St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 1180 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, Inc. and Arthur Bur-
dick and Ellen Kovac. Cases 30-CA-3794-3 and
30-CA 3794-4
March 5, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND ML RPIIY
On September 11, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and the Charging Parties filed an answering brief to
Respondent's exceptions.
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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings,2 and
conclusions ' of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, St. Luke's Memorial
Hospital, Inc., Racine, Wisconsin, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
|We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's refusal to defer to an
arbitration award upholding the discharges of the Charging Parties. he
arbitrator improperly found that the alleged misconduct of the Charging
Parties was not condoned and that their discharge therefor was for "just
cause." Thus, it is evident that the arbitrator did not consider whether the
real reason for the discharges was the Charging Parties' protected activities.
In light of the foregoing, we deem it unnecessar to pass on the Administra-
tive Law Judge's additional observations regarding the fairness and regu-
larity of the arbitral proceeding.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibilit) findings made hb the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc. 91
NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d ir. 1951). We have carefull)
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
t
The Administrative Law Judge incorrectly referred to Frank Rosselli as
Respondent's personnel director rather than its plant operations administra-
tor. However, this inadvertence does not affect the validit) of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's conclusions
240 NLRB No. 168
DECISION
KARL H. BU:SCHMANN. Administrative Law Judge: A con-
solidated complaint in Cases 30-CA-3794-3 and 30-CA-
3794-4 issued on October 12, 1977, as a result of two sepa-
rate charges filed on September 20, 1976, by Arthur Bur-
dick and Ellen Kovac. In substance, the complaint alleges
that Respondent, St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, Inc., dis-
criminatorily discharged employees Arthur Burdick and
Ellen Kovac in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Respondent, in its answer, as amended on October 25,
1977, admitted all jurisdictional allegations in the com-
plaint and that it discharged the two employees on June 29,
1976. However, Respondent denied that the discharges
were prompted by the union or protected activities of the
individuals and asserted that the complaint should be dis-
missed because the matter had been decided by arbitra-
tion. In addition, the answer challenged the Board's juris-
diction in Case 30-CA-3794-4 relating to employee Ellen
Kovac on the grounds that the proceeding was based on an
untimely appeal and is barred by Section 10(b) of the Act.
Hearings were held in Racine, Wisconsin, on November
7-11, and 16 and 17, 1977. Counsel for the General Coun-
sel, counsel for the Charging Parties, and counsel for Re-
spondent filed briefs. In addition, motions to strike por-
tions of briefs were received.' Based on the entire record in
this case, including my observation of the witnesses and
consideration of the briefs and written motions, I make the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law with par-
ticular emphasis to the following issues:
1. Whether the Board has jurisdiction in Case 30-CA-
3794-4 because of the provision in Section 10(b) of the Act.
2. Whether the arbitrator's award required deferral un-
der the Spielberg doctrine.l
3. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act by discharging Arthur Burdick and Ellen Kovac
because of their union or protected activities.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, Inc., is a
Wisconsin corporation which operates a nonprofit hospital
in Racine, Wisconsin. It is admittedly an employer en-
gaged in "commerce" within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act. Of its approximately 900 employees,
about 250 are members of a bargaining unit represented by
Local 150, Service and Hospital Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO. The Union is admittedly a labor organi-
zation as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
The agreement between the Union and the hospital ef-
fective April 27, 1974, was about to expire on April 30,
1976. On January 21, 1976, the Union, through its chief
steward, Arthur Burdick, notified the Respondent that ne-
gotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement
should be reopened (G.C. Exh. 5). Negotiation sessions
were held on various dates beginning on April 7 through
T rhese motions to strike portions of briefs are herehb denied.
-Spillhrg Manufacturing (ornmpan. 112 NLRB 1080 (1955).
ST. LUKE'S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. INC. 1181
the latter part of May 1976. By letter of April 29, 1976, the
Union by its chief negotiator Jay Schwartz, informed the
Respondent of its intention to strike (Resp. Exh. I). The
hospital responded by letter of May 3, 1976, notifying the
Union that the strike notice was defective and in violation
of Section 8(g) of the Act (Resp. Exh. 13). Respondent also
filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board
challenging the Union's strike notice.
On May 7, 1976, the Union sent a second strike notice
informing the hospital that the strike originally set for May
11, 1976, would be postponed to May 24, 1976 (G.C. Exh.
2). The letter was followed up with several telegrams (Resp.
Exh. 15a and b and 17). The hospital filed additional
charges with the Board on May 7, 1976, alleging that the
Union violated Section 8(bX3) of the Act (Resp. Exh. 16).
On May 24, 1976, the Union commenced the strike
which lasted until June 24, 1976, the day a successor bar-
gaining agreement was reached between the Union and the
hospital (Jt. Exh. 2). All unit employees with the exception
of four individuals were notified to return to work by July
2, 1976. The four employees who were not so notified and
who were discharged included Arthur Burdick and Ellen
Kovac. They received letters dated June 29, 1976, notifying
them of their discharges (G.C. Exh. 6 and 10).
A. The Termination of Arthur Burdick
The letter of June 29, 1976, to Burdick states:
After investigating all of the circumstances sur-
rounding your misconduct on May 7, 1976, in instigat-
ing and participating in an illegal work stoppage at St.
Luke's Hospital and your participation in picket line
misconduct, you are hereby notified that your employ-
ment at St. Luke's Hospital is terminated.
Arthur Burdick began his career at St. Luke's in 1974 as
maintenance electrician. His immediate supervisor was Pat
Letizia, chief engineer. While employed at the hospital.
Burdick was a member of the Union, Local 150. In Janu-
ary 1976 he was elected chief steward. In that capacity he
processed grievances, having filed approximately 100 griev-
ances in a relatively short time. He is also a member of the
negotiating committee who wrote his employer in January
1976 about the desire of the Union to renew the collective-
bargaining contract which expired on April 30, 1976 (G.C.
Exh. 5). Burdick was regarded by the union leadership as a
dissident who fought too aggressively for contract terms
more favorable to the employees. He also filed a lawsuit in
the Racine County Court against the Union to restrain the
union leadership including its president, Donald Beatty,
from negotiating a contract with the Respondent (G.C.
Exhs. 3-4). The rift between the union leadership and Bur-
dick was widely publicized to the hospital and employees
(G.C. Exhs. 8 and 9).
The May 7 Incident: On May 7, 1976, at a time when the
1974 contract had expired and the parties occasionally met
in negotiation sessions, Respondent held a series of depart-
mental meetings to inform its employees of the status of
the negotiations. Jay Schwartz, the union negotiator. had
found out about these meetings and was under the impres-
sion that the employees were upset. He therefore called
Burdick at the hospital telling him that a meeting would be
held in the hospital's parking lot at 2:30 p.m., and that he
should inform the employees of the meeting.
At about the same time, shortly after 2 p.m.. Burdick
was told by his supervisor, Letizia, that he was to attend a
meeting in his department. Bu'rdick replied that he could
not attend because of union business. He left his work sta-
tion in the maintenance department and went through the
facility notifying the employees of the meeting at about
2:30 p.m. As a result, approximately 40 employees from
the first and second shifts assembled to hear Schwartz
warn against an immediate strike without the required 10
day's notice. He advised the assembled employees to put
up with the employer's treatment of them. The meeting,
which lasted approximately 15 minutes, certainly no longer
than half an hour, was also attended by some of the
hospital's supervisory personnel. For example, Personnel
Director Frank Rosselli, Food Service Director Earl Rom-
rmch, and Administrative Assistant Rex Brown were pres-
ent at that meeting. Burdick was present for only part of
the meeting, and failed to attend the departmental meeting
called by his supervisor. Letizia. At the conclusion of the
meeting, Burdick returned to the building and met Rosselli
and Letizia who told Burdick that he was fired. Burdick
angrily ran out announcing that he had just been fired.
However, Schwartz and his assistant, James Ennis, ap-
proached Rosselli demanding to know whether Burdick
was indeed discharged. Following further discussion, a
meeting was held in Rosselli's office between Schwartz,
Ennis, Burdick, and Rosselli and Rosselli assured that Bur-
dick was not discharged. At the insistence of Ennis as to
whether Rosselli had the authority to make the decision,
and because Schwartz had earlier threatened another walk-
out if Burdick was fired, Rosselli left the meeting briefly to
make a telephone call. Rosselli returned and assured the
group that he had the authority to state that Burdick was
not fired but that Burdick would be docked for the remain-
der of the day and for the time he was absent from work.3
Ennis specifically asked whether any further reperrecus-
sions would follow but was assured that none would fol-
low. Burdick was allowed and did return to work the next
working day and worked for 2 weeks until the employees
struck the employer. During this time Burdick met fre-
quently with his supervisor and other hospital officials con-
cerning the strike and at no time was he told of an ongoing
investigation about his participation in the alleged walkout
on May 7, 1976.
The alleged picket line misconduct. The other reason
which the hospital advanced for Burdick's discharge was
his "participation in picket line misconduct." In this re-
gard, the record shows as follows: On May 24. 1976, the
Union, after the required 10-day notice required by Section
8(g) of the Act, commenced a strike. The strikers were or-
Although there is testimon b Rosselli and Brown to the effect that
Burdick was disciplined on that daN solely for his failure to attend the
departmental meeting and that an nvestigation concerning his participation
In the walkout continued. I discredit such testimony. Rosselli's testimony
was actuall? ambiguous on that point, and Schwartz, Burdick, and Ennis
unequisocall? testified that t as clearly stated that Burdick was not fired
for his conduct on that day. that an investigation was not mentioned. and
that the suspension would end the matter
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganized into four shifts and were led during each of the
shifts by a picket captain. Burdick, however, was not as-
signed to any shift and was not a picket captan. Neverthe-
less, he was active in the picketing of the hospital at various
times.
On May 27, the hospital sued in the Circuit Court for
Racine County for an injunction to prohibit picket line
misconduct. The complaint named as defendants the
Union, Burdick, individually and as chief steward, Ellen
Kovac, individually and as steward, and others (Resp. Exh.
18(a) ). On May 28, the Circuit Court in Racine issued an
injunction, apparently agreed to by the Union, prohibiting
the defendants (Resp. Exh. 18(b) ):
(A) From blocking ingress and egress at the Plaintiff's
premises.
(B) From picketing on or in any driveway or entrance-
way or exitway to the Plaintiffs premises in such man-
ner as to obstruct free passage.
(C) From at any' time having more than two pickets
within or upon any driveway, entranceway or exit to
the Plaintiff's premises.
(D) From in any way doing any acts calculated to do
property damage to the Hospital, its employees. visit-
ors, patients or suppliers.
The order also prohibited all parties "from using lan-
guage to abuse, coerce, or carry threats of physical violence
with respect to anyone." No contempt proceedings under
this injunction were initiated. Generally, the pickets
walked around the hospital premises and requested truck-
drivers or patients to honor the picket line. The record
shows that some people who were so requested went
through the line and others did not.
Nevertheless, according to Respondent, Burdick was ob-
served by hospital officials engaging in certain misconduct.
For example, Rex Brown, Frank Rosselli, Earl Rommich
(food service director), and security officer Rickenbaugh
all testified that they saw Burdick stop trucks and block
driveways. According to Brown and Rosselli, he chased a
truck with his own car, blocked it and threatened the
driver; and Brown and Rickenbaugh heard him shout to
other picketers to block traffic. The most serious allegation
was made by security officer Dan Leissner who testified
that he saw Burdick on May 25, 1976, detain James Hor-
ton, a delivery driver for a bakery, and physically and ver-
bally abuse him. According to Leissner, "Burdick ran up to
the driver's window. The window was open. Reached in
and pulled the guy out by his-pulled on his jacket and got
the guy's head and shoulder out."
An appraisal of the record, however, shows that most of
the alleged misconduct was vastly exaggerated. For exam-
ple, concerning the most serious allegation, namely. the
bakery driver assault, the record not only contains
Burdick's denial of his role in the incident, but also the
testimony of Hooten, the delivery man himself. His vivid
recollection of the incident confirmed that Burdick could
not have been the perpetrator. Hooten described the man
who physically and verbally abused him as a tall black
man. Burdick, however, is white and of medium size. Hoo-
ten remembered another person (a white man) who also
talked to him during the incident and who told him to slow
down or he would hurt someone. Although Hooten did not
identify Burdick as the other "white guy." Burdick admit-
ted that he had talked to Hooten during the incident telling
him to watch out or he might hurt someone.4
Burdick admitted the other incident where he followed a
semi-trailer in his own car, brought the semi-trailer to a
stop by waving to him and merely requested him to honor
the picket line. Rosselli testified that he saw the incident
but he admitted that he could not overhear the conversa-
tion between the truckdriver and Burdick because of the
distance of 180 feet from the scene and because of the
noise of the running car engine. He also testified that he
was only about 10 feet from where Rex Brown stood dur-
ing the incident. Brown's inconsistent testimony to the ef-
fect that he heard Burdick threatening the driver is discred-
ited also because Rex Brown could not have overheard any
of Burdick's comments to the truckdriver. Finally, the rec-
ord does not support any allegations that Burdick refused
to let patients into the hospital or that he was intoxicated
while on the picket line. On bBalance. the pickets, includ-
ing Burdick walked on occasion in front on an incoming
truck thereby bringing it to a stop and requesting the driver
to honor the picket line. There may have followed an ex-
change of words because the driver objected. It was stipu-
lated on the record that Burdick did not appear in any
photographs or films which hospital officials took in order
to record picket line misconduct.
B. he erminration o Ellen Kovac
Employee Ellen Kovac was discharged by letter of June
29. 1976. which, like the letter to Burdick, reads as follows
(G.C. Exh. 10):
After investigating all of the circumstances surround-
ing your misconduct on May 22, 1976. in instigating
and participating in an illegal work stoppage at St.
Luke's Hospital and your participation in picket line
misconduct, you are hereby notified that your employ-
ment at St. Luke's Hospital is terminated.
Ellen Kovac. a union steward, worked with four other
employees in the Central Service Department of the hospi-
tal. Iona Whoolery was the department supervisor and
Versie Walker, one of the five employees, was their team
leader. The function of Central Service was, among others,
to sterilize hospital equipment such as surgical packs, tow-
els, linens and gowns and to distribute this equipment
where needed throughout the hospital. In May' 1976, the
Central Service Department experienced an unusually high
number of breakdowns of the three steam and several gas
sterilizers.
The May 22 incident: On May 22, 1976. Kovac was as-
signed to the three steam sterilizers, one of which was al-
ready out of order. During the course of the morning, and
in the absence of supervisor Whoolery, another sterilizer
broke down, which Kovac reported to team leader Walker.
She in turn informed Whoolery at her home. Pursuant to
41 eisnler's testimon i as to the ienlits of the Indi idual in vol ed in the
assaulIt on he driver is discredited in ies irf Iioolen's and Burdick's consis-
llnt and credible versions off it
ST. LUKE'S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. 1183
Whoolery's instructions and in accordance with hospital
procedure, Kovac immediately proceeded to recall the im-
properly sterilized equipment from the areas in the hospital
to which it had been distributed. Kovac worked on the
only remaining steam sterilizer when in the early afternoon
of May 22 that machine also began to malfunction. After
notice of this malfunction was given, and after employees
in the maintenance department were unable to repair the
machine, Ronald Schroeder. head supervisor, entered the
Central Service Department accompanied by two security
guards. Schroeder read the employees a one-page state-
ment which requested the assembled employees not to in-
terrupt or ask questions and which listed several of the
malfunctions which had occurred in the recent past and
which expressed his suspicion of the employees' responsi-
bility for the breakdowns (Resp. Exh. 32). The letter
warned: "1 am informing you if these actions continue, I
am willing to discharge those involved and follow up with
criminal prosecution."
Although the statement was read to only the first shift
employees in Central Service, Schroeder asked that its mes-
sage be relayed to the second shift employees. Schroeder's
statement left the employees stunned and, while work came
to a virtual standstill, a discussion ensued among the five
employees on what to do. While the record is disputed as
to who suggested it first, the consensus among the five em-
ployees was not to do anything and not to touch any of the
equipment so that they could not be accused of sabotage.
Versie Walker and Ellen Kovac both testified that Walk-
er first suggested this action. Nancy Ager testified that all
agreed not to work but stated that Kovac made the sugges-
tion first. Claudia Konieczko testified that Kovac ordered
the rest of the employees not to work. Since both Kon-
ieczko and Ager were rather vague and inconsistent in their
recollection of these circumstances, and since Walker
clearly admitted that she told the employees not to touch
anything, I conclude that team leader Walker made the
suggestion and that all the employees in the department
agreed not to do any work. As a result, nurses who needed
supplies from Central Service had to come down to get the
necessary equipment with the occasional help 5 of the Cen-
tral Service employees to show the nurses where some of
the equipment was kept.
Kovac, in the meantime, had called chief steward Bur-
dick for assistance, by calling him at home. When he ar-
rived at the hospital, the security guard denied him admis-
sion. Burdick then called the Central Service Department
from a nearby telephone and advised Kovac to call Rossel-
li for his help. Rosselli, whom Kovac reached at home. did
not come to the hospital and instead requested Rex Brown
to handle the situation. Brown appeared at Central Service,
informed the group that he would handle the situation, and
requested them to go back to work or leave. Kovac replied
that they wanted to meet with Burdick because they had
been accused of bad cultures. Even though the second shift
employees were arriving for work at about 3 p.m., Brown
Fhe record is not clear to hat extent he fi e empluccs assstled nurses
Isabelle I)iem and A4ns h111 in obtah ning certain equipilenl from ( nlral
Seritce. Apparentli, anx assistance as marginal and e en the telephone
was onl, sporadicalls answered in thai departlmen
was not able to induce the group to leave their work station
until about 3:30 p.m. when they met with Burdick in a
conference room. Burdick requested a copy of the state-
ment which Schroeder had read. When he was unsuccess-
ful in obtaining it, he left the hospital with the group.
Later in the afternoon, department supervisor Whoolery
called each of the five employees and informed them that
they were suspended for 2 days without pay because of this
incident. Had it not been for the strike which commenced
on May 24, 1976, the five employees would have returned
to work on that day. Because of the strike, all five employ-
ees, including Kovac, were carried on the roster of employ-
ees as inactive.
Kovac's conduct on the picket line: Of the 4-hour shifts
which the strikers had arranged for the picketing from May
24, 1976. to the end of the strike on June 29. 1976, Kovac
was assigned the I I p.m. to 3 a.m. shift. Although she was
not a picket captain, she appeared on the picket line at
various other times because she lived within a short dis-
talce from the hospital. Her purpose was to encourage the
other picketers and to keep up their morale.
Respondent called approximately six witnesses. Two
were security guards (Baldukes and Matthews) and the
other four were supervisors (Rosselli, Brown, Rickenbaugh
and Rommich). According to their testimony. Kovac had
been observed blocking vehicles and trucks from entering
hospital premises, harassing an elderly visitor to the point
of frightening and injuring her, attempting to dissuade two
visitors and others from entering the hospital and using her
bicycle as a weapon. An objective appraisal of the record
evidence and consideration of the credible testimony, how-
ever. reveals that her alleged misconduct was vastly exag-
gerated.
For example, the most serious allegation, the harassment
and resulting injury of the elderly lady. simply was not
caused by Kovac. The record's candid testimony of the
lady in question, Evelyn Miller, shows that she was not
harassed, and not even talked to by any picketers, that she
had never seen Mrs. Kovac, that she tripped because of a
defective sidewalk and not, as alleged, because she became
frightened, began to run and ultimately fell. Miller clearly
recalled her visit to the hospital and the fact that she
walked out of the hospital with Rex Brown.6 Miller testi-
fied as follows:
And as we [Rex Brown and Miller] were walking to
the parking lot I stumbled in a broken sidewalk. And
that's how I fell. And I hit my head and broke my
hand. And then Mr. Brown and another security
guard picked me up. And Mr. Brown suggested I go to
the hospital and have X-rays.
She further stated that she never ran that day but walked
moderately. On cross-examination by Respondent's attor-
ney she stated that she experienced trouble in getting into
the hospital parking lot because of the picketers, but that
she had no more problems after she told them: "f you
don't move you'll be an ornament on my car." When asked
how concerned she was about leaving the hospital, Miller
stated: "Well, all the stories you hear about pickets and
6Bro, n i his testimon Lharged that the picketers. particularly Kovac.
had caused her to heconie frightened and fall. eriousl, injuring herself.
1184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
how rough they can be. I thought probably it would be
rough. But it was not."
Similarly, with regard to the occurence involving some-
one turning away the father and his injured son,
Respondent's witness Rosselli testified that Kovac with a
group of pickets persuaded a father and his son from enter-
ing the hospital's emergency room. The confrontation
which occurred in the evening of June 5, 1976, was, accord-
ing to Rosselli, led by Kovac. Yet, attorney Schwartz clear-
ly admitted during his testimony that he spoke to the father
of the boy suggesting to him to go to another nearby hospi-
tal if the boy's illness was not too serious. Kovac confirmed
in her testimony that Schwartz talked to the father. Romil-
da Wilson, another picketing employee, who was present
and stood next to Kovac during this incident, testified that
Kovac said nothing during the entire episode and that
Schwartz did all the talking. It is clear, therefore, that Ko-
vac was free of any culpability in this incident.
Other misconduct deals with Kovac's alleged blocking
the entry to the hospital to delivery trucks and the use of
her bicycle as a weapon. Without going into each of the
repetitious and minor incidents, I find generally that Ko-
vac often used her bicycle during the picketing, that she
occasionally held on to it while she walked the line and on
other occasions rode on it. On occasion, she also caused
trucks and delivery vans to stop while walking or riding her
bicycle across the entryway to the hospital. At those times,
she and other pickets asked the drivers to honor the picket
line. Trucks and vans were detained in this manner for no
more than several minutes. I find no reliable evidence that
she used her bicycle as a weapon against persons (although
she may have bumped into Rex Brown when on one occa-
sion he appeared to take a hold of it) or against vehicles.
Her tenacious appearances and her enthusiastic and loud
support of the strike may have annoyed Respondent to the
point of focusing more on her behavior, yet I cannot find
any serious occurrences of picket line misconduct on this
record. This finding is supported by the stipulation be-
tween the parties to the effect that Kovac appeared in none
of the films or photographs taken by the hospital for the
purpose of recording picket line misconduct.
C. Deferral to Arbitration
On July 23, 1976, a grievance committee meeting took
place between hospital officials and union representatives
to discuss the hospital's refusal to reinstate four strikers,
including Kovac and Burdick. Minutes of this meeting re-
flect that the hospital's main consideration in the dis-
charges of Kovac and Burdick centered on their participa-
tion in their respective work stoppages on May 22 and May
7, respectively (G.C. Exh. 13). The union grievance com-
mittee recommended that the hospital should reinstate two
of the four employees, but not Kovac and Burdick.
The Union, however, was ultimately persuaded to take
the discharges of all four discharged employees to arbitra-
tion. Peter Kelliher was selected, on August 16, 1976, as the
arbitrator. On November 4, 13, and 17, 1976, he conducted
the arbitration proceeding (a copy of which is part of this
record (Resp. Exhs. 28-31)) and filed the Award on April
25, 1977, (Resp. Exh. 26). The Award by Kelliher denied
all four grievances. With respect to Burdick, the Award
concluded "that Arthur Burdick not only participated in
an unauthorized work stoppage but he also was a leader in
the incident" on May 7, 1976; that he "refused to attend a
department meeting" and instead "proceeded to go
through a large part of the hospital telling employees to
leave work and go to a meeting"; that the "walkout oc-
curred without any advanced warning and lasted approxi-
mately thirty minutes"; and that "Burdick's actions gave
the hospital just cause to discharge him." In response to the
suggestion that Burdick had already received punishment
for his action, Kelliher concluded "that the Hospital's dis-
ciplinary action on May 7 was an attempt to diffuse a vola-
tile situation and not a final determination of Burdick's
discipline."
With respect to Kovac, Kelliher described that several
breakdowns of machines in the Central Service Depart-
ment caused the department's director, Ronald Schroeder,
to read the employees "a letter in which he informed them
of his concern about possible tampering"; that after he
"left the area, the five employees engaged in a sit-down
strike which lasted a little over an hour"; and "that Kovac
was the leader of the work stoppage and that the Hospital
had just cause to discharge her." The Award concluded
"that Kovac was disciplined more severely than were the
other employees is attributable to her leadership in the
work stoppage and not her position as union steward," and
that the 2-day suspension which she received "was a pre-
liminary action and not a penalty that replaced final disci-
pline after all circumstances of the incident were investi-
gated."
As to the picket line misconduct, Kelliher observed that
various employer witnesses described acts of misconduct
by Burdick and Kovac including "blockage of vehicular
traffic, acts of intimidation, use of alcoholic beverages, and
interference with ingress and egress from the Hospital's
premises," but that resolution of this matter "is simply un-
necessary . . . since Burdick's and Kovac's discharges
were upheld on the basis of their participation in work
stoppages."
D. The Board's Procedure and the Issue of 10(b)
Although the dispute had been deferred to arbitration by
Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board in accor-
dance with the decision in Dubo Manufacturing Corpora-
tion, 142 NLRB 431 (1963), the Regional Director issued a
complaint on July 8, 1977, alleging that the discharge of
Arthur Burdick was discriminatory, and dismissed the
charges of Ellen Kovac. The right to appeal the dismissal
of Kovac's charge was extended several times, initially
from July 21, 1977, to August 5 and then to August 15,
1977. The record shows that in spite of the several exten-
sions, the appeal to the Office of Appeals was not received
until August 17, 1977, 2 days late. Nevertheless, the appeal
was considered and granted, remanding the case to the
Regional Director. On October 12, 1977, the Regional Di-
rector issued a consolidated complaint containing the alle-
gations that both Kovac and Burdick had been discrimina-
torily discharged.
The record reveals that the reason for the repeated ex-
ST. LUKE'S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC 1185
tensions relating to Kovac's appeal was her attorney's ini-
tial inability to obtain copies of the transcript (C.P. Exh.
10, 11, 13, 15, 15).
Analysis
A. The Timeliness of the Appeal
Among Respondent's defenses is its argument that the
failure of Charging Party's attorney to file a timely appeal
by 2 days precludes the Board's consideration of the issue
because it lacks jurisdiction and because of the provision
of Section 10(b) of the Act.
Dispositive of this issue are the Board's Rules contained
in Section 102.19(a) under the heading: "Appeal to the
general counsel from refusal to issue or reissue." This sec-
tion provides, inter alia. "Consideration of an appeal un-
timely filed is within the discretion of the General Counsel
upon good cause shown." In its several requests for exten-
sions of time, Mr. Heitzer, attorney for Mrs. Kovac, care-
fully explained the necessity for these extensions. It was in
each case his inability-despite all reasonable efforts-to
obtain from the Union and the arbitrator copies of the
arbitration proceeding which were necessary in his presen-
tation of the appeal. Since the decision of whether or not to
consider Kovac's detailed appeal (covering almost 60
pages) was within the General Counsel's discretion, and
being familiar with the reasons for the repeated delays
which were beyond the Charging Party's control, it may
well have been abuse of his discretion for the General
Counsel not to consider the appeal merely because it was
delayed by 2 days.
Significantly, Section 10(b) of the Act provides in rele-
vant part: "That no complaint shall issue based upon any
unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior
to the filing of the charge with the Board....
Contrary to the interpretation by Respondent, this sec-
tion is not concerned with the timely filing of a complaint,
motions or an appeal in support of the issuance of the
complaint. Section 10(b) merely prohibits the issuance of a
complaint when the alleged unfair labor practices occurred
more than 6 months before the filing of a charge. There is
no issue here as to the timeliness of the charge filed by
Kovac; she filed the charge on September 20, 1976, based
upon her discharge on June 29, 1976. which was well with-
in the 6 months' requirement. Accordingly, I reject
Respondent's argument dealing with the timeliness of her
appeal.
B. Deferral to Arbitration
The record leaves no doubt that Respondent's action in
terminating four employees, including Kovac and Burdick,
because of certain alleged misconduct was voluntarily sub-
mitted by all parties to arbitration. Referring to the Board's
decision in Dubo Manufacturing Corp., 142 NLRB 4312
(1963). Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board
informed Respondent and the Union by letter of October
29, 1976 (Resp. Exh. 25):
Inasmuch as it appears that there is substantial like-
lihood that the grievance arbitration procedure will re-
solve the said issues, further processing of the charges
will be deferred pending completion of arbitration
proceedings.
As already discussed, the 'Arbitration Award, dated
April 25, 1977, concluded "that the Hospital had just cause
to discharge Arthur Burdick . . . Ellen Kovac .... "
(Resp. Exh. 26). The issue now is, as all parties agree,
whether the arbitration proceeding and the Award meet
the requirements of Spielberg Manufacturing Compan),, 112
NLRB 1080 (1955), and subsequent cases which establish
four criteria to be met before the Board will defer to the
Arbitration Award:
I. The proceeding appeared to have been fair and regu-
lar.
2. All parties had agreed to be bound by the arbitrator's
decision.
3. The award is not repugnant to the purposes and poli-
cies of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices issue was considered by the
arbitrator.
General Counsel argues that the Award was repugnant
to the purposes and policies of the Act since it omitted any
consideration of the issue of whether the alleged miscon-
duct had in fact been "condoned" by Respondent. The
Charging Parties have challenged numerous issues relating
to the arbitration of their discharges. For example, they
challenge the selection of the arbitrator, the contents of the
brief to the arbitrator, the failure of the arbitrator to con-
sider the condonation issue and other statutory considera-
tions. Respondent argues that the arbitration proceeding
and the Award meet all criteria set forth above.
My analysis indicates that the Arbitration Award did
not meet several of the criteria necessary for deferral. First,
the record shows that Burdick and Schwartz were at odds
with Donald Beatty, the president of Local 150, concerning
the negotiation of the new contract so that each side ac-
cused the other of improper conduct (G.C. Exh. 8). Bur-
dick was clearly regarded by the union leadership as a dis-
sident. He had filed a lawsuit against his own Union and
fought against the Union and his employer from entering
into what Burdick regarded as a "sweetheart agreement."
Moreover, at a third-step grievance meeting between three
representatives of the hospital and five union representa-
tives, the recommendation of the grievance committee, in-
cluding Ronald Beatty, was to reinstate two of the four
discharged employees but to terminate Kovac and Burdick
(G.C. Exh. 13). Yet, the arbitrator was selected by Ronald
Beatty as president of the Union and Herbert Scheible,
personnel director of the hospital, without the participation
of the Charging Parties or their attorneys (C.P. Exh. 17-
20).
In addition, the brief submitted on behalf of the Union
to the arbitrator contained the following reference (C.P.
Exh. 9, fn. 2):
Mr. Burdick had brought a suit against the Union
seeking to restrain the Union from entering into a suc-
cessor labor contract. It was this lawsuit that was
made reference to in the Employer's notice dated June
29, 1976 (Jt. Exh. 5). Mr. Burdick's actions vis-a-vis
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union certainly made it difficult for the responsi-
ble Union leadership to responsibly conduct its affairs
with the Hospital, but the Union nonetheless has de-
termined to have an impartial arbitrator review and
determine whether or not the Employer's decision to
discharge Burdick was proper.
This statement certainly indicated to the arbitrator that
the Union's leadership was at odds with Burdick. that he
was regarded as a union dissident and as a problem during
the negotiation of a new contract.
For the reasoning contained in 'oungstown (artage Co.,
146 NLRB 305 (19643), it is my opinion that the arbitra-
tion proceeding may not have been fair because of the pro-
cess of selecting the arbitrator.7
With respect to the second requirement that all parties
agreed to be bound by it, I find no evidence that Kovac or
Burdick had indicated their refusal to be hound by the
arbitrator's decision. To the contrary, they freely and de-
liberately participated in the proceeding.
Regarding the last two requirements for deferral, the rec-
ord shows that the condonation issue was not presented by
the union attorney as a defense to the arbitrator, nor dis-
cussed in the Award, nor properly considered by him. Fur-
ther, his realm of inquiry as stated in the Award was limit-
ed to whether the discharges were reviewable "under the
just cause standard of the old and new contracts." The
Arbitration Award did not consider the issue before the
Board, i.e., what were the true reasons for Respondent's
discharges of Kovac and Burdick. It merely considered
whether the hospital had "just cause" for the discharges.
Although the Award flatly concludes that "the Hospital
did not discriminate against Burdick nor treat him unfairly
because he was a union steward" and that "Kovac was
disciplined more severely than were other employees is at-
tributable to her leadership in the work stoppage and not
her position as union steward," it does not cite nor rely on
a single Board decision 8 or any statutory provision dealing
with unfair labor practices. It may well be that the hospital
had "just cause" to fire these individuals; however, if such
conduct was subsequently "condoned" or if protected ac-
tivity, such as the holding of a position as union steward or
chief steward, or aggressive activity in negotiating a union
contract, or tenacious picketing activity, was a contributing
cause or of paramount motivation, the hospital will have
committed a violation. Clearly the Arbitration Award was
not concerned with the finding of an unfair labor practice,
rather it made an attempt at resolving a contractual dispute
between private parties. Significant in this regard is the
arbitrator's consideration of Burdick's and Kovac's disci-
pline shortly after each alleged work stoppage, namely, the
hospital's decision that Burdick not be fired but merely
suspended for several hours and that Kovac be suspended
for 2 days for her participation in the work stoppage. The
union attorney presented the discharges as "double jeop-
ardy." And the arbitrator simply concluded that the dis-
charges were "final discipline" and that the earlier disci-
A roe o, f the arbitration proceedings ugests o other itdlic.titlns of
unfairness eor irregularity
Kelliher relied on several arbitration decisions and a book written h ;in
arbitrator.
pline was merely "preliminary" or "an attempt to diffuse a
volatile situation." Obviously, such simplistic conclusions
not only show that the Award was repugnant to the pur-
poses and policies of the Act, but also that the unfair labor
practice issue was not considered by the arbitrator. 9 I
therefore conclude that the instant decision should not be
deferred under Spielberg supra, and subsequent authorities.
C. Re.sponldenrt' I ollrion in the Discharge of Arthur
Burdick
As chief steward of the Union, Burdick not only occu-
pied a high and visible union office, but he was also vigor-
ous in processing numerous grievances. He openly and ag-
gressively opposed the union president, Ronald Beatty, in
his attempt to shorten the strike and to negotiate a contract
which Burdick thought was not sufficiently favorable to
the employees. Indeed, Burdick was identified as the leader
of the "militant faction" of the bargaining unit (C.P. Exh.
6) and instituted a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Racine
County against his Union challenging the Union's negotia-
tion of a contract with the employer. A union circular sent
to the Respondent's employees, for example, states, inter
alia, "Yes, the fight goes on at St. Lukes. Not between you
and the Hospital, but between Schwartz, Burdick, and the
Hospital" (G.C. Exh. 8). It is quite evident that Burdick's
activities as chief steward were more than what Respon-
dent could take and a problem which the hospital would
obviously prefer to eliminate.
To be sure, Burdick was without culpability when on
May 7. 1976. he caused approximately 40 employees (out
of a total work force of 900 employees) to leave their work
stations for a hurriedly called union meeting which lasted
about 15 minutes and not more than one-half an hour.
Although he acted on Attorney Schwartz' orders, he acted
as a leading participant in calling out the employees. Bur-
dick also failed to attend a departmental meeting as part of
this incident. The hospital would have been justified in dis-
ciplining him for his actions.
The record shows that Burdick was indeed disciplined.
Informed initially that he was fired, the hospital, through
its spokesman Rosselli, rescinded this action following full
deliberation in a special meeting between the parties con-
cerned. Instead, Burdick was suspended for the rest of the
day, and it was firmly understood by Burdick. Schwartz,
and Ennis that this was the sole consequence for the inci-
dent.
Whether the hospital may have preferred to discharge
Burdick at that time but actually decided to rescind its
hasty decision in order to handle a volatile situation is
mere speculation. There is no credible evidence that the
hospital considered the suspension as interim discipline, or
that the hospital conducted an investigation after the inci-
dent, or that Burdick was suspended solely for his failure to
attend the departmental meeting.
The record does show that Burdick was disciplined im-
mediately), following the May 7 incident, and that he was
not terminated until June 29, almost 2 months later. I must
Nilthilig hCeiil Is iCtil ii, reflect upon tihe alhltitai, r's perforllance.
silce I IIs, ci.1i '.is lno to .adjudicate an unlfir lho pratice case, ut to
resolxe a coltractuai dispute .arioni g pr.ate parties.
ST. LUKE'S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. 1187
conclude that any subsequent retaliation by the hospital
against Burdick for the May 7 incident was pretextual and
a disingenuous attempt by Respondent to find a cause in
support of its decision to rid itself of Burdick. and under
the Board's doctrine of condonation, any retaliation by the
hospital for the May 7 incident would be violative of the
Act. Richardson Paint Co.. 226 NLRB 637 (1976), enforce-
ment denied in part 574 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1978).
With respect to his alleged picket line misconduct, the
record actually reflects the hospital's true motivation rather
than serious misconduct on Burdick's part. For the record
reveals that an obvious attempt was made by Respondent
to blame Burdick with a physical assault on a delivery
man. Yet, the delivery man's own testimony shows that
Burdick could not conceivably have been the perpetrator.
Similarly. there is the conflicting testimony of Rosselli and
Brown, where Brown related how Burdick stopped a truck
and threatened the driver and where Rosselli explained
that neither he nor Brown could have overheard what Bur-
dick said to the driver because of the truck's noise and the
distance between the truck and where they, Brown and
Rosselli, were standing. When allegations of misconduct
are lodged by the employer against an employee and when
after close scrutiny such allegations prove unfounded, it
may properly be inferred that other allegations are simi-
larly tainted by the employer's zealousness. A thorough
review of all record evidence relating to Burdick's alleged
picket line misconduct, as summarized above, reveals a vir-
tual absence of any picket line misconduct and certainly of
a type which could be regarded of sufficient seriousness so
as tojustify a discharge. This conclusion is also supported
by the fact that the hospital never attempted to institute
contempt proceedings for violations of the injunction pro-
hibiting picket line misconduct, and that no pictures or
movies of Burdick were shown or offered even though the
hospital attempted to record any such conduct with Polar-
oid and movie film cameras. Pursuant to a stipulation be-
tween the parties Burdick did not appear in any films or
photographs.
D. Respondent's Violation in the Discharge of Ellen Kovilc
Ellen Kovac had been a union steward since January I,
1976. Unlike Burdick. Kovac's union support and other
protected activity is not as readily apparent on this record.
However, it is clear that she was an aggressive, tenacious,
and often visible supporter of the Union's picketing activi-
ties around the hospital. She was unusual in her zeal and
activity which undoubtedly made an impression on hospi-
tal officials. For example. there is testimony that she was
loud and, on occasion, would shout encouraging slogans to
the other pickets in a high-pitched voice. All hospital wit-
nesses reported that she had her bicycle with her during the
picketing. She may. therefore, have been more visible than
others. And since she lived close by the hospital she was an
ever-present individual on the picket line.
The hospital's actions in Kovac's termination closely
parallel the Burdick discharge. Even though the record
shows that the leader of the work stoppage on May 22 was
Versie Walker by her own admission, and even though the
hospital did not check with any of the five employees in the
Central Service Department to confirm its suspicion who
the leader of the work stoppage was, it decided that Kovac
had assumed the leading role in the incident. Indeed, Per-
sonnel Director Scheible's testimony indicated his belief
that as the union steward she had a higher duty than the
others in encouraging her fellow employees to return to
work, and that her failure in this regard amounted to cul-
pability. It is reasonable to infer that the hospital attached
a greater culpability to her participation in the work stop-
page merely because she was a steward and "she should
have known better." This attitude on the part of the hospi-
tal already showed disparate expectations of some of its
employees based solely upon their protected status or ac-
tivit.
Beyond the fact that the work stoppage was prompted
by Schroeder's unsubstantiated accusations of sabotage, it
is undisputed that all employees received a 2-day suspen-
sion as punishment for their participation. While the em-
ployees were not specifically informed that this was their
sole penalty. this was a reasonable interpretation, particu-
larly since all employees, including Kovac, remained on
the inactive list of employees during the strike. I therefore
conclude that any subsequent resort to this incident as a
basis for a discharge was purely pretextual. and that any
such retaliation would be improper under the Board's con-
donation theory'. Richardson Paint Co., supra.
Turning to the allegation of Kovac's picket line miscon-
duct. it is clear that she played no part in the two most
serious incidents, and that no serious misconduct was es-
tablished. As summarized above. the record shows by the
unequivocal testimony of Evelyn Miller, a hospital visitor,
that she was not frightened by the pickets. and that she fell
because of a defective sidewalk, and not as charged by Rex
Brown due to her fright caused by Kovac and other pick-
ets. Yet Brown, who was part of the incident. attempted to
shift responsibility for this incident to the pickets.
Similarly, reliable testimony and the admission of
Schwartz showed him, not Kovac, to have been responsible
for turning away a man and his son from the hospital's
emergency room. A proper inference can be drawn under
circumstances where Respondent has unsuccessfully at-
tempted to switch the blame to Kovac that all other allega-
tions of impropriety are also suspect and without sub-
stance. In any case. as previously described I find no
serious acts of picket line misconduct on this record and
certianly none of sufficient seriousness so as to justify her
discharge. This conclusion is buttressed by a stipulation
between the parties that Kovac is not in any of the films or
photographs which the hospital had taken to record acts of
violence or other picket line misconduct. Nor was Kovac
the subject of a contempt citation under the County
Court's injunction which had prohibited such conduct. Ac-
cordingly, I find that Kovac's discharge was motivated by
discriminatory reasons and violative of the Act.
CONci.L SIoNS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, Inc..
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 150. Service and Hospital Employees Interna-
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Consideration of the untimely appeal of Ellen Kovac,
Charging Party, from the Regional Director's determina-
tion was within the discretion of the General Counsel upon
good cause shown.
4. Section 10(b) of the Act does not prohibit the Board's
consideration of a case when a complaint issued pursuant
to an untimely appeal to the General Counsel. This Section
precludes the Board's consideration of a complaint where
the unfair labor practice occurred more than 6 months
prior to the filing of the charge.
5. Deferral to arbitration is improper where:
(a) One of two grievants was a strong dissident within
the Union and an outspoken adversary of the parties, in-
cluding the employer, during contract negotiations, and
where the arbitrator was selected by the Union and the
employer without participation of the grievants, because
the fairness and regularity of the arbitration proceedings
may thereby have been affected.
(b) The Arbitration Award was based upon considera-
tions of "just cause" for a discharge and of resolving a
dispute between private parties to a contract, rather than a
determination of the employer's true reasons for the termi-
nations according to the usual standards and statutory pro-
visions involving public and private interest under the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, including the Board's doctrine
of condonation. Under these circumstances, the unfair la-
bor practice issue was not fully considered by the arbitra-
tor, and the Award was repugnant to the purposes and
policies of the National Labor Relations Act.
6. By providing disingenuous and false reasons for the
discharges of two union stewards who visibly and aggres-
sively pursued union activities, Respondent must be pre-
sumed to have discharged its employees, Arthur Burdick
and Ellen Kovac, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
7. The aforesaid violations are unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act,
I recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from its unlawful practices. I further recommend
that Respondent be ordered to post an appropriate notice
and take affirmative action in order to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
In addition, I recommend that Respondent offer Arthur
Burdick and Ellen Kovac immediate reinstatement with
backpay, and interest thereon, to be computed in the man-
ner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company,, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).o0
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I recommend the issuance of the follow-
ing:
ORDER "
The Respondent, St. Luke's Memorial Hospital, Inc.,
Racine, Wisconsin, its officers, agents. successors, and as-
signs, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization
by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees or dis-
criminating in any other manner with respect to their hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner unlawfully interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Arthur Burdick and Ellen Kovac immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, and make them whole for any loss of pay that they
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them in accordance with the recommendations
set forth herein under "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Racine, Wisconsin, hospital, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 30, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by it 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. Rea-
sonable 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 30, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
See. generall, Iois Plunihing & leaing (o.., 138 NlRB 716 (1962).
In the eent no exceptions are filed as provided h Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted b the Board and become
its findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto shall he
deemed vwaied for all purposes
In the event that this Order is enforced b a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals. the uords in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National L.abor Relati)ns Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National I.abor Relations Board."
ST. LUKE'S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. 1189
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our employees that the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the law and
has ordered us to post this notice.
The Act gives all our employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through representatives
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in any labor
organization by discriminatorily discharging any of
our employees or discriminating in any other manner
with respect to their hire or tenure, of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WI.l. NOT in any other manner, interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILl offer Arthur Burdick and Ellen Kovac immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if such
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs. and
make them whole for any loss of pay, with interest, that
they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination
against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or re-
frain from becoming or remaining, members of a labor
organization.
ST LUKE'S MEMORIAL HOSPITkL. IN(