Richmond of New Jersey, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 820 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richmond of New Jersey, Inc., Campus Housekeep-
ing, Inc., Richmond Sanitation Counselors, Inc.
and Local 1199 , Drug and Hospital Employees
Union, Retail , Wholesale and Department Store
Union , AFL-CIO, Charging Party and Local 690,
Amalgamated Workers Union of America, Party
to the Contract
Local 609 , Amalgamated Workers Union of America
and Local 1199 , Drug and Hospital Employees
Union , Retail , Wholesale and Department Store
Union , AFL-CIO, Charging Party and Richmond
of New Jersey, Inc., Campus Housekeeping, Inc.,
Richmond Sanitation Counselors , Inc., Party to the
Contract. Cases 22-CA-3 100 and 22-CB-1 193
December 11, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On September 11, 1967, Trial Examiner Samuel
M. Singer issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent, Richmond of
New Jersey, Inc., filed exceptions to the Decision
and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts, the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDu
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Nt anal Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and orders that Respondent,
Richmond of New Jersey, Inc., Staten Island, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
and Respondent, Local 690, Amalgamated Wor-
kers Union of America, Elmhurst, New York, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as so modified.2
1. Substitute the following for the first sentence
of paragraph A,2,(c), of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
"(c) Post at its place of business in Englewood,
New Jersey , and at all places where notices to its
employees are customarily posted (including En-
glewood Hospital), copies of the attached notice, in
both English and Spanish , marked `Appendix
A.,
2. Substitute the following for the first sentence
of paragraph B,2,(b), of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order:
"(b) Post in conspicuous places at its business
offices, hiring hall, and all places where notices to
members are customarily posted, copies of the at-
tached notice , in both English and Spanish , marked
`Appendix B.' ..."
I Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our
opinion, the record, including the exceptions and brief, adequately
presents the issues and positions of the parties.
2 The telephone number for Region 22, given at the bottom of Appendix
A and B attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, should read:
645-3088.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SAMUEL M. SINGER, Trial Examiner: Upon charges
filed by the Charging Party, the General Counsel on June
13, 1967, issued `a complaint against Respondents. In
general, the complaint (as amended at the hearing) alleges
that Richmond of New Jersey, Inc. (herein called
"Richmond" or the Company) I and Local 690, Amalga-
mated Workers Union of America (herein called Local
690 or the Union) executed, maintained, and enforced a
contract (with union-security and checkoff provisions)
providing for recognition of Local 690 as the exclusive
bargaining representative of Richmond's unit employees,
although at the time the contract was executed Local 690
did not represent an uncoerced majority of these em-
ployees; and that Richmond thereby violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and Local 690 violated Section 8(b)(1)
and (2) of the Act. Respondents denied commission of the
unfair labor practices and challenged the Board's jurisdic-
tion.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in
Newark, New Jersey, on July 10 and 11, 1967. All
parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.
Briefs were received from General Counsel, Richmond,
and the Charging Party.
Upon the entire record in the case, and my observation
of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY; JURISDICTIONAL
ISSUE
A. The Facts
Richmond, a New Jersey corporation with principal of-
fice in Staten Island, New York, °ngaged in the busi-
ness of furnishing cleaning, sanitation, and related serv-
I At the hearing I granted Respondents' unopposed motion to dish"ss
the complaint insofar as directed against Respondents Campus
Housekeeping , Inc., and Richmond Sanitation Counselors, Inc.
168 NLRB No. 117
RICHMOND OF NEW JERSEY 821
ices. During the past 12 months, a representative period,
the Company provided and performed services valued in
excess of $50,000 at locations in States other than New
York. The services here involved were furnished by the
Company to the Englewood Hospital in Englewood, New
Jersey (herein called the Hospital).
At the hearing, Richmond conceded that it meets the
Board's minimum monetary jurisdictional standards.
Richmond and Local 690 contend that the Board should
not assert jurisdiction here because the Company's
operations at the Hospital are incidental and intimately
related to operations of the Hospital, a nonprofit institu-
tion not an "employer" under Section 2(2) of the Act.
The relevant evidence on this point is essentially uncon'
tradicted.
The Hospital maintains over 400 beds for in-patients,
a clinic for out-patients, and a school of nursing. Prior to
March 1962 the Hospital performed all of its housekeep-
ing and sanitation work with its own employees under the
direction of an executive housekeeper. Hospital porters
and orderlies performed such work as cleaning and wax-
ing floors and " maintaining nursing equipment, while
nurses' aides did maid work (such as changing beds and
handling linens), cleaned patient areas and furniture (e.g.,
bedrooms, tables), and prepared rooms' for patients after
checkouts. Dissatisfied with this type of housekeeping
operations because of frequent personnel turnovers and
being desirous' of freeing nursing personnel for profes-
sional duties, the Hospital decided to contract out the
housekeeping functions.
In or about March 1962 the Hospital contracted out
some of the housekeeping chores to Eastern Maintenance
Corporation. On July 29, 1965, it contracted out those
and additional housekeeping work to Richmond. The
contract has from time to time been modified to augment
services to be rendered by Richmond, most recently
(April 20, 1967), the school of nursing.
Under its contract with the Hospital, Richmond
furnishes a "positive program of housekeeping with
adequate, trained supervision." It-provides, at a fixed
cost, specified housekeeping services and all necessary
equipment and supplies (excepting some paper products,
soaps, and deodorants) to carry out those functions. The
contract contains detailed specifications as to the services
to be rendered and provides for inspections by the
Hospital to check on Richmond's performance.
Richmond hires its own employees; sets their rates of
pay, lunch periods, vacations, hours of work, and rest
periods; provides its own workmen's compensation and
pension program; withholds income tax and social securi-
ty; and supplies uniforms worn by its employees.
Richmond's approximately 7Q employees are super-
vised by its own 7 supervisory staff, including a manager
"in' charge of the whole operation," an executive
housekeeper, an assistant housekeeper, two building su-
pervisors, and supervisors over maids and operating
room. These company representatives assign the
Richmond employees' tasks, oversee their performance,
provide them with appropriate materials, and train and in-
struct them on cleaning techniques. At times, especially
in emergencies (as "where a patient had an accident"),
the nurse on the spot may direct a Richmond employee to
clean up, Richmond employees being under instruction to
"do it and then question" the nurse's right to call for such
work. Such "emergencies" frequently occur in areas like
the emergency and operating rooms. Although hospital
personnel may occasionally voice complaints about work
,performance directly to employees, such complaints are
normally channeled to employees through Richmond su-
pervisors.
Richmond's manager is answerable for Richmond's
performance to the hospital's assistant administrator.
Hospital personnel (including the infection committee)
periodically meet with Richmond supervisors to review
cleaning procedures and to devise improvements in
techniques and materials, particularly those to be used in
areas such as the operating and isolation rooms where
danger of communication of disease is great.
The great bulk of Richmond's employees are maids as-
signed to various hospital floors. They dust, clean, and
disinfect rooms of patients, beds, and tables, and remove
trash; and change linen and make up patients' beds, but
only after checkouts or when patients are out of the
rooms.2 In the school of nursing they handle and dis-
tribute student uniforms as well as clean all areas includ-
ing lounges. In areas such as the isolation ward they wear
special gowns and, if necessary, masks. Richmond's other
main category of employees, porters, do general cleaning
in and about patient and public areas, and move equip-
ment. Some areas, such as the operating room, require
special attention, including preparing before patient and
surgeon enter, "as near sterile an area as you can possibly
have," by cleaning and scrubbing floors, walls, lights,
cabinets, rolling equipment, etc., to make them germ free;
and removing, after operations, soiled linen, waste
material, and equipment. The film on the "conductive"
flooring of the operating and emergency rooms is periodi-
cally removed to eliminate "static electricity." Special
care and handling is required in some areas (e.g., au-
toclave, laboratory, and X-ray rooms) because of the sen-
sitive or costly equipment or because of the nature of the
patients therein (e.g., psychiatric, pediatric, and cardiac
wards). However, as Richmond manager, Soifer, con-
ceded, "boiling all this down ... the function of the em-
ployees who work under [him] in the housekeeping de-
partment is to clean" although "variety of cleaning opera-
tions, some more difficult, some more complex" are in-
volved. Richmond president, Friedman, likewise ad-
mitted that his employees "are essentially doing cleaning
work" and no more. Both admitted that the housekeeping
employees have no direct contact with-patients, Soifer
acknowledging that, unlike hospital staff such as nursing
aides, "in no instances" do they have "any physical con-
tact with the patients" and, indeed, that such contact on
their part "would be improper."
B. Conclusions
There is no question that the Hospital itself, as a non-
profit institution, is excluded from the Board's jurisdic-
tion under Section 2(2) of the Act. In issue, as Richmond
recognizes, is whether the Board should here apply its
policy of declining to assert jurisdiction over it, an em-
ployer not exempt under Section 2(2), because its ser-
vices are "incidental to and intimately connected with"
the operations of the Hospital. Cf. Horn & Hardart Com-
pany, 154 NLRB 1368, 1370. See also Bay Ran Main-
2 Nursing personnel perform these chores when patients are in the
room, except for rare emergencies.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tenance Corporation of New York, 161 NLRB 820.
On the basis of the whole record, I reject Richmond's
contention that its services to the Hospital are so in-
tegrated and interwoven with the purposes and opera-
tions of the Hospital as to warrant the Board's withhold-
ing of jurisdiction over Richmond's operations. In
reaching this conclusion I rely particularly on the follow-
ing: the nature of the work performed by Richmond's em-
ployees, which is essentially nothing more than cleaning
and housekeeping; its complete control, through its own
supervisory staff, over the employees' day-to-day per-
formance and work assignments; its absolute control over
labor relations policies affecting the housekeeping em-
ployees, including hire and fire, discipline, wages, and
benefits, and other working conditions; the lack of any
significant contact between housekeeping employees and
hospital patients; and the absence of any direct relation-
ship between such housekeeping and patient care. The
fact that Richmond's operations are necessary and essen-
tial to the functioning of the Hospital, that they add to the
comfort and convenience of patients, and that some of the
operations are subject to review and approval of the
Hospital, does not dictate a different result. Cf. Herbert
Harvey, Inc., 159 NLRB 254. Richmond's housekeeping
activities are not so intimately tied to and associated with
the basic purposes and professional objectives of the
Hospital that assertion of jurisdiction over Richmond's
activities would be at odds with any policy against assert-
ing jurisdiction over the Hospital itself. In the circum-
stances of this case, nonassertion of jurisdiction over
Richmond's activities would unjustifiably deprive
Richmond's 70 employees of the organizational privileges
of the Act.
Contrary to its contention, Richmond's housekeeping
work is not as "incidental to and intimately connected
with the patient care and medical education purposes of
the Hospital" (Horn & Hardart, supra, 154 NLRB at
1370), as the directly integrated patient-feeding services
of the contractor in Horn & Hardart or the blood-supply
services of the contractor in Inter-County Blood Banks,
Inc., 165 NLRB 252, 65 LRRM 1302. Although some of
the elements in Horn & Hardart on which Respondent
most heavily relies (e.g., standards of operation fixed by
the hospital, and discipline and other labor relations mat-
ters left primarily in contractor's hands), are present here,
there are significant distinctions between the two cases -
among them the fact that the hospital dietitian and staff in
Horn & Hardart retained direct and complete control
over planning and preparation of food and over the time
and manner of serving meals - activities intimately as-
sociated with essential hospital services to patients. The
instant case is more like Bay Ran Maintenance, supra,
which similarly involved the furnishing of cleaning ser-
vices, activities severable and remote from the hospital's
exempt activities, and at best having only an indirect rela-
tionship with patients. In deciding to exercise jurisdiction
over the housekeeping operations in Bay Ran, the Board
stated, "In view of the nature of the work performed by
the Employer's cleaning crews at the Hospital as well as
the complete control which the Employer itself maintains
over their day-to-day performance and their working con-
ditions, subject only to termination of its contract if the
3 The findings in this section are based almost entirely on documentary
evidence and on the essentially uncontradicted, credible testimony of Pri-
ore. Friedman's testimony is in large part consistent with that of Pnore.
4 An employer signing such agreement with a minority union violates
functions are not performed to the satisfaction of the
Hospital, we find that the maintenance and service activi-
ties of the Employer at the Hospital are not so intimately
interrelated with the operations or purposes of the
Hospital as to warrant withholding our exercise of statu-
tory jurisdiction." See also Herbert Harvey, Inc., supra.
I conclude that the Board has and should exercise ju-
risdiction over Richmond's operations at the Hospital.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 690 and Local 1199 are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES-THE 8(a)(2) AND (1)
VIOLATION
A. The Facts
In the fall of 1966, Local 690's president, Priore, ap-
proached Richmond's president, Friedman, and said, "I
represent your people and I am demanding a contract."
Asserting that he was "not looking for no problem,"
Friedman agreed to sign a contract. Although Priore
"threw" some "authorization cards" on Friedman's desk,
the cards were not those of Richmond employees, and, in
any event, Friedman "didn't pay attention" to them. Pri-
ore did not obtain any authorization cards from
Richmond employees until February or March.
On January 16, Richmond signed a contract in the form
presented to it by the Union. The contract provided for
recognition of Local 690 as exclusive representative of
Richmond's employees at the Hospital contained a
clause requiring membership in the Union after 30 days
of employment, and stipulated for checkoffs of dues on
written authorizations from employees. The contract also
provided for hiring through the Union if the Union could
supply requested help within 48 hours.
On April 30, Richmond began to deduct the Union's
$4 monthly dues from employees' salaries pursuant to
authorizations signed on and after March 30. The
Union's $15 initiation fees were waived for employees
working for Richmond at the time the agreement was put
into effect. None of the employees were members of the
Union prior to execution of the agreement.3
B. Conclusions
The law is settled that , where, as here , an employer ex-
ecutes an agreement with a union , not the uncoerced
majority representative of his employees , grants such
union a union-security clause requiring union member-
ship as a condition of employment , and agrees to deduct
and deducts dues in favor of such union pursuant to the
agreement, he interferes with his employees ' self-or-
ganizational rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1), assists
the union in violation of Section 8(a)(2), and discriminates
in regard to the hire and tenure of employment in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.4 Similarly, the union, as
party to such contract, violates Section 8 (b)(1)(A) and (2)
of the Act. See N.L.R.B. v. Revere Metal Art Co ., Inc.,
and Amalgamated Union Local 5, UAW, Independent,
the Act even if it in good faith believes that the union represented a
majority of its employees. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union
[Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corp.] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731.
RICHMOND OF NEW JERSEY
280 F.2d 96, 100 (C.A. 2); Paul M. O'Neill International
Detective Agency, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 280 F.2d 936, 946
(C.A. 3); Salmirs Oil Company, 139 NLRB 25. Indeed,
Richmond in its brief expressly states that it does "not
contest" the substantive violations alleged in the com-
plaint, limiting itself in this proceeding "to the issue of
whether the Board should assert jurisdiction under Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act."5
It is accordingly concluded that, as alleged in the com-
plaint, Respondent Richmond violated Section 8(a)(1),
(2), and (3) and Local 690 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Assertion of jurisdiction in this proceeding is proper
and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
3. By executing a contract in which Richmond recog-
nized Local 690 as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the Company's employees, by including in that
contract a clause requiring employees to become mem-
bers of the Union, by requiring employees to pay dues
and initiation fees to the Union, and by deducting such
moneys pursuant to such contract - all at a time when
Local 690 did not represent an uncoerced majority of
Richmond's employees -Richmond has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3) and Local 690 has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents Richmond and Local
690 have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend the customary cease-and-desist order and affirma-
tive relief conventionally ordered in cases of this nature.
Such affirmative relief will include a requirement that
Richmond withdraw and withhold recognition from Local
690 as the representative of its employees at the En-
glewood Hospital, unless and until the Board shall certify
it as such representative; that Richmond and Local 690
cease maintaining or giving effect to their current (Janua-
ry 16, 1967), collective-bargaining agreement, and to any
modification, extension, renewal, or supplement thereto;
and that they cease giving effect to the checkoff cards
signed by Richmond's employees in favor of Local 690.
Under all the circumstances disclosed by this record, I
find that the dues and initiation fees (if any) were paid
under coercion and that a reimbursement order is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. I will therefore
further recommend that both Respondents be required
jointly and severally to reimburse affected present and
former employees of Richmond for all dues, initiation
fees, and other moneys paid by them to Local 690
5 In addition to the acts of assistance found herein, the complaint al-
leges that Richmond assisted Local 690 by distributing among its em-
ployees membership application and dues-checkoff cards and by threaten-
ing employees with reprisals unless they joined that Union. At the hear-
ing, General Counsel having failed to establish such violations, these al-
legations were dismissed without objection.
823
pursuant to the agreement or the checkoff authorizations
executed by said employees in favor of Local 690.6
Reimbursement of these moneys shall bear interest in
accordance with the formula set forth in Seafarers
International Union of North America, Great Lakes
District, AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB 1142.
Because of the nature of the unfair labor practices en-
gaged in by Respondents , I deem it necessary to recom-
mend that they be required to cease and desist from in-
fringing in any manner on employee rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record , and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the fol-
lowing:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A. Respondent Richmond of New Jersey, Inc., Staten
Island, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing Respondent Local 690, Amalgamated
Workers Union of America, as the representative of any
of its employees at the Englewood Hospital for the pur-
poses of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other terms or conditions of employment, unless and until
said labor organization shall have been certified as such
representative by the Board.
(b) Maintaining or giving effect to the current (January
16, 1967), collective-bargaining agreement with said
labor organization, and to any extension, renewal, or
modification thereof, provided, however, that nothing
therein shall require the Company to vary or abandon any
wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive feature hereto-
fore established affecting its employees, or otherwise to
prejudice any existing rights of employees.
(c) Giving effect to any checkoff cards heretofore
authorized by employees authorizing deductions from
wages in favor of the above-named labor organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the above-named Union or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from Respond-
ent Local 690, or any successor thereto, as the represent-
6 See N.L.R .B. v. Revere Metal Art Co ., supra, 280 F.2d at 100-101
(C.A. 2); Paul M. O 'Neill, supra, 280 F.2d at 947-949; N.L.R.B. v. Local
294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Grand Union Co.), 279
F.2d 83, 87-88 (C.A. 2); N.L R.B. v. Cadillac Wire Corp., 290 F.2d 261,
263 (C.A. 2).
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it
concerning grievances , labor disputes , wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment , unless and until said labor organization has been
certified as such representative by the Board.
(b) Jointly with Respondent Local 690, as well as
severally, reimburse all employees and former em-
ployees, for all dues, initiation fees, and other moneys
paid to said labor organization, by reason of enforcement
of the January 16, 1967, collective-bargaining agreement
with said labor organization, or checkoff authorizations
executed by employees in favor of said labor organiza-
tion.
(c) Post at its place of business in Englewood, New
Jersey, and at all places where notices to its employees
are customarily posted (including Englewood Hospital),
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."7
Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by
said Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, in con-
spicuous places, and be maintained by it for at least
60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by said Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth in (c) above, as soon as forwarded by
said Regional Director, copies of , Respondent Local
690's notice herein marked "Appendix B."
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.8
B. Respondent Local 690, Amalgamated Workers
Union of America , its officers , agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as or claiming to be the collective-bargain-
ing representative of any of the employees of Richmond
of New Jersey, Inc., at Englewood Hospital, unless and
until the Board shall certify it as such representative.
(b) Maintaining or giving effect to its current (January
16, 1967), agreement with the above-named Company,
and to any extension , renewal , modification , or supple-
ment thereto.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to engage in or
refrain from engaging in any or all of the activities guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly with Respondent Richmond, as well as
separately, reimburse all employees and former em-
ployees of the Company for all initiation fees, dues, and
other moneys unlawfully exacted from them pursuant to
its January 16, 1967, agreement with said Company, or
checkoff authorizations executed by them.
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices,
hiring hall , and all places where notices to members are
customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."9 Copies of said notice on forms to be pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being
duly signed by the official representative of said Respond-
ent, shall be posted by said Respondent immediately
upon their receipt , and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by said Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth in (b) above , and as soon as they are for-
warded by the Regional Director, copies of Respondent
Company's notice herein marked "Appendix A."
(d) Deliver to the Regional Director signed copies of
Appendix B for posting by Respondent Company.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith. to
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith "
9 See In 7, supra.
"See fn 8, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition
from Local 690, Amalgamated Workers Union of
America, as collective-bargaining representative of
any of our employees, unless or until our employees
in an election conducted by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board select that Union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the January 16, 1967,
collective-bargaining agreement signed by us with
the above-named labor organization, or to any
modification, extension, renewal, or supplement
thereto, or to any checkoff in favor of the above-
named labor organization.
WE WILL reimburse to present and former em-
ployees all dues and initiation fees withheld from
their wages pursuant to the above agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist the above-named Union
or any other labor organization, to bargain collective-
ly through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
RICHMOND OF NEW JERSEY
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the
above-named or any other labor organization.
RICHMOND OF NEW JERSEY,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 614 National
Newark Building, 744 Broad Street , Newark , New Jer-
sey 07102, Telephone 645-2100.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 690, AMALGA-
MATED WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA AND TO THE
EMPLOYEES OF RICHMOND OF NEW JERSEY, INC.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT act as or claim to be the collective-
bargaining representative of any of the employees of
Richmond of New Jersey, Inc., at Englewood
Hospital , Englewood , New Jersey , unless and until
such employees select us as such representative in an
825
election conducted by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the January 16, 1967,
collective-bargaining agreement with the above-
named Company, and to any modification , exten-
sion, renewal , or supplement thereto.
WE WILL reimburse all employees and former em-
ployees of the above-named Company for all dues
and initiation fees we have received pursuant to the
aforementioned agreement with the Company or
checkoff authorizations they have executed in our
favor.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to en-
gage in or refrain from engaging in any or all of the
self-organizational rights guaranteed in the National
Labor Relations Act.
Dated By
LOCAL 690, AMALGAMATED
WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 614 National
Newark Building , 744 Broad Street , Newark, New Jer-
sey 07102 , Telephone 645-2100.