital and it could be intimidating.”
When asked about a button that read, “Be fair to those who Care—United Nurses & Allied
Professionals,” she indicated it was not objectionable because “it doesn’t speak to safety or
anything that would be intimidating to a patient.” It is clear that until the Know Respect sticker
surfaced, Pratt and the Hospital had not found objectionable a button that was merely
ambiguous and did not in any fashion address patient safety or level of care.
As noted in the fact findings set out previously, Pratt acknowledged that the Know
Respect sticker did not address patient safety and in her words, “It doesn’t say much of
anything.” Her biggest fear it seems from her testimony was that it was ambiguous and subject
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
to different interpretations. Yet in the time the button was worn, no questions were asked by
patients or their families, save one, as to its meaning and no one indicated that the button in any
way made them feel unsafe, uncomfortable, or intimidated.
Certainly the Hospital was not trying to shield the patients and their families from the fact
that there was an ongoing labor dispute. As noted the Hospital distributed and encouraged
employees to wear a button saying Vote Accept throughout the Hospital. I believe that the Know
Respect sticker was banned by the hospital as part of its tactics in negotiations or out of
frustration with the negotiations and for no other reason. As noted earlier, the Hospital’s
President issued a press release as soon as the Know Respect sticker began being worn that
stated: “The Hospital has consistently been sheltering patients from instability and anxiety
cause by the ongoing contract dispute with UNAP Local 5082. However, union members began
wearing on Friday inflammatory buttons on the job and in front of patients who come to
Memorial…Memorial Hospital apologizes to its patients for the undue stress caused by the
Union’s actions and assures patients it will do whatever it can to protect patients from this
unnecessary, disrespectful and unprofessional interference with their care.”
Considering the almost total lack of response to the Know Respect sticker by patients or
their families, this press release appears to me to be trying to create an issue around the button
to garner public support for the Hospital’s bargaining positions. It is also patently untrue. The
button is clearly not inflammatory and there was no showing of any stress caused by the button
on the part of any patient or family member. I find that the facts in this case mirror those present
in St. Luke’s Hospital, supra, and in Mt. Clemens General Hospital, supra, where, in each
instance the Board concluded that there was no legitimate basis for the employer’s prohibition of
the union buttons at issue. In each of these cases, the ban was found to be unlawful as to areas
outside of immediate patient care areas as well as within immediate patient care areas. I come
to the same conclusion in the instant case. There was absolutely no showing that the Know
Respect sticker was likely either to “disrupt patient care or disturb patients.” NLRB v. Baptist
Hospital, supra.
With respect to the enforcement of the ban against wearing the Know Respect sticker, it
is clear from a review of the testimony that the Hospital made no distinction between the
wearing of the button in patient care areas and non-patient care areas. Pratt, the person in
charge of enforcing the ban, obviously believes that any part of the hospital where a patient or a
family member might have access is an immediate patient care area. Supervisors and nurse
managers were given no instructions defining what constituted an immediate patient care area
and thus were free to make their own definitions. George and Fernandes were told to remove
the Know Respect sticker in the Hospital cafeteria, clearly not an immediate patient care area.
George and Brennan-Emond were told they could not wear the button in the employee break
room. Pelletier was disciplined for wearing the button in a telephone triage room where she
worked alone. Again, this cannot be considered an immediate patient care area.
Because Respondent’s ban, as promulgated and applied, prohibited employees from
wearing the Know Respect sticker in areas outside of immediate patient care areas, it is
presumptively invalid. Sacred Heart Medical Center, supra. Respondent may rebut the
presumption of invalidity, however, by showing “special circumstances”, i.e., that the restriction
is ‘necessary to avoid disruption of health care operations or disturbance of patients. Id., citing
Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 507 (1978).
The Board has declined to treat “areas that may be accessible to patients” in the same
manner as “immediate patient care areas.” Brockton Hospital, 333 NLRB 1367 (2001).
Therefore, Respondent must demonstrate evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
its prohibition of the Know Respect sticker at any location outside of “immediate patient care
areas” is invalid. Respondent has failed to produce any credible evidence in support of “special
circumstances” and therefore, its rule is overly broad and unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Because the rule regarding the Know Respect sticker was overly broad, it cannot be
relied upon for any purpose. Thus the rule could not be used in support of management’s
direction to remove the Know Respect sticker in any area of the Hospital, including immediate
patient care areas.
“The Board has consistently held that when an employer promulgates and maintains
overly broad no-solicitation and no-distribution rules, those rules are invalid for all purposes and
not valid in part as they apply to a given area. The Times Publishing Company, 231 NLRB 207,
208 (1977). Consequently, while the solicitation for which the employee is disciplined may occur
in an area in which such solicitation may be proscribed lawfully, if such disciplinary measures
are imposed pursuant to an overly broad rule, the discipline ‘is itself unlawful.” A.T. & S.F.
Memorial Hospitals, Inc., 234 NLRB 436 (1978).
London Memorial Hospital, 238 NLRB 704, 708 (1978). See also, Mesa Vista Hospital, 280
NLRB 298 (1986) and Presbyterian/St. Luke’s Medical Center, 258 NLRB 93, 99 (1981).
Although not all of the staff nurses were disciplined for their violation of the
Respondent’s ban prohibiting the wearing of the Know Respect sticker, “formal disciplinary
action is not a prerequisite to finding that an overly broad rule has been unlawfully enforced. . .
[E]nforcement of an invalid rule violates the Act even where the enforcement consists of merely
instructing an employee to cease engaging in union activity.” Saint Vincent’ Hospital, 265 NLRB
38, 42 (1982). Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s enforcement of its ban during the period
August 25 through August 30, 2006, violates the Act. Specifically I find to be unlawful the threat
of discipline to Michele Brennan-Emond on August 30, 2006; the verbal warnings issued to Rita
Owens and Michele McCann on August 27, 2006; the verbal warning issued to Rita Brennan,
Bill George, Mary Fernandes and Barbara Pelletier on August 28, 2006; to Patty Tomkiewicz
and Mary Jane Loughlin on August 29, 2006; the verbal warning issued to Michele Brennan-
Emond on August 30, 2006; and the written warnings issued to Bill George, Mary Fernandes
and Barbara Pelletier on August 30, 2006.
I further find from the evidence that the purpose of the ban and the discipline issued for
violating the ban was not founded in any concern for patients feeling, but rather, from
management frustration over the progress of contract negotiations and was an attempt to
punish the Union. The Hospital had allowed similarly innocuous buttons to be worn in the past
and even in the case of buttons it found objectionable because they questioned patient safety,
no immediate discipline flowed from the wearing of the those buttons. Here there was an
immediate and orchestrated issuance of substantial discipline, the most severe of which
appears to have been directed at the Union’s leadership. It is telling that the Hospital engaged in
this issuance of discipline for wearing the Know Respect sticker at the same time it was
encouraging employees to wear its button throughout the hospital.
In Holladay Park Hospital, 262 NLRB 278 (1982), where the parties were also embroiled
in contract negotiations, the Board found that the employer:
“enforced its dress code in a discriminatory manner by prohibiting only the wearing of a
particular union insignia. We note that employees had been permitted to wear objects on their
uniforms … and we find it irrelevant that Respondent also permitted the employees to wear
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
another union insignia which it deemed more ‘professional.’ … Moreover, we note that there is
no evidence that the wearing of these yellow ribbons actually interfered in any way with patient
care. Therefore, we conclude that Respondent’s prohibition of the yellow ribbons was
implemented not because of any legitimate concern for the health and welfare of its patients, but
rather to thwart it employees’ concerted activities in support of the Union’s collective-bargaining
position.
Id.,at 279. As in Holloday Park Hospital, there is no evidence that patients complained or that
there was any disruption of patient care as of the result of wearing the Know Respect sticker.
See also, Fairfax Hospital, 310 NLRB 299, 307-308 (1993). I find that the promulgation of the
ban against wearing the Know Respect sticker and the discipline issued to employees for
wearing the button were motivated at least in part by union animus and thus a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
b. Did Respondent violate the Act by its interrogation of employees concerning whether
they would cross a picket line?
In Preterm, Inc., 240 NLRB 654 (1979), the Board outlined the rule that applies when a
strike appears imminent at a health care institution. The Board agreed with the administrative
law judge’s conclusion that, “once an employer receives a 10-day notice and a strike therefore
appears imminent, [it] may properly attempt to determine the need for replacements by asking
employees if they intend to strike.” Id, at 656. But the Board went on to explain that the
“safeguards outlined in Johnnie’s Poultry Co., [146 NLRB 770 (1964)] and Struksnes
Construction Co., Inc., [165 NLRB 1062 (1967)] should regulate the manner in which such
interrogation is conducted.” Id. Thus:
“In order to lessen the inherently coercive effect of the polling of its employees,
Respondent had an obligation to explain fully the purpose of the questioning, to assure the
employees that no reprisals would be taken against them as a result of their response, and to
refrain from otherwise creating a coercive atmosphere. By the failure of its representatives to
comply with these requirements in questioning a number of employees, Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right to engage in protected
concerted activity. In contrast, however, Respondent’s memorandum … satisfied these
requirements in full. That memorandum explained the purpose of the questionnaire in a clear
manner, informed the employees that they were free to make their own decision, and assured
them that no reprisals would be taken against them because of their decision on whether or not
to strike. Hence, in distributing its memorandum and questionnaire, Respondent did not exceed
its right to determine the strike intentions of its employees.”
Id. See also, Continental Manor Nursing Home, 233 NLRB 665, 676 (1977).
Under the facts present in this case, a 10-day strike notice had not been issued when
supervisors began to question employees about their strike intentions. Assuming that the
questioning was still permissible even before the Employer had received a strike notice, the
interrogations took place without any explanation for why the Hospital needed to know the
employees’ plans. Moreover, in each case, the supervisor failed to provide any assurance that
employees would be shielded from reprisals regardless of how they responded to the question
of whether or not they intended to cross the picket line in the event of a strike.
Respondent’s witnesses testified that supervisors and managers had not been instructed
to ask bargaining unit employees if they would cross the picket line in the event of a strike.
However, even if true, this is beside the point. Respondent bears responsibility for the words
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
and actions of its supervisors and managers. Thus, the issue is simply whether Respondent’s
supervisors or managers engaged in unlawful interrogation of employees. Respondent did not
present Cathy Smith to testify regarding the interrogation of Larivierre on two separate
occasions and therefore, Lariviere’s testimony stands unchallenged and is credited. With
respect to the alleged similar interrogation of employees Lebeau, Fisher and Owens by nurse
manager Dupuis, I credit the testimony of the employees over that of Dupuis. The testimony of
the three employees was clear, concise and consistent. None of these employees had any
reason to fabricate the episode and Lebeau testified credibly that the exchange with Dupuis was
so unsettling that she decided to raise the matter with the Union. Dupuis testimony, on the other
hand, was vague, contradictory and self-serving. Her testimony did not sound credible when I
heard it at the hearing and that feeling did not change upon reading the testimony when
preparing this decision.
Therefore, I find that Respondent’s questioning of Lariviere, Lebeau, Fisher and Owens
concerning their strike intentions occurred in the absence of any of the safeguards required by
Preterm, Inc. supra, was inherently coercive in the circumstances surrounding the questioning,
and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2)(6) and (7) of the Act and a health care provider
within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
2. United Nurses & Allied Professionals, Local 5082 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating
employees concerning their willingness to cross a picket line without giving
the employees the assurances and safeguards required by the Act.
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) by orally promulgating, maintaining
and enforcing an overly broad rule prohibiting its employees from wearing
the Know Respect sticker in the Hospital.
5. Respondent has violated Section 8)a)(1) and (3) by discriminatorily
threatening to discipline employees and disciplining employees for violations
of its unlawful rule prohibiting employees from wearing the Know Respect
sticker in the Hospital.
6. The unfair labor practices described above affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
JD–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, Respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from questioning
employees regarding their intentions with regard to crossing the picket line in the event of a
strike, unless employees are provided with the assurances and safeguards required under the
Act. Further, Respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from promulgating,
maintaining, or enforcing overly broad rules regarding the wearing of union insignia, buttons or
stickers at the Hospital. Respondent should be ordered to cease and desist from promulgating,
maintaining or enforcing discriminatory rules prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia,
buttons or stickers in patient care areas of the Hospital when the insignia, buttons or stickers
would not be inherently disturbing to patients or disruptive of patient care. Respondent should
be ordered to cease and desist from threatening to discipline or disciplining employees pursuant
to overly broad or discriminatory rules governing the wearing of union insignia, buttons or
stickers.
Moreover, Respondent should be ordered to expunge and delete from its personnel
records any reference to the oral and/or written warnings issued to Rita Brennan; Michele
Brennan-Emond; Mary Fernandes; William George; Mary Jane Loughlin; Michele McCann; Rita
Owens; Barbara Pelletier; Patty Tomkiewicz, and to any other employees who were disciplined
for wearing the Know Respect sticker at the Hospital during August 2006 and to notify these
employees in writing that it has done so and that such discipline will not be used against them in
any way.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
a. Promulgating, maintaining or enforcing overly broad rules regarding the
wearing of union insignia, buttons or stickers at the Hospital
b. Promulgating, maintaining or enforcing discriminatory rules prohibiting
employees from wearing union insignia, buttons or stickers in patient care
areas of the Hospital when the insignia, buttons or stickers in question would
not be inherently disturbing to patients or disruptive of patient care.
c. Threatening to discipline employees or disciplining employees pursuant to

6 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–49-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
28
overly broad or discriminatory rules governing the wearing of union insignia,
buttons or stickers at the Hospital.
d. Questioning employees regarding their intentions with regard to crossing the
picket line in the event of a strike unless employees are provided with the
assurances and safeguards required by the Act.
e. In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
a. Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, expunge and delete from
its files any reference to the unlawful oral and/or written warnings issued to
Rita Brennan; Michele Brennan-Emond; Mary Fernandes; William George;
Mary Jane Loughlin; Michele McCann; Rita Owens; Barbara Pelletier; Patty
Tomkiewicz, and to any other employees who were disciplined for wearing
the Know Respect sticker at the Hospital during August 2006 and within 3
days thereafter, notify these employees in writing that it has done so and that
such discipline will not be used against them in any way.
b. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Pawtucket,
Rhode Island, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region One, 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. 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 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 August 15, 2006.
c. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 20, 2007
____________________
Wallace H. Nations
Administrative Law Judge

7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD–49--07
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 promulgate, maintain or enforce overly broad rules regarding the wearing of
union insignia, buttons or stickers.
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain or enforce discriminatory rules prohibiting employees from
wearing union insignia, buttons or stickers in patient care areas of the Hospital when the
insignia, buttons or stickers in question would not be inherently disturbing to patients or
disruptive of patient care.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discipline employees or discipline employees pursuant to overly
broad or discriminatory rules governing the wearing of union insignia, buttons or stickers at the
Hospital.
WE WILL NOT question employees regarding their intentions with regard to crossing the picket
line in the event of a strike unless we provide employees with the assurances and safeguards
required by the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, expunge and delete from our files any reference
to the unlawful oral and/or written warnings issued to Rita Brennan; Michele McCann; Mary
Fernandes; William George; Mary Jane Loughlin; Michele Brennan-Emond; Rita Owens;
Barbara Pelletier; Patty Tomkiewicz; and to any other employees who were disciplined for
wearing the Know Respect sticker at the Hospital during August 2006, and within 3 days
thereafter, WE WILL notify these employees in writing that this has been done and that such
discipline will not be used against them in any way.
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF RHODE ISLAND
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD–49--07
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.
10 Causeway Street, Boston Federal Building, 6th Floor, Room 601
Boston, Massachusetts 02222–1072
Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
617-565-6700.
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, 617-565-6701.