St. Clair Memorial Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1992

309 N.L.R.B. 738 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

738
309 NLRB No. 113
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Union has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility find-
ings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d
362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing the findings.
We note that the judge misspelled employee Snak’s name.
St. Clair Memorial Hospital and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL–CIO–CLC and
Local 95–95A, International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers, AFL–CIO. Cases 6–CA–23098,
6–CA–23244, and 6–CA–23286
December 7, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
On March 25, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Hu-
bert E. Lott issued the attached decision. Charging
Party Local 95-95A, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL–CIO, filed exceptions, and the Re-
spondent filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, St. Clair Memorial Hos-
pital, Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
Dalia E. Belinkoff, Esq., for the General Counsel.
E. Donald Ladov, Esq. (Cohen & Grigsby), of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for the Respondent.
Timothy P. O’Reilley, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for
Operating Engineers.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HUBERT E. LOTT, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on June 6 and July 23,
24, and 25, 1991. The charges and amended charges were
filed by the Steelworkers on October 25 and December 31,
1990, January 14 and 24, and April 2, 1991. The charges and
amended charges were filed by the Operating Engineers on
January 16 and April 1, 1991. The last consolidated, amend-
ed complaint issued April 5, 1991.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with an office
and hospital located in Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania, where it
is engaged as a health care institution providing medical and
professional care services. During the 12-month period end-
ing December 31, 1990, Respondent, in the course and con-
duct of its operations described above, derived gross reve-
nues in excess of $250,000. During the same period, Re-
spondent purchased and received at its Mt. Lebanon hospital,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $5000 directly from
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Unions are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent is an acute care hospital employing 1650 em-
ployees.
In the summer of 1988, the Operating Engineers Union
(Local 95) began an organizing campaign among the hos-
pital’s maintenance employees. Meetings were held in Octo-
ber 1988 at which most of the maintenance employees signed
union authorization cards. This campaign was suspended
pending the outcome of litigation over the Board’s rulings on
collective-bargaining units in the health care industry.
In early 1989, the Teamsters Union began to organize the
hospital’s nonprofessional employees. During this campaign
several employees meetings were held and an in-house orga-
nizing committee was formed. A petition was filed for all
nonprofessional employees but the organizing drive was
abandoned and the petition was withdrawn.
In May 1990, after the Teamsters withdrew its petition, the
Steelworkers Union began an organizing drive among the
hospital’s nonprofessional employees. The Steelworkers held
six employee meetings and handbilled the hospital nine times
from May 1990. On September 4, 1990, the Steelworkers
Union submitted a list of 18 names of employees who were
on the in-house organizing committee. They added two
names to the list on January 15, 1991, and one name on
March 14, 1991. The petition was filed on March 7, 1991,
but it was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the
above litigation.
In the summer of 1990 Local 95 renewed its campaign to
organize the plant operations employees and employees were
encouraged to sign new authorization cards. In September
1990, Local 95 filed a petition which is still pending.
739ST. CLAIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
B. Alleged Interference with Distribution of Leaflets
and Surveillance
1. October 25, 1990
On this date employees Barbara Catanzaro and Mary
McCullum were engaged in the distribution of union lit-
erature at the entrance to the employee parking area.
McCullum testified that as she was handbilling, security
guard Jim Delehenty approached her. At the same time
Catanzaro also approached McCullum and they stood to-
gether handbilling. Although Delehenty talked into his radio
as he approached, he did not say anything to either employee
and watched them for 1 minute. Both employees decided to
stop handbilling and proceeded to parking lot 3. As they at-
tempted to leave the lot, Delehenty temporarily detained
them by putting his hand over the token slot. He asked
McCullum in which department she worked. She gave him
the information which he wrote on a pad and allowed her to
leave. Catanzaro was asked the same questions and when she
refused to answer, he went to the rear of her car and wrote
something on his pad. She also did not inform him that she
was an off-duty hospital employee. When Catanzaro refused
to give her name, Delehenty informed her it was illegal to
solicit on hospital property. Delehenty then allowed her to
leave the property.
2. November 1, 1990
Employees Judy Faith, and Barbara Catanzaro testified that
they were handbilling at 5:30 a.m. on the above date at the
entrance to employee parking lot 3. While they were engaged
in handbilling, a security officer and Nursing Supervisor
Peggy Sembrandt were seen at the entrance to the physicians
office building observing their handbilling for 5 or 10 min-
utes. Sembrandt then approached both employees and told
them they would have to leave the premises. Both employees
complied with the request. Both never saw guards or super-
visors observe handbilling before.
Employment Manager Teresa Lame testified that she re-
ceived a telephone call at 5:50 a.m. at her home from
Sembrandt who informed her that off-duty employees were
handbilling on hospital property. She instructed Sembrandt to
move the employees to public property until she got to the
hospital. When Lame arrived at the hospital at 8:30 a.m., she
consulted with her supervisor, Human Relations Director
William Powell, and acknowledged that she may have made
a mistake. After further research, she informed Powell that
she had definitely made a mistake in ordering the removal
of the employees.
Steelworkers handbilling took place nine times at the hos-
pital. The first three instances of handbilling were conducted
off hospital property by employees and nonemployees, while
the remaining instances of handbilling, beginning on October
25, were done on hospital property, by employees. Following
the November 1 incident, off-duty employees were permitted
to handbill and solicit on hospital property and did so with-
out incident.
Analysis and Conclusions
The evidence indicates that nonemployees were also
handbilling at the hospital during the time in question al-
though they were not on hospital property. The evidence also
indicates that employees who were handbilling were not in
hospital uniform because they were off duty. Under these cir-
cumstances, and considering the large number of hospital
employees, I find nothing unlawful in the security guard’s at-
tempt to ascertain the employees’ identity on October 25, nor
was there any attempt to prevent handbilling on this date.
Furthermore, I find no unlawful surveillance on November 1,
because the employees were openly engaged in distribution
and were observed for so short a period of time. The com-
ment by security guard Delehenty to Catanzaro was only
made after she refused to identify herself. It seems obvious
that Delehenty suspected her of being a nonemployee be-
cause he didn’t make the same statement to McCullum when
she identified herself as an employee.
With respect to the November 1 removal of handbilling
employees from hospital property, I find the hospital
solicitation/distribution rule was never alleged or found to be
unlawful. I further find that its application on November 1,
was a de minimis interference with employees’ union activi-
ties that was not repeated in the future.
Accordingly, I will recommend dismissal of the allegations
contained in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the complaint.
C. Alleged Harassment of Mary McCullum
On January 17, 1991, McCullum brought a roll of yellow
ribbon to the hospital and gave pieces of it to employees to
wear on their uniforms in support of the Gulf War. Dietary
Director Mary Pfaffenschmidt was informed by Dietary Su-
pervisors Tom Ranken and Cathy Woltz that McCullum was
distributing ribbons on worktime in work areas.
Since McCullum had been disciplined before for violating
the hospital’s no-solicitation/distribution rule, Pfaffenschmidt
called Teresa Lame (human resources) and asked her advice.
She was advised to call McCullum into her office and ex-
plain the hospital’s no-solicitation/distribution rule to her,
which she did. McCullum said she was just being patriotic
and she only gave out one ribbon in the kitchen. McCullum
testified she told Pfaffenschmidt that she only distributed rib-
bons in the employee lounge on her own time. She also ad-
mitted telling Pfaffenschmidt that the kitchen was not a pa-
tient care area and she didn’t understand why the no-solicita-
tion rule precluded her from distributing ribbons in that area.
According to Pfaffenschmidt, McCullum admitted distribut-
ing a ribbon in the kitchen.
Sometime later, Supervisor Rankin informed
Pfaffenschmidt that McCullum was telling employees that
the hospital would not allow them to wear ribbons.
McCullum was called back into Pfaffenschmidt’s office
where she was told in the presence of Woltz that at no time
was she told she couldn’t wear a yellow ribbon. According
to Pfaffenschmidt, McCullum appeared without a ribbon on
her uniform and told Pfaffenschmidt that she did not know
that she couldn’t wear a ribbon. She was also told that she
could distribute yellow ribbons in nonwork areas as long as
both parties were on nonwork time (off duty).
The next day McCullum was taken to Lame’s office where
she was asked about the no-solicitation rule. According to
Lame, McCullum said she was a little confused so Lame
read the entire rule to her out of the hospital handbook.
Lame told her she was not being disciplined for the incident,
that she (Lame) would make a note of it for her file, which
was never done.
740 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next day, McCullum appeared on television station
KDKA and told the interviewer that she had been disciplined
for distributing yellow ribbons.
There was evidence that during this time a box of yellow
ribbons was sitting on the nurses counter on floor 5A with
a sign reading, ‘‘Take One.’’ Apparently, Sister Mary Paul
Wheeler brought them in.
Analysis and Conclusion
It should be noted that there is no 8(a)(3) allegation relat-
ing to this incident and based on the corroborated testimony
of Respondent’s witnesses, which is largely undisputed, I
find no threat and no harassment directed at McCullum. I
find that the hospital’s conduct was caused by McCullum,
whose motives are questionable.
Accordingly, I recommend dismissing this allegation.
D. Interrogation
In September 1990, employees Rick Jordan and Edward
Halferty testified that Plant Operations Supervisor Charles
Froetschel came to the employees’ Trane room (locker room)
and asked them and employee Ken Tilger why they thought
the employees wanted a union. Halferty said the hospital
didn’t have an adequate grievance procedure. Jordan said he
thought the housekeeping and dietary employees needed a
union because they were treated poorly. Froetschel admits
this conversation. Employee Joseph Snack testified that in
October 1990 when he and Froetschel were discussing work
assignments, Froetschel asked him if he had signed a union
card. Snack said no, and Froetschel dropped the subject.
Snack further testified that on November 27, while they were
performing tool inventory, Froetschel asked him whether he
had signed a union card. When Snack stated that he hadn’t,
Froetschel said he heard through the grapevine that he had.
Snack then told Froetschel that it was illegal for him to ask
such questions. Froetschel said it didn’t matter whether he
did or not. Charles Froetschel admitted asking Snack whether
he signed a union card one time on November 27.
Analysis and Conclusions
I can not find that the conversation in September in the
Trane room constituted interrogation. It appears to have been
a general conversation, nonthreatening in tone and location.
No specifics were requested by Froetschel judging from the
totality of the conversation. However, I find that Froetschel
did interrogate Snack about his union activities in October
and November 1990.
Accordingly I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating Joseph Snack.
E. Sanitary Period
By late September, the maintenance department had lost
four employees. Edward Halferty and Joseph Snack, who
worked in that department, testified that several times in No-
vember 1990, whenever they asked Charles Froetschel when
the hospital was going to start hiring replacements,
Froetschel would respond by stating that since Local 95 filed
a petition for an election, the hospital was in a ‘‘sanitary pe-
riod’’ which prevented it from hiring new employees because
it might be construed as padding the payroll with nonunion
employees.
Froetschel admitted telling employees that the hospital
could not replace employees as described above because he
was under the mistaken impression, after talking with the
human resources department that what he told employees
was correct.
Several witnesses from the human relations department
testified that they never gave Froetschel that information and
further testified that one position was filled in November
1990 and the other three positions were filled in February
1991.
Analysis and Conclusions
In effect, what Froetschel told employees was that pro-
tected activity was the reason for not hiring employees. This
can be construed as harmless error as Respondent’s counsel
suggests. However, when Froetschel combined this statement
with his contemporaneous attempt to have employees revoke
their union authorization cards, the statements are not so
harmless. In fact, the logical conclusion one could draw, and
which was drawn, from Froetchel’s statements and conduct
was that if employees want relief from increased workloads,
they should consider withdrawing their authorization cards.
Then the Union would go away, the hospital could hire re-
placements, and everybody would be happy.
Accordingly, I find that the statements of Froetschel con-
stitute 8(a)(1) violations.
F. Soliciting Withdrawal of Authorization Cards
Sometime in November 1990, Froetschel told Halferty that
employees were asking supervisors how to revoke their au-
thorization cards. He gave Halferty a letter from Hospital
President Ben Snead which set forth the method employees
might use in revoking their union cards. It also gave the ad-
dress of the Board and of Bill Hey, the Local 95 organizer.
Froetschel told Halferty that if he had a card he wanted re-
voked, he could come up and ask either Froetschel or one
of the other supervisors for assistance in writing the letter.
The next day Halferty went to Froetschel’s office and asked
for a form to revoke his union card. Froetschel said there
was no form but he would help him draft a letter, if he
wished. Halferty agreed and Froetschel dictated some lan-
guage to Halferty. Halferty left and mailed the letter in Janu-
ary 1991. Halferty later signed a Steelworkers Union card
but changed his mind and signed a Local 95 Union card in
June 1991.
Froetschel admits the above incident with Halferty; how-
ever, he testified that Halferty did not write down the words
that Froetschel gave him at that time. Froetschel also admits
that he told Halferty at the conclusion of their meeting that
if anyone else wants to revoke their union cards, they should
see him.
Analysis and Conclusion
I did not consider other testimony by Halferty relating to
the above incident because it was not corroborated and it did
not appear in either of his affidavits dated February and
March 1991. Furthermore, Halferty appeared confused as to
exactly how he felt about unions.
Having said that, I find that Froetschel violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting and assisting Halferty in re-
voking his union authorization card. The clear implication
741ST. CLAIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
1 251 NLRB 1083 (1980).
from Froetschel’s actions was that if Halferty revoked his
union card, he would actually be helping himself by allowing
Froetschel to hire additional workers to relieve Halferty’s
workload. I find sufficient evidence under the circumstances
to support the allegation of assistance and solicitation which
went beyond the bounds of merely informing employees of
their right to revoke.
G. Suspension and Discharge of Carl Madden
Carl Madden was employed as a cook in the dietary de-
partment from June 1986 to December 1990. He was active
for the Steelworkers Union. He was on the organizing com-
mittee, distributed union literature, attended union meetings,
wore union insignia to work, signed an authorization card on
June 2, 1990, and solicited signatures on union cards from
other employees. Respondent admits knowledge.
Sometime in the afternoon of December 4, Madden no-
ticed that the beef noodle soup, which had been served for
lunch, needed more meat before being served for the evening
meal. He brought this to the attention of Cafeteria Supervisor
Cathy Wolz who in turn referred the matter to dietary super-
visor Linda Svidro. She examined the soup and agreed with
Madden. Svidro told Madden to get the meat, cut it up,
weigh it, and add it to the soup. Madden refused stating that
it was the morning cook Bob Ashton’s job. According to
Madden, Svidro then told him to use his professional opin-
ion.
When Svidro returned to the kitchen at 3:30 p.m. to find
out about the soup, Madden admitted sending the soup to the
cafeteria without adding the meat. Svidro sent him home.
Svidro testified she never mentioned anything to Madden
about ‘‘professional opinion.’’ She also denied that Madden
told her it was Ashton’s responsibility.
When Pfaffenschmidt and Lame interviewed Madden, they
testified that he never mentioned ‘‘professional opinion’’ or
that it was Ashton’s responsibility. According to them, Mad-
den admitted refusing Svidro’s direction. When asked why
he refused to do as Svidro had directed, Madden merely said
that he used poor judgement and that it wouldn’t happen
again. Lame asked Madden whether he thought Svidro’s re-
quest was unreasonable or whether he thought it was some-
one else’s job and Madden answered ‘‘no’’ to both ques-
tions.
He was asked if he had enough time to finish the job and
he said yes. When asked again why he refused a direct order,
Madden replied that he used poor judgment and he has a
tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Madden admitted that it would have taken him 2 to 3 min-
utes to complete the task ordered by Svidro.
Lame conducted a review of the hospital’s disciplinary
records to determine what discipline was taken in a case of
insubordination. She found only one example and that in-
volved a dietary supervisor by the name of Mary Lou
Dempsey who had been terminated. This was confirmed by
Pfaffenschmidt. Lame’s review also disclosed several cases
of employees who had threatened insubordination but who
had complied with the orders of their supervisors. Lame tes-
tified that she considered those acts far different from Mad-
den’s misconduct. Based on the recommendations of Svidro
and Pfaffenschmidt and her own investigation, she decided to
terminate Madden.
Analysis and Conclusion
It should be stated at the outset that the dietary department
had disciplinary guidelines which include progressive dis-
cipline. These guidelines also state that the hospital has the
right to discharge, for just cause, and progressive discipline
will not apply when the cumulative discipline record or the
seriousness of the offense warrants more serious measures in-
cluding immediate discharge. The hospital employee hand-
book lists 25 infractions which could result in discharge, one
of which is insubordination.
I discredit Madden’s testimony that he was left a choice
of doing the job based on his professional opinion. I also dis-
credit his testimony that another cook was present at the time
and he told Svidro that it was the other cook’s responsibility.
In any event, the former contradicts his admitted opinion and
the latter is irrelevant.
I further credit the corroborated testimony of the three Re-
spondent witnesses and I find Madden was insubordinate for
no reason other than his poor attitude which he had been
warned about several times in the past, beginning with a
warning on October 20, 1989. General Counsel attempted to
show disparate treatment by offering the testimony of Judith
Faith. She argues that Faith had not been a union supporter
and instead of being discharged for insubordination, she was
merely issued warnings and suspended. I find this argument
faulty because the evidence does not support it. Faith was a
known union supporter during the Teamsters campaign and
talked to her supervisor many times about her union sym-
pathies. Moreover, she had never been insubordinate. In one
case she eventually complied with an order and in another
case the order was withdrawn. Finally, I find that the hospital
is not bound to carry out progressive discipline.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent met its Wright Line1
burden by establishing, through credible evidence, that Mad-
den would have been discharged notwithstanding his union
activities, and I recommend dismissal of this allegation.
H. Discharge of Richard Jordan and Dennis Curry
Jordan worked as a maintenance repairer on the 3 to 11:30
p.m. shift. He had 1 year of service and his supervisor was
Charles Froetschel. He signed a union authorization card for
Local 95 in August 1990. He attended no union meetings
and wore no union insignia. He testified that in September
1990, in a conversation with Froetschel in the Trane room,
he spoke in favor of a union as did Halferty and Tilger. On
the same date, when they were alone, Jordan testified that he
told Froetschel that he had signed a union card for Local 95
because someday there would be a union at the hospital and
he wanted it to be Local 95. According to Jordan, Froetschel
said he shouldn’t have done it.
Dennis Curry worked as a stationary engineer on the 11
p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. He had 2 years’ service and his super-
visor was Froetschel. He signed a union authorization card
for Local 95 in October 1988. He testified that he signed the
card at a union meeting in the presence of Bill Moore who
later became engineering supervisor. Six months before his
discharge, he told Moore that they needed Local 95 to rep-
resent them because of the treatment, and not the money.
Moore said he couldn’t talk about it. Curry claims he told
742 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 Lame testified that she examined Curry’s timecards for 6 months
and in over 66 percent of the time, Curry wrote in lunch and a 15-
minute break.
Froetschel in early 1989 that everyone had signed a union
card including him, and he didn’t want to be singled out as
the ringleader just because he hadn’t signed the petition to
get rid of the Union. His sworn affidavit states, ‘‘I didn’t dis-
cuss the Union with him after that, however, since I wanted
to keep my continued interest in the Union quiet.’’ He then
testified that in the summer of 1990 he told Froetschel that
he supported Local 95. This statement is not in either of his
affidavits.
Froetschel denied that Curry ever told him about his union
activities during his annual performance reviews (early 1989
and summer of 1990) but admitted that Curry had told him
in the fall of 1988 that he had signed a card for Local 95.
Bill Moore testified that he did not discuss the Union with
Curry after December 1989 because Curry worked nights and
Moore worked day shift. He further testified that he had no
conversations with Jordan about Local 95.
Two weeks prior to the night of September 25, 1990, elec-
trician William Kreiger was assigned to install additional
lighting in the hospital parking garage. Krieger’s supervisors
Stephen Novicki and Daniel Squire noticed that the job was
not progressing as scheduled because it was over the budg-
eted time and still not completed. On the night of September
25, Novicki, who is assistant director of plant operations,
came to the hospital to check up on Krieger who was sched-
uled to work from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., September 26.
On arriving at 11 p.m. Novicki noticed that Krieger was
not yet working. Krieger arrived at the jobsite at approxi-
mately 12:25 a.m. carrying a toolbox and materials. He as-
sembled his tools and materials until 12:40 a.m. when he left
the jobsite. He returned at 3:30 a.m. and began to work. At
approximately 4:15 a.m. employees Jordan and Curry arrived
at the jobsite to help Krieger. All three worked until 5:55
a.m. when they left the jobsite.
Novicki left the area at 5:55 a.m. and was returning to his
office when he ran into security officer Michael McGrogan
who worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift.
McGrogan related the following information to Novicki.
At approximately 11:55 p.m., he received a radio call from
Krieger to meet him in the Trane room. When he arrived
Krieger said he was going to Primanti’s (a sandwich bar in
Pittsburgh) and asked him if he wanted anything. McGrogan
said no. At 1:05 or 1:10 a.m., while escorting two employees
to their cars, McGrogan noticed that Krieger’s truck had
been moved to a different space. At 1:20 a.m., McGrogan
heard Krieger state over the portable radio, ‘‘ETA-5 min-
utes.’’ He also heard Jordan acknowledge the message. Five
minutes later he heard Krieger make another report stating,
‘‘ETA-30 seconds.’’ McGrogan looked out the window and
noticed Krieger’s truck back in its original space and Krieger
walking away from the truck carrying white bags.
After hearing McGrogan’s report, Novicki reported the en-
tire evening’s events to Plant Operations Director Squire
who, in turn, reported the events to the human relations de-
partment and asked them to conduct an investigation.
Teresa Lame testified that the first thing she did was ask
for the timecards of the three employees involved in the re-
port from plant operations. She reviewed all the timecards,
reconciling each segment of time they had spent on that
shift. She noticed that Curry’s and Jordan’s timecards
showed they were working in the 5C penthouse from mid-
night until 3:15 a.m.. Krieger’s timecard showed that he
worked there from 12:30 a.m. to 2:24 a.m. and none of the
timecards indicated a lunch period or lunchbreak. She then
checked with Nursing Supervisor Lois Christ and House-
keeping Supervisor Tim Thomas who were present on 5C
during the emergency water leak that caused water to over-
flow into a small kitchen area on 5C. According to them the
overflow started at midnight and was cleaned up by 1:30
a.m.. By that time everyone had left the area.
Lame was unable to reconcile the timecards with the
events of the evening, therefore, she decided to interview the
three employees on September 27 starting with Krieger.
The interviews took place in Lame’s office with Daniel
Squire present. Lame testified that she gave Krieger a copy
of his timecard and asked him to relate what he did on the
night of September of 25 and September 26. Krieger initially
stated that he had done the work at the times he had written
on his timecard. She questioned the times he said he had
worked in the garage and the time he indicated he was on
floor 5C but Krieger said the times were accurate. She also
interrogated him about the radio messages and Krieger said
a good friend had brought him lunch that night. Finally after
much questioning, Krieger admitted that he had gone to
Primanti’s and gotten sandwiches for himself, Jordan, and
Curry and they ate them in the Trane room. He said he lied
about the breaktime on the timecard and that he actually re-
turned to the hospital at 1:30 a.m. and they ate their sand-
wiches in the Trane room which took at least a half hour.
Lame suspended Krieger pending further investigation.
Dennis Curry was next and the procedure was the same.
Curry said his timecard was accurate. Lame told him she had
reason to believe he was not where he said he was. Curry
said, ‘‘Why would I lie.’’ She asked him if he ate and he
said yes, he got his sandwich from Krieger. She asked what
time and Curry said about 3:30 a.m. and he couldn’t under-
stand what the big deal was. She asked him why lunchbreak
was not on his timecard and he said he gets a paid lunch
and never writes in lunch on his timecard.2 She asked him
if he ate lunch at 1:30 a.m. and he said no it was 3 a.m.
She said that was when he took break and Curry said he
didn’t know what time it was. Curry said he ate a sandwich
from Primanti’s but it only took 10 minutes. She told him
Krieger took over a half hour. Curry said it could have been
longer but it was not 1:30 a.m. Lame accused Curry of fal-
sifying his timecard, stealing time, and lying to her. Accord-
ing to Lame, Curry said the only thing he lied about was the
3 a.m. break. He also said they ate in the Trane room and
it seemed later then 1:30 a.m. and he was sorry he lied.
Jordan was next and the same procedure was followed ini-
tially. Lame testified she asked him where the sandwich
came from and he said he didn’t know. When she told him
she knew, he gave her the name. Jordan said they ate lunch
between 1:30 and 2 a.m. but it only took 7 minutes. When
Lame said Krieger indicated over a half hour, he said that
could be right. Lame accused him of falsifying, stealing, and
lying. Jordan responded by saying that you don’t buck the
guys. If he had written the correct times, theirs would have
been wrong.
743ST. CLAIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
Lame testified that the next day she received a phone call
from Curry who told her he was sorry he lied, but that he
didn’t know Krieger left the hospital until the interview. He
said Krieger and he were good friends and that put him in
a position where he had to lie to save him.
Dan Squire and Lame discussed the matter and decided
they would terminate all three. They related the results of the
investigation to Bill Powell and he concurred with their deci-
sion.
Krieger and Jordan were discharged on October 1 for theft
of time, falsification of timecards, and dishonesty and breach
of trust. Curry was discharged on October 3 for the same
reasons. More specifically, Jordan and Krieger took a 30-
minute unpaid lunch on company time and didn’t write on
the timecard. Krieger also left the hospital on company time.
Curry received a paid working lunch but didn’t work or
record it on his timecard.
Dennis Curry testified that he met with Lame and Squire
on September 27 and that they went over his timecard. He
told them that he had eaten a sandwich but it only took 10
minutes and he was entitled to a 15-minute break. Curry told
them he had received a paid half-hour lunch for 2 years and
Squire said no. They argued. Lame told him she would give
him another chance if he told the truth. They discussed
whether he was supposed to write a lunch period on his
timecard. He also testified that when he was accused of theft
of time and falsifying his timecard, he protested vigorously.
He stated that he never saw the hospital policy and procedure
manual. He called Lame the next day and told her that there
must be a misunderstanding because he didn’t do anything
wrong and couldn’t understand her position. A week later he
was called to a meeting and discharged. He protested saying
it was ridiculous because he was at work 8 hours and if
Krieger did something wrong, by leaving the premises, he
should not be included with him. He wrote, ‘‘I disagree’’ on
his discipline report.
Richard Jordan testified that he met with Lame and Squire
on September 27 and they reviewed his timecard, going over
each entry from 3 p.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Tuesday be-
cause he worked a double shift. Lame asked him if he ate
that evening and he said he ate a sandwich from Primanti’s.
She asked how long he took and he said 10 to 15 minutes.
Lame asked about the radio messages and Jordan said he
wasn’t carrying a radio. Lame accused him of lying because
he wrote in inaccurate times. He said he may have made a
mistake. The following Monday he met with Lame and
Squire and he was told he was discharged. He said nothing.
He claimed he told Squire on the way out of the building
that the reasons given were not the real reasons for his dis-
charge.
Human Resources Director William Powell testified that
he met with Curry on October 8 with Lame present. Curry
told Powell that he had lied and that it was wrong to cover
up for Krieger but Krieger was his friend and that put him
in the difficult situation of either telling the truth or losing
Krieger’s friendship.
Curry testified that at the October 8 meeting he told Pow-
ell that all three were fired to break the Union because they
were highly visible employees.
Plant Operations Director Daniel Squire corroborated all
the testimony of Novicki and Lame. He further testified that
timecards are to be accurate to within one-tenth of an hour
because the hospital uses the honor system and employees
are paid based on the information contained thereon. He fur-
ther stated that all department employees are explained time-
card policy during their orientation. He also testified that all
meals are supposed to be recorded on timecards and meal-
time is not paid for except meals taken by the stationary en-
gineer who takes a working lunch because he can’t leave the
boiler room. He stated that employees on night shift are for-
bidden to leave the hospital.
Teresa Lame testified further that since she started work
at the hospital in January 1989, three employees have been
discharged for falsifying their timecards involving less than
30 minutes of time not worked. They were Karen Bucher in
1989, Amy Hanrahan in 1989, and Mike Oliastro in 1990.
She also testified that during the interviews she took short-
hand notes which were later that day transcribed from her
earlier notes and her recollection of what was said. These
notes are in evidence as General Counsel’s exhibits. Richard
Jordan testified that these notes are inaccurate on all major
points. William Moore and Charles Froetschel testified that
they played no part in the discharge of Curry and Jordan.
Analysis and Conclusions
The hospital has rules of conduct in its handbook which,
if violated ‘‘will result in disciplinary action up to and in-
cluding discharge.’’ The handbook lists 25 breaches of con-
duct among which are absence from job duties or work sta-
tion without permission, falsifying records or reports, and
failure to observe breaks and mealtimes. As I found earlier,
the hospital is not bound by a progressive discipline proce-
dure and, in fact, discharged three other employees for fal-
sifying their timecards, for less than 30 minutes. I credit the
testimony of Respondent’s witnesses because they all cor-
roborate each other whereas Jordan’s and Curry’s testimony
is not corroborated and portions of their testimony are not in
their affidavits. Based on the testimony of Respondent’s wit-
nesses, I find that a thorough investigation was conducted
and Respondent was justified in concluding that Jordan,
Krieger and Curry committed several breaches of conduct. I
did not consider the computer record testimony because there
was no evidence that it was offered to Respondent as an ex-
planation for time spent and it did not appear on any time-
card.
Significantly, Curry and Jordan where short-time employ-
ees having virtually no union activity and it is questionable
whether their union activity was even known to Respondent.
Moreover, Krieger was also discharged for similar breaches
of conduct and he had no union activity. Therefore I find
that Respondent would have discharged Curry and Jordan
notwithstanding their union activity and met its Wright Line
burden.
Accordingly, I recommend dismissal of the allegations re-
lating to Jordan and Curry.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The United Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO–CLC
and Local 95–95A, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, AFL–CIO are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
744 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating an employee, threatening not to hire employees
because of the sanitary period, and assisting and employee
in the revocation of his union authorization card. All other
allegations where not found to be unfair labor practices.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in acts and con-
duct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall rec-
ommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, St. Clair Memorial Hospital, Mount Leb-
anon, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees.
(b) Threatening not to hire employees during sanitary pe-
riod (that period between the filing of a petition and an elec-
tion).
(c) Assisting employees in the revocation of their union
authorization cards.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its facility in Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’4 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 6, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient cop-
ies of the notice for posting by St. Clair Memorial Hospital,
if willing, at all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to refuse to hire replacement em-
ployees during the sanitary period (that period between the
filing of a petition for an election and the election).
WE WILL NOT assist employees in revoking their union au-
thorization cards.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
ST. CLAIR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL