Rose Arbor Manor

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 795 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

ROSE ARBOR MANOR
Rose Arbor Manor, a Division of Geriatrics, Inc. and
Professional and Health Care Employees Division,
Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 7. Case 27 CA
5904
June 5, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELI.O
Pursuant to charges filed by Professional and
Health Care Employees Division, Retail Clerks
Union, Local No. 7, herein called the Union, on July
18, 1978, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region
27, issued a complaint against Rose Arbor Manor, a
Division of Geriatrics, Inc., hereinafter referred to as
Respondent, on September 15, 1978. The complaint
alleges that since on or about June 20, 1978, Respon-
dent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Respondent filed an answer denying the
commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation of
facts and jointly petitioned the Board to transfer this
proceeding directly to the Board for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and an order. The parties stipu-
lated that they waived a hearing before, and the mak-
ing of findings of fact and conclusions of law by, an
administrative law judge and the issuance of an ad-
ministrative law judge's decision, and that no oral tes-
timony was necessary or desired by any of the parties.
The parties also agreed that the charges, complaint,
answer, and the stipulation of facts constitute the en-
tire record in this case. On February 6. 1979, the
Board approved the stipulation of facts and set a date
for the parties to file their briefs. Thereafter, the Gen-
eral Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respondent
filed briefs in support of their positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record herein,
as stipulated by the parties, as well as their briefs, and
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENI
The Employer, Rose Arbor Manor, a Division of
Geriatrics, Inc., is, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under and exist-
ing by virture of the laws of the State of Nevada with
its principal office and place of business at Sterling,
Colorado, where it is engaged in the operation of an
extended health care facility providing nursing home
services. During the past 12 months Respondent, in
the course and conduct of its business operations, re-
ceived gross revenues in excess of $100,000 from its
nursing home services, and, during the same period of
time, Respondent purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from
points and places located outside the State of Colo-
rado. The parties have stipulated, and we find, that
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has
been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION NVOLVED)
Professional and Health Care Employees Division,
Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 7, is, and has been at
all times material herein, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IIl. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTI(CES
A. Background
Respondent's facility is located in the city of Ster-
ling, county of Logan, which is a rural location. Some
employees travel to Respondent's location from as far
as 20 to 30 miles away. Other employees live on the
outskirts of town anywhere from 5 to 10 miles from
work. The remaining employees live throughout the
city of Sterling.
The Union has been certified as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of Respondent's
unit employees since March 16. 1977. All full-time
and regular part-time licensed practical nurses, order-
lies, aides, housekeeping, laundry, dietary, and main-
tenance employees employed by Respondent at its
health care facility in Sterling, Colorado, but exclud-
ing registered nurses, office clericals, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appro-
priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The parties entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement for the term of January 12, 1978, to Janu-
ary 11, 1979.
Article 2 of the collective-bargaining agreement
prohibits the Union, its officers, representatives, or
members from collecting dues, soliciting membership,
or conducting membership drives during working
hours or on Respondent's premises at any time. Em-
ployees violating this article are subject to discharge.'
I The restrictions contained in article 2 are not alleged as unfair labor
practices
242 NLRB No. 125
795
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The collective-bargaining agreement does not contain
a union-security clause obligating employees to be-
come and remain members of the Union as a condi-
tion of their employment. Presently, there are no
dues-paying members among Respondent's work
force.
Respondent is not required under the collective-
bargaining agreement to provide a list of employees
to the Union. Respondent does not notify the Union
when new employees are hired, nor does it provide
the Union with names and addresses of new employ-
ees, and prior to June 22, 1978, the Union had not
requested such a list. The Union possessed a fairly
accurate list of employees during its early dealings
with Respondent and communicated by mail with the
employees. During the Union's organizational drive
in late 1976 and early 1977, it obtained authorization
cards with the names and addresses of approximately
60 percent of Respondent's employees. The addresses
obtained then have not been kept up to date, and the
Union does not know how many of the employees
who signed cards are still employed by Respondent.
There has been a substantial turnover of employees
since the authorization cards were obtained. Between
July 1977 and October 1978 approximately 20 new
employees were hired and 2 employees were laid off.
Respondent's work force of 75 employees staffs the
facility for three shifts, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The Union appointed three stewards in 1978 but only
two of them are presently employed by Respondent,
and both have withdrawn their union membership
and therefore are no longer stewards.
Prior to August 1, 1978, Respondent provided au-
tomatic payroll deductions for unit employees partici-
pating in a health insurance plan. Such a procedure
allowed employees to participate in a group plan at
group rates. Prior to June 30, 1978, Respondent had
been considering discontinuing automatic payroll de-
ductions for employees' health insurance.
On or about June 22, 1978, Elizabeth Pace Brauer,
organizer for the Union, sent a letter to Helen Siegert,
Respondent's administrator, requesting a current list
of unit employees' names and addresses for purposes
of being able to communicate with the employees.
On June 30, 1978, employees were given in their
pay envelopes a letter from Siegart informing them
that effective August 1, 1978, automatic payroll de-
ductions would no longer be made for health insur-
ance. (When Respondent distributes important docu-
ments to its employees, such as information about
health insurance, it includes such information in the
employees' pay envelopes.) As a result of Respon-
dent's actions, the employees could no longer partici-
pate in the plan at group rates, but they could convert
their policies to individual plans at a higher rate.
Brauer was informed in early July of the information
contained in Respondent's letter to the employees.
On July 10, 1978, Brauer phoned Siegert to ask
why she had not received the requested list. Siegert
informed Brauer that she had been advised by coun-
sel not to furnish the list to the Union. Brauer then
informed Siegart that the Union had a right to bar-
gain over Respondent's change in eliminating payroll
deductions for employees' health insurance, and that
the Union had not been notified of any change by
Respondent. Siegert stated that there was nothing in
the contract regarding discontinuation of insurance
payments by payroll deductions, and that she felt that
it was not an appropriate union concern. Brauer
stated that she disagreed and, if necessary, would go
to the National Labor Relations Board and file
charges.
On the same day, Brauer phoned Walter V. Sie-
bert, counsel for Respondent, to request a current list
of unit employees' names and addresses. Siebert
asked what the Union needed it for, and Brauer re-
sponded that the Union needed it to communicate
with the employees. Siebert stated that he would
check with Respondent about the list. Brauer re-
sponded that if the Union did not receive the list she
would file charges with the Board.
Thereafter, a charge was filed by the Union against
Respondent on July 18, 1978, alleging that Respon-
dent had refused to furnish a current list of names
and addresses of Respondent's unit employees, and
that Respondent had unilaterally discontinued pay-
roll deductions for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Siebert sent a letter, dated July 21, 1978, to the
Union informing it that effective August 1, 1978, Re-
spondent would no longer provide automatic payroll
deductions for health insurance and that he (Siebert)
would make himself available to discuss the change.
The Union did not receive Siebert's letter until July
31, 1978, and has not responded to it.
The complaint in the instant case was issued by the
Regional Director for Region 27 on September 15,
1978, alleging that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act. After a timely answer by
Respondent, the parties (including the General Coun-
sel of the National Labor Relations Board) filed a
motion to transfer the proceeding to the Board and a
stipulation of facts in the instant proceeding. An or-
der granting the motion, approving the stipulation,
and transferring the proceeding to the Board was is-
sued on February 6, 1979.
B. Contentions of the Parties
1. Refusal to supply information
The General Counsel argues that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when, after requests
796
ROSE ARBOR MANOR
on June 20 and July 10, 1978, by telephone or letter
of both Respondent's administrator and its attorney,
it failed within a reasonable period of time to provide
the Union with a current list of the names and ad-
dresses of unit employees. The General Counsel con-
tends that the information requested is presumptively
relevant, and that it is necessary in order for the
Union to administer the contract effectively and per-
form its duties as exclusive representative for all em-
ployees. The General Counsel further argues that the
facts as set forth in the stipulation demonstrate that
there exists no effective means of communicating with
the employees except through writings, that the list is
necessary in order for the Union to communicate in
this manner, and that the Union has no means of
acquiring such information other than directly from
Respondent. The General Counsel also contends that,
although it has been demonstrated that the informa-
tion sought is relevant, the Union is under no obliga-
tion to show a particular need for the list at any par-
ticular time.
The Charging Party agrees with the General Coun-
sel's argument and reasons for finding that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) but argues that another
factor to be considered in making a determination is
its existing practice of communicating with members
in the bargaining unit by mail. The Charging Party
further contends that because Respondent expressly
prohibits discussion of union membership on its
premises, an accurate mailing list is necessary in or-
der for the Union to communicate with Respondent's
employees.
It is Respondent's contention that it did not violate
the Act because the Union has alternative means of
communication available, and therefore the informa-
tion requested is not relevant and necessary. Respon-
dent argues that because it has only one unit with a
small group of employees, one accessible location, an
available bulletin board, and a contract-enforced
steward system the requested information is not rel-
evant and necessary to the Union to carry out its bar-
gaining obligation.
2. The unilateral action by Respondent
The General Counsel argues that the discontinu-
ance of the payroll deductions for group health insur-
ance constitutes a mandatory subject of bargaining,
and that Respondent did not allow the Union "ap-
propriate and meaningful opportunity" to bargain
about the change. The General Counsel contends that
Respondent's I-day notice to the Union about the
change was inadequate, and therefore the discontinu-
ance of the payroll deductions without consultation
with the Union violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The Charging Party agrees with the General Coun-
sel that the health insurance is a mandatory subject of
bargaining and further argues that the alleged "zipper
clause"2 does not constitute a "waiver" of the Union's
statutory right to bargain over this change. It is the
position of the Charging Party that Respondent never
intended to bargain, as indicated by its belated offer
to "discuss" the change with the Union after irrevoca-
bly committing itself to following its declared inten-
tion.
It is Respondent's position that the Union has
waived its rights to bargain concerning the subjects of
group health insurance and Respondent's practice of
making automatic payroll deductions for employee
health insurance. In support of this contention, Re-
spondent offers article 43 of the collective-bargaining
agreement which provides, inter alia, that the Em-
ployer has "the right to deviate from past practice
and change methods or processes." Respondent ar-
gues that because the agreement contains no refer-
ence to a health insurance or a maintenance-of-bene-
fits clause the Union has "bargained away" or waived
its interest in the subject of existing benefits. Respon-
dent contends that both parties agreed not to include
specific contract language concerning health insur-
ance and the maintenance of existing benefits in the
contract.
In the alternative, if it is determined that the Union
did not waive its right to bargain, Respondent con-
tends that it did not refuse to bargain with the Union
concerning the subject. Respondent asserts that there
cannot be a refusal-to-bargain finding because the
Union has not made a request to bargain, even
though the Union received indirect notice approxi-
mately 3 weeks before the effective date of the
change.
C. Conclusions
I. Refusal to supply information
We agree with the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Party that the information requested by the
Union was relevant and necessary. It is well settled
that the collective-bargaining representative is enti-
2 It is assumed that the Charging Part) is referring to article 30 of the
collective-bargaining agreement which states:
INTIRF AREEMEN1. This Agreement contains all of the convenants.
stipulations and provisions agreed upon between the parties hereto and
no representative of either part) has authority to make and none of the
parties shall be bound by, any statement. representatlon. or agreement
reached prior to the signing of this Agreement or made during these
negotiations.
Article 4. in rele. ant parts, states:
Management's Rights: The management of the Employer's business.
the direction of the vuorking force. Including but not limited to . . . the
right to deviate from past practice and change methods or processes. or
to use new equipment and labor-saving devices. .
797
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tied to information that may be relevant to its bar-
gaining duties.4 The facts herein indicate that mail
was the Union's only reasonable means of communi-
cating with the unit employees, and that a require-
ment that Respondent supply the names and ad-
dresses of the unit employees would not create an
undue hardship. Accordingly, we find that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to
supply the requested information under the circum-
stances of this case.'
2. The unilateral action by Respondent
We agree with the General Counsel and Charging
Party that the Union did not bargain away or waive
its interest in the subject of the group health insur-
ance plan. The health insurance of the kind involved
in this case is a mandatory subject of collective bar-
gaining, for it is settled that "under the National La-
bor Relations Act, as amended, mandatory subjects
of collective bargaining include ... insurance benefits
for active employees."6 It is also settled that the right
to be consulted concerning unilateral changes in
terms of employment is a right given by statute and
not one obtained by contract, and that in order to
establish a waiver of a statutory right there must be a
showing of a clear relinquishment of the right.]
Whether there has been a clear relinquishment of the
right is to be decided on the basis of all the facts and
circumstances surrounding the making of the con-
tract.8 The cases cited' by Respondent in support of
its contention that the Union waived its rights to bar-
gain are inapposite. In each of the cases cited, a pro-
vision for the maintenance of existing benefits was
discussed and rejected during contract negotiations
between the parties. In the instant case, there is no
indication that payroll deductions for group health
insurance benefits had ever been discussed in previ-
ous negotiations between the parties. Furthermore.
Respondent's reliance on article 4 of the collective-
bargaining agreement is unsupported. Although the
agreement states that Respondent has the right to
"deviate from past practices and change methods or
processes," when read as a whole this particular pro-
vision of article 4 appears to refer to the physical op-
'See The initen Roller Bearing Co. v. A.I..R B. 325 1 2d 746 (6th (ir.
1963), and cases cited therein
'See l/ar c ': II iagon W'heel. In . dlh/a lar iv ' Recort lotel & lion: eC
Inn, 236 NlRB 1670 ( 1978): The Aell-., Sprinrrglid Tire ('nioparw. 223 NlRB
878(1-6); (;enera( (Corporaliion, 215 NL.Rf 351 (1974).
'Allied ('heta,,l a Alkali orh ers o/ Ame.lrica. I.o(al U'nio ANo It :.
Pittrhurgh Platr Glas. (Compann, 404 U.S. 157. 159 (1971 ); see alslo N, 1. R B
v. General Elkecric (C'ompanv, 418 .2d 736, 746 (2d ('ir. 1969).
.' . R B v. ( & ( Ply ood (Corporaio, 385 jS 421. 423. 428. 430 431
(1967); he 7h 7ini n Roller Bearing (Co., Ylpra at 751.
I'ed& ¥ orlhrup ('C, . . R. B. 391 F.2d 874. 878 (3d ('it. 1968);
Pepi-(Cola Distribhuting (orilpan of/ Knodlle'. Tenncie. Inl(.. 241 NIRB
869 ( 1979).
NL,. R.B. vA.sh-i5nch Co, 211 F.2d 622 (8th ('ir. 1954); Spe'cl( Corpo
ration. 120 Nl RB 733 (1958).
eration of the health care facility and not to the con-
dition of wages and hours of employment as
contended by Respondent, and thus does not consti-
tute the clear and specific waiver which is required.
Accordingly, we find that the Union did not bargain
away or waive its interest in the group health insur-
ance plan.'0
We find no support for Respondent's contention
that it has not refused to bargain because the Union
has never requested bargaining about the change.
even though the Union had prior notice. It is true that
the Union had been informed indirectly of the pro-
posed change by the fact that on or about July 10,
1978, Brauer informed Siegert of the Union's right to
bargain over the health insurance plan. However, in
repsonse to Brauer's statement. Siegert stated that be-
cause the subject of health insurance was not in the
contract it was not an appropriate union concern.
Based on Respondent's reponse, it is plain that a for-
mal request to bargain by the Union would have been
futile at the time." The issue in cases such as this is
"whether in the light of all the circumstances there
existed reasonable opportunity for the Union to have
bargained on the question before unilateral action
was taken by the employer. Notice is important only
as it bears upon whether there was such opportuni-
ty. " 12 Although Respondent's letter notifying the
Union about the change was dated July 21. 1978, the
Union did not receive it until July 31, 1978, the day
before the change went into effect. Such short notice,
along with Respondent's indication of an irrevocable
intention, did not give the l nion a reasonable oppor-
tunlity to bargain.
Based upon the foregoing. we find that on or about
August 1, 1978. b unilaterally discontinuing payroll
deductions for group health insurance benefits for
those employees represented bh the Union Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( I ) of the Act.
IV. 1ll IFI('I OF Il UNFAIR ABf)R PRA(' I('tS
UPfON ('OMMI'R('ti
TIhe activities of Respondent. set forth above, oc-
curring in connection with the bargaining obligation
of the Union, have a close, initmate. and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce amiong
the several States and tend to lead to and have led to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
Upon the basis of the fi)regoing findings of' fact.
conclusions of law, and the entire record, we make
the following:
'See Wlerc' ;u fim mhuserl, lr e ('tpai;, 228 NRB 607 11977):
ind (; Miachlnen (r olIpanv.t 1 221 NL RH 862 1975)
i~ See (arplenter S.prinAler (rporatln. 238 NIRB 974 1978)
' ( rlc Printm ( P ning pa Priing ioin ol ¥achille I, 'I CI 19
NI RB 251. 257 (1968). citing AN . RB R (',ne,' ,cl/ ( 'Crl rotlio.l 373 2d
595. 599 4th (lr 1967)
798
ROSE ARBOR MANOR
CON(IUSIONS OF LAW
I. Rose Arbor Manor, a Division of Geriatrics,
Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Professional and Health Care Employees Divi-
sion, Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 7, is, and at all
times material herein has been, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time licensed
practical nurses, orderlies, aides, housekeeping, laun-
dry, dietary, and maintenance employees employed
by Rose Arbor Manor, a Division of Geriatrics. Inc.,
at its health care facility in Sterling, Colorado, but
excluding registered nurses, office clericals, guards,
and supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 1) of the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. By its failure and refusal to provide the Union
with the names and addresses of its said unit employ-
ees, under the circumstances described and found in
section 111, supra, Respondent has engaged in and is
continuing to engage in unfair labor practices in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By unilaterally discontinuing payroll deductions
for employees in the unit who purchase Blue Cross/
Blue Shield health insurance and thereby making it
impossible for these employees to continue to pur-
chase Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance at a
group rate without affording the Union an opportuni-
ty to bargain with respect thereto Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, make whole
the employees for any monetary losses, and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
ORDER
The Respondent, Rose Arbor Manor. a Division of
Geriatrics, Inc., Sterling. Colorado, its officers.
agents. successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Profes-
sional and Health ('are Employees, Division of Retail
Clerks Union, Local No. 7, by failing and refusing to
supply the Union with a list of the names and ad-
dresses of the employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union
with respect to payroll deductions for group health
insurance or any other term or condition of employ-
ment by unilaterally discontinuing payroll deductions
or effectuating changes in any other terms or condi-
tions of employment of its employees in the appropri-
ate unit represented by the Union. The appropriate
unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time licensed prac-
tical nurses, orderlies, aides, housekeeping, laun-
dry, dietary, and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Rose Arbor Manor. a Division of
Geriatrics. Inc., at its health care facility in Ster-
ling. Colorado. excluding registered nurses, office
clericals. guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with.
restraining. or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessar)
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Bargain collectively with the above-named la-
bor organization by furnishing it, upon request, a list
of the full names and home addresses of employees in
the appropriate unit.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization with respect to anll
change in the practice of making payroll deductions
tor employees in the unit who purchase health insur-
ance.
(c) Make whole the employees in the appropriate
unit for an\ onetar,, losses they may ha\e suffered
by reason of Respondent's unilateral decision to dis-
continue payroll deductions for group health insur-
ance, and, if requested b the Union. restore the t a-
tlis quo (nlit( with respect to pyroll deductions for
group health insurance.
(d) Preserve and, upon request. make available to
the Board or its agents fr examination and cop ing.
all payroll records and all other records necessar to
analyze the amount of monetarN losses due under the
terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its facility in Sterling. Colorado. copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix. '' opies
of said notice, on forms pro,ided by- the Regional
Director for Region 27, after being dull signed bi,
Respondent's authorizedt representatioxe. shall he
posted hby it immediately ulpon receipt thereof. and be
maintained bh it' tor 6() consecutive dtays thereafter. in
conspicuous places. including all places here notice,
to employees are customaril\ posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken bh Respondent to insure that satld
" In e li entni thi this ()rdcr cntlre h i . I lUdLrlll lt , I llc. 1
Stlte (ourl oit Appeal. the vri d In he AIaI c r.ld l 1 i ied h ()rd cr I
the Nalltirnll I.[lh,r Rela .lrln Board" h.ll c.ld i " ..le I'tl ll.111 I .t A l t i -
mnent of the nited Slle (o t 5l pcalk I ritlrre iII ()rcr .t Ihc N
lionill ithoir Reliatioln, 1l id
799
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After both sides having had the opportunity to pre-
sent their evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we, Rose Arbor Manor, a Divi-
sion of Geriatrics, Inc.,violated the National Labor
Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice
and abide by its terms.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Professional and Health Care Employees
Division, Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 7, by
failing to furnish it, upon request, a list of all the
full names and home addresses of unit employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain collec-
tively in good faith with the above-named labor
organization as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of our employees in the appro-
priate unit concerning group health insurance
and other terms and conditions of employment,
by unilaterally discontinuing payroll deductions
for such coverage without adequate notice and
opportunity to bargain with respect thereto
being afforded the Union. The appropriate unit
is:
All full-time and regular part-time licensed
practical nurses, orderlies, aides, housekeep-
ing, laundry, dietary, and maintenance em-
ployees employed by Rose Arbor Manor, a
Division of Geriatrics, Inc., at its health care
facility in Sterling, Colorado, excluding regis-
tered nurses, office clericals, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization by fur-
nishing it a list of all the full names and ad-
dresses of unit employees.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization with
respect to any change in the practice of making
payroll deductions for employees in the unit who
purchase health insurance.
WE WILL make whole the employees in the
appropriate unit for any monetary losses they
may have suffered by reason of our unilateral
decision to discontinue payroll deductions for
group health insurance and, if requested by the
Union, WE WILL restore the stalus quo ante with
respect to payroll deductions for group health
insurance.
ROSE ARBH()R MANOR, A DIVISION OF GERI-
A I RI( CS. IN( C.
800