South Hills Health System

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 1234 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
South Hills Health System, Jefferson Center and Dis-
trict 1199P, National Union of Hospital and Health
Care Employees, a Division of RWDSU. AFL-
CIO. Case 6 CA -10717
March 7, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS. MURPINY. ANI) TRUt .SI)AI t
On September 29, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Joel A. Harmatz issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief.
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to
the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Amata
J. McGreevy's discharge was not substantially moti-
vated by her protected concerted activities, but rath-
er was motivated by her neglect of her duties. We
disagree.
Amata J. McGreevy is a registered nurse and dur-
ing the period in question was employed on the night
shift in the intensive care unit (ICU) at Respondent's
Jefferson Center health care facility. On September
9, 1977,' Respondent announced a 10-percent across-
the-board pay cut which applied to all personnel. On
September 22, 1977, while at work at her desk in the
ICU, McGreevy gathered together different newspa-
pers and clipped and pasted headlines from them on
a separate piece of paper in the form of a collage.
Also inserted on the collage was a newspaper adver-
tisement Respondent had placed for nurses. The col-
lage contained such phrases as "10%, Cut," "Utility
Bills to Keep Souring, PUC Chief Carter Predicts,"
"Prices Up 3% in August." The bottom item on the
collage was the word "RESIGN" with the name
"Yeckel" pasted below. (George Yeckel is Respon-
dent's chief executive officer.) In essence, the collage
constituted a protest against working conditions at
Responent's Jefferson Center facility by contrasting
the increased cost of living with the 10-percent wage
reduction that Respondent had put into effect earlier
and the need for more experienced nurses in the
ICU, while demanding Yeckel's resignation.
I Unless otherwise indicated all dales refer to 1977.
240 NLRB No. 164
After completing the collage, McGreevy carried it
with her to the pharmacy where she went to obtain
medication for one of her patients. While there she
showed the collage to the pharmacist and to Ruth
Butko. a registered nurse and coworker in the IC!,
who sent the collage anonymously through the inter-
office mail to Yeckel.
In early October, Ella Kargenian, supervisor of the
ICU, discovered that McGreevy was responsible for
the collage. This information was passed on to Jean
Crowley. Respondent's director of nursing. Subse-
quently. on October 31, at a meeting attended by
McGreevy, Kargenian, and Crowley. Crowley con-
fronted McGreevy with her role in the preparation of
the collage. Crowley asked McGreevy who was car-
ing for her patients while McGreevy was preparing
the collage. McGreevy made no reply. Crowley went
on to comment that she viewed the collage as an act
of harassment and vandalism similar to those to
which Respondent had been exposed during this pe-
riod. and that the sending of the collage anony-
mously by McGreevy made her suspect for these
other acts. Crowley then told McGreevy that because
of this action McGreevy was suspended indefinitely.
Shortly thereafter, Kargenian recommended that
McGreevy be discharged. This recommendation was
affirmed by Crowley and approved by Yeckel.
On November 4, at a meeting between Crowley
and McGreevy, McGreevy was informed of her dis-
charge. She was told by Crowley that, although
Crowley considered her to be a competent nurse, the
discharge was a result of McGreevy's excessive ab-
sences in 1976 and 1977; her unexcused absence on
October 7, for which she was suspended for 3 days;
and the preparation and anonymous sending of the
collage while on duty.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, for
the reasons stated by him, that the preparation and
sending of an anonymous collage of the type pre-
pared by McGreevy are acts that find protection un-
der Section 7 of the Act. However, unlike him, we
find that the collage contributed substantially to Re-
spondent's decisions to suspend indefinitely and then
to discharge McGreevy.
Crowley testified as follows to the part the collage
played in McGreevy's discharge:
The fact of the collage being anonymous, when
all employees had been given every opportunity
to express themselves publicly, or privately,
about their concerns regarding the institution,
and I as a professional feel that it is an unprofes-
sional act to send an anonymous note to any-
one, much less the administrator of the Hospital.
SOUTH HILLS HEALTH SYSTEM 1235
That the sending of the collage was the straw that
broke the camel's back. [Emphasis supplied.]
From the above testimony we conclude that the
preparation of the collage itself. without regard to
when and where it was prepared. its anonymous na-
ture, and particularly the sending of it, were all fac-
tors which motivated Respondent in first suspending
and then discharging McGreevy. Consequently. we
find that McGreevy's suspension and discharge, by
Respondent's own admission, were brought about, at
least partially, by the mere preparation, anonymity.
and sending of the collage protesting employment
conditions at the hospital--actions which we have
found were protected by the Act. It is well settled
that a discharge in reprisal for protected concerted
activity is unlawful. Accordingly. we find that Mc-
Greevy's indefinite suspension on October 31 and
her discharge on November 4 are violative of Section
8(a)( I ).2
THE REMFI)
We shall order that Respondent offer Amata J.
McGreevy immediate and full reinstatement to her
former job or, if her job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or any other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of
pay which she may have suffered by payment to her
of a sum of money equal to that which she would
have normally earned as wages from November 4,
1977, to the date of such offer of reinstatement, less
her net earnings during said period, said backpay
and interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Conmpany, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
2 The oungsorn Oszeopathi, Itiipal a.4 sio on, 224 N IR 5 74 (197 )
In dismissing the 8(a)II) charge based on McGreevs's ndefinite uspeiiion
and discharge. the Administratise Layw Judge concluded n his i)ecision hat
"[P]reparation of the collage. accompanied as it was b neglect of Mc-
Greevy's responsibility in the intensive care unit, presented a potential ha,-
ard to health care. Such misconduct overshadowed the otherwie protected
nature of her protest and rendered Mc(ireev> fair game for discipline." e
disagree. While Respondent ma, have had some concern about the neglect
of patients. Respondent's own testimton demonstrates that the discharge
was at least partially motisated by the protected concerted actiities. Fur-
thermore. there is nothing herein to indicate that Mc(iree ,. n fact ne-
glected any patients either in preparing the collage or at an' other time.
Nor do we find merit In Respondent's assertion that NIc(iree,'s conductl
in connection with the collage. combined with her past record of "excessl.e
absences," including the absence on October 7 made her an undesirable
employee and justified her discharge. McGreevV's record of absences was
no worse than that of mans other emplinees. and there is no esidence in the
record that she had received an)' warning from Respondent regarding such
absences. A for McGreevC's failure to report for work n October 7. it
would appear that Respondent considered the 3-da? suspension svhlh Mc-
Greevs received as a result of that absence it he sufficient punishment at
the time.
651 (1977. 3
The discharge of an employee for engaging in pro-
tected activities is an unfair labor practices which
goes to the very heart of the Act, and in such cases
the Board has traditionally provided broad injunc-
tive language constituting a broad order. Having
found that McGreevy was suspended and discharged
for engaging in a protected concerted activity, we
shall order Respondent to cease and desist from in
any other manner infringing upon the rights guaran-
teed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
N. L. R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir.
1941): Ambulance Services of New Bedford, Inc.. 229
NL.RB 106 (1977).
CON(CI.USIONS OF LANW
I. Respondent. South Hills Health Systems. Jef-
ferson Center. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By suspending and discharging Amata J. Mc-
Greevv for engaging in protected concerted activity
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I
of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
South Hills Health System, Jefferson Center, Pitts-
burgh. Pennsylvania, its officers, agents. successors,
and assigns shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with. restraining, or coercing em-
ployees by suspending or discharging them for en-
gaging in a protected activity.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Amata J. McGreevy immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position or, if that posi-
tion is no longer available, to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make her whole for any loss of earnings she may
have suffered as a result of her suspension and dis-
charge by Respondent in the manner set forth in the
See. enerll . iri Plumhtrn & lltetoing Co. 138 NRB 716 (1961)
SOUTH HILLS EALTH SYSTEM 235~~
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Jefferson Center facility located at
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached no-
tice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
6, after being duly signed by Respondent's represen-
tative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations
of the Act not found herein.
MEMBER TRUESDALE, dissenting:
For the reasons fully and ably set forth in the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision, I would dismiss
the complaint herein in its entirety.
4In the event that this Order is enforced hb a Judgment of a Inited
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted h 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we have violated the law
and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees by suspending or discharging
them for engaging in a protected concerted ac-
tivity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL offer Amata J. McGreevy immediate
and full reinstatment to her former position or,
if that position is no longer available, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed
WE WILL make Amata J. McGreevy whole for
any loss of earnings she may have suffered as a
result of our unlawful discrimination against
her, with interest.
SOUTH HILLS HEAL1H SYSTEM, JEFFERSON
CEN I ER
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL A. HARMATZ. Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding was heard in Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania, on July 17,
1978,1 upon an unfair labor practice charge filed on No-
vember 16, 1977, and a complaint issued on January 30,
1978, alleging that Respondent, National Union of Hospi-
tal and Health Care Employees, a Division of RWDSU,
AFL CIO, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
suspending, discharging, and refusing to reinstate Amata J.
McGreevy, in reprisal for her union and concerted activity.
The complaint further alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and () of the Act by billing McGreevy for
emergency room treatment in reprisal for her activity pro-
tected by Section 7 of the Act. In its duly filed answer
Respondent denied that any unfair labor practices were
committed. After close of the hearing, briefs were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having consid-
ered the positions of the parties as set forth in their re-
spective briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF: FA(CI
i. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a nonprofit Pennsylvania corporation
with a facility located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, referred
to as the Jefferson Health Care Center, from which it is
engaged in providing health care and related services. The
Jefferson Health Care Center, the sole facility involved
here, has been operated by Respondent as a hospital since
May 18, 1977. Since that date and until issuance of the
complaint, Respondent received in excess of $250,000 in
gross revenues and received goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from sources located outside the Com-
The instant case was originally consolidated with Case 6-CA-10962
which. on the General Counsel's motion, was severed at the hearing for
separate disposition. On Jul 26, 1978. a Decision was issued b me with
respect to (Case 6 ('A 10962.
SOUTH HILLS HEALTH SYSTEM 1237
monwealth of Pennsylvania for use within the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
District 1199P, National Union of Hospital and Health
Care Employees, a Division of RWDSU, AFL-CIO, is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The questions presented in this case are limited to three
counts of discrimination allegedly effected by Respondent
against one of its registered nurses, Amata J. McGreevy.
B. Concluding Findings
The Jefferson Health Care Center grew out of a merger
and relocation of two hospitals, St. Joseph's Hospital and
Homestead Hospital. As a new consolidated health care
facility, Respondent commenced operation in May 1977.
The new and larger center was confronted with immediate
problems, which, in turn, produced what was described by
Jean Crowley, Respondent's director of nursing, as "cha-
otic conditions." The conditions existing at that time were
largely structural and soon contributed to a high degree of
turnover among Respondent's experienced nurses. In con-
sequence, staffing shortages emerged, requiring the hospi-
tal to hire replacements lacking the experience and training
of their predecessors. Unrest developed which was openly
manifested, with rank-and-file nurses expressing their ob-
jections to conditions and their interest in improvement to
management. At one point, the staff looked to union repre-
sentation as a possible means whereby improved condi-
tions could be attained. This disenchantment stiffened on
September 9, 1977,2 when Respondent announced a 10-
percent across-the-board pay cut for both managerial and
nonmanagerial employees.
With this background in mind, it is noted that Amata
McGreevy was a registered nurse, whose employment be-
gan with the Homestead Hospital, prior to the merger, in
January 1972. Since the consolidation in May 1977, Mc-
Greevy was assigned to the intensive care unit, generally
on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift.
On October 31, McGreevy was suspended indefinitely,
and on November 4, she was discharged. Both resulted
from McGreevy's involvement in the preparation and for-
warding of an anonymous collage or leaflet to George
Yeckel, Respondent's chief executive officer.
The collage was admittedly prepared by McGreevy at
Lnless otherwise indicated all dates refer to 1977.
her desk in the intensive care unit. In preparing it she used
two or more newspapers, cutting out articles, phrases,
words, or letters, necessary to fit the document's theme,
which were then arranged and taped to a sheet of paper.
Upon completion, McGreevy took the collage to the phar-
macy, where she met Ruth Butko, a registered nurse on the
"I.V." team. Butko, at that time, read the document. It was
then placed in an interoffice envelope; Butko addressed it
to Yeckel.
In early October Ella Kargenian, supervisor of the inten-
sive care unit, received information as to McGreevy's in-
volvement in the preparation of the anonymous letter. She
reported this to Crowley. Ultimately, on October 31, when
McGreevy was about to return from her vacation, Crowley
met with McGreevy and confronted her with information
she had received as to McGreevy's involvement, charging
McGreevy, inter alia, with preparation of the collage while
on duty. Upon being shown the collage, McGreevy admit-
ted that she had composed and sent the note. Crowley re-
ferred McGreevy to the fact that the hospital had recently
been exposed to many unpleasant events, including fires in
unoccupied areas in the hospital, and other matters which
Crowley suggested that she was not at liberty to disclose.
She advised McGreevy that the sending of any anonymous
letter rendered McGreevy suspect for other anonymous
acts of harrassment and vandalism against the hospital.
McGreevy was told that Crowley had lost confidence in
her as a professional. When Crowley asked McGreevy who
was caring for the patients while she was engaged in assem-
bly of the collage, McGreevy had no answer. McGreevy
was told that Crowley considered her conduct in this con-
nection to be serious, requiring an indefinite suspension.
Crowley, having received a recommendation from Sup-
ervisor Kargenian that McGreevy be discharged, followed
up the above action by reviewing McGreevy's personnel
records. Having done so, Crowley concurred in
Kargenian's recommendation and herself recommended
the discharge of McGreevy to Yeckel. Yeckel approved.
According to Crowley, her recommendation was based
essentially upon two major offenses on McGreevy's part.
The first related to an unauthorized absence by McGreevy
on October 7, for which she received a 3-day suspension.3
Crowley testified that McGreevy's conduct on October 7
was considered extremely unprofessional, and that her
trust of McGreevy was further shaken upon discovery tha
McGreevy, in the face of other incidents that were taking
place at the center at the particular time, had authored the
collage while on duty. She concluded, on the basis of these
two incidents, that she was left with no choice but to termi-
nate McGreevy.
On November 4, Crowley again contacted the suspended
It is essentially undisputed that on Friday, October 7, McGreesvy was
scheduled to work the II p.m. to a.m. shift. That morning she spoke to
Kargenian advising that she could not work that night. Kargenian expressed
doubt as to whether she could obtain a replacement at that late date, but
advised that she would attempt to do so. McGreevy was instructed to check
by calling in that afternoon. McGreevy insisted that she could not work,
explaining that it was imperative that she attend a sorority breakfast held in
conjunction with a homecoming celebration at the college at which her
daughter was a student. McGreevy neither called n, nor reported to work
that eening Considering the shortage of trained nurses. Crowley testified
that she considered this to he a serious offense on the part of McGreevy.
SOUTH HILLS HEALTH SYSTEM
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McGreevy and requested that she appear in the office.
Crowley acknowledged McGreevy's technical compen-
tence as a nurse, but she informed McGreevy that her en-
tire record had been reviewed and that Crowley had taken
into account her poor attendance record in 1976 and her
seven absences in 1977. Crowley emphasized that in view
of this history, the October 7 unauthorized absence, and
preparation of the collage on duty time termination was
required. 4
Contrary to the General Counsel, I am not persuaded
that McGreevy's past participation in union and/or pro-
tected concerted activity, apart from her involvement with
the collage, contributed to the discharge. It is true that
evidence exists showing that McGreevy, in the period pre-
ceding her discharge, was among the nurses who expressed
misgivings as to understaffing and the lack of training of
new nurses. However, I was not impressed that Mc-
Greevy's protestations in this regard stood out above those
of other employees. In any event, from the credited testi-
mony of Crowley, I find that the hospital recognized such
complaints as legitimate and as reflecting common prob-
lems of equal concern to the staff and management. There
is no credible evidence that Respondent exhibited animus
in this respect, or did anything other than welcome em-
ployee expressions as to the problems they were encounter-
ing in the new center.5
The evidence of McGreevy's union activity does not sug-
gest that her conduct in this regard was a contributing fac-
tor. In this respect, I do find that McGreevy engaged in
discussions with fellow employees as to the possibility of
union representation, that she signed a petition which had
been circulated to support said objective and passed it on
to coworkers in the intensive care unit, that she signed an
authorization card, and that she distributed several others
to fellow employees, urging them to sign.
6 However, there
is no showing that this activity occurred in the presence of
supervisors; McGreevy worked a shift which was not regu-
larly subject to immediate supervision. Under the circum-
stances, I credit the testimony of Crowley that she had no
knowledge that McGreevy was a union sympathizer. I also
credit the testimony of C('rowley that other registered nurses
were unhesitant in their willingness to proclaim openly
their union support, and that McGreevy was not among
4 The above is based upon the account f (rowle, who impressed me as
an entirely credible witness. As between ('rOwle and MciGteeN. I regarded
Crow[le as the more believable. Specificalk with respect to the Novsember
4 discharge interview. Mc(ireev¥'s omission of the October 7 suspension as
part of the cause assigned by Crowlev at that time struck me as consistent
with a bent toward selectiit), hereby Mc(irees imparted tailored testi-
mony using deliberate omission and argumentation to present her cause n
a distorted but favorable light.
Mc(GreevN testified that in one of several consersatiotts with her super-
visor, Kargenian. concerning the lack of trained nurses and the absence of
qualified replacements, Kargenian said that "she didn't want anyhod
working in the unit who didn't want to work there." 'This comment was
allegedly made in August. In addition to the unreliabihlt of McGreevv as a
witness, her testimony in this regard was abstract. falling short of logical
connection between the remark and the specific context prompting it. Mc-
(ireevy's testimony is considered too vague to warrant an inference that
Respondent thereby manifested hostility toward McGreevy's complaints.
Based on the testimon? of Mc8reev), as corroborated by Butko and
Nancy Razorsek, a registered nurse emploed in the intensive care unit on
the same shift as McGreevy.
them.
Viewed in this light, and particularly in the absence of
evidence that Respondent harbored or implemented any
resentment towards union activity, the General Counsel's
cause is necessarily relegated to any proscribed motive
which might inure from McGreevy's involvement in the
preparation and dissemination of the collage.
By way of defense, Respondent, in claiming that Re-
spondent terminated McGreevy on the basis of the Octo-
ber 7 incident and her use of working time to prepare the
collage, argues that the latter, as an anynymous act, was
unprotected. I disagree with Respondent insofar as it
claims that this conduct in no circumstances would be pro-
tected by the Act. The evidence indicates that it was sent to
Executive Director Yeckel, but not otherwise published. Its
content, though controversial, was nonetheless innocuous
and not atypical of what one would expect to be the sub-
ject of an expression of employee discontent. Its focal
point was the 10-percent pay cut which was contrasted
with increases in the cost of living and it concluded with
a demand for Yeckel's resignation. The document itself
contained nothing offensive to the interests protected by
Section 7 of the Act. Consistent with the foregoing is my
rejection of Respondent's further claim that McGreevy did
not act in concert with other employees in this connection.
7
It is true that she conceived and prepared the document
alone. However, it is clear that Butko endorsed the content
of the collage and joined in concert with McGreevy in its
dissemination by addressing the envelope in which it was
placed. This was sufficient to bring this form of protesta-
tion concerning conditions of work within the realm of
concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.
On the other hand. I am convinced that the testimony
afforded by Crowley as to the reason that she approved
and further recommended the termination of McGreevy
was credible and substantiated the existence of a legitimate
cause for McGreevy's termination. There can be little
quarrel with Crowley's observation that McGreevy's con-
duct on October 7, as well as her preparation of the collage
while on duty,8 hardly reflected a depth of concern on Mc-
Greevy's part for patients in the intensive care unit. In the
circumstances, even though Respondent might have lacked
appreciation for the anonymous nature of the collage, and
perhaps even its content, this protected byproduct of Mc-
Greevy's conduct is not regarded as having contributed
substantially to the cause for her discharge. Preparation of
the collage, accompanied as it was by neglect of Mc-
In this connection. I give no weight to the fact that other employees
observed Mc(ireevy's preparation of the document. It does not appear that
they either approved or disapproved her action, their silence is not to be
taken as approval any nmore than it is to be taken as disapproval.
D)uring the (General (Counsel's case-in-chief. no effort was made to chal-
lenge ev idence then in the General Counsel's possession that the collage was
prepared by McGreevy during duty hours. However. Mc(ireev was called
as a rebuttal witness: then, for the first time. she testified that she as. in
fact. on her coffee break when she undertook to prepare a portion of the
collage. She did acknowledge. however, that at that time she nonetheless
remained responsible for attending patients as the need arose. In any event,
Mc(ir-eevy's attempt to mitigate Respondent's assertion based upon her use
of duts time struck me as bootstrap argumentation. and it is discredited. I
find that she prepared the document and took it to the pharmacy, and then
tr.insacted its distribution to Yeckel through Hutko, all while she was on
duty and responsible for the treatment of critically ill patients
SOUTH HILLS HEALTH SYSTEM 1239
Greevy's responsibility in the intensive care unit, presented
a potential hazard to health care. Such misconduct over-
shadowed the otherwise protected nature of her protest
and rendered McGreevy fair game for discipline. I find
that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and () of
the Act by first suspending and then discharging Mc-
Greevy.
Remaining for consideration is the allegation that Re-
spondent discriminated against McGreevy by billing her
for emergency room treatment. It appears that in June.
well prior to her discharge, McGreevy was stung by a bee
and refered to the hospital's emergency treatment facility.
McGreevy testified that in late November, following her
discharge, and again in December, she received a billing of
$56 for this treatment.
At times material herein, McGreevy was covered by the
Blue Cross-Blue Shield health insurance policy applicable
to Respondent's employees. It is claimed that in the face of
this coverage, the direct billings constituted a further repri-
sal against McGreevy for conduct protected by the Act.
Aside from the fact that the record does not substantiate
the existence of any proscribed motive, Respondent pre-
sented a believable explanation for the procedures fol-
lowed in this instance. It appears that Respondent was first
advised of the billings during the investigation of the
charges filed on behalf of McGreevy in late 1977. At that
time, at the direction of Respondent's counsel, the matter
was investigated and it was disclosed that billings were for-
warded to McGreevy because the emergency room did not
have the "agreement" number pertaining to McGreevy's
insurance coverage.
In accordance with established practice, Blue Cross-Blue
Shield cannot be billed for medical services unless the
claims are accompanied by a statement containing both
the "group" and "agreement" number relative to the
patient's coverage. McGreevy could not testify with cer-
tainty that these items were furnished to the hospital.
Hospital Administrator Ninos testifed credibly that
when the information was received as to the reason for the
billings, McGreevy was immediately contacted and her
agreement number obtained. His uncontradicted evidence
reveals that Blue Cross actually paid the billing in question
on January 12, 1978. While Respondent concedes that the
billings may have been attributable to a clerical error for
which McGreevy was not at fault, there is no evidence that
this was the case; considering the absence of credible evi-
dence that these billings were in any sense prompted in
response to conduct protected by the Act, I find that Re-
spondent did not violate Section 8(aX3) and 8(a)(1) in this
respect.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of
the Act by billing Amata McGreevy for services adminis-
tered by Respondent's emergency treatment facility, or by
indefinitely suspending and subsequently discharging her
on November 4, 1977.
[Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from publi-
cation.]
SOUTH HILLS HEALTH SYSTEM 1239
.. ...... v . v . ...