St. Vincent Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 331 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

ST. VINCENT HOSPITAI.
St. Vincent Hospital and National Union of Hospital
and Health Care Employees, St. Vincent Organiz-
ing Committee, affiliated with National Union of
Hospital and Health Care Employees, RWDSU,
AFL-CIO
St. Vincent Hospital and National Union of Hospital
and Health Care Employees, a Division of Retail,
Wholesale, and Department Store Union, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Cases 28 CA-4844 and 28-RC
3463
August 17, 1979
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On March 29, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, Respondent
filed a brief in response to the General Counsel's ex-
ceptions, and the General Counsel filed a brief in re-
sponse to Respondent's exceptions and in support of
the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
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,' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.
I In the absence of exceptions. we adopt pro forma the Administrative Law
Judge's recommendations that Petitioner's Objections 8, 17, 21. and 24 be
overruled.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
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 Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing her findings.
In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge's findings that Respon-
dent's no-access rule is invalid, Chairman Fanning and Member Jenkins rely
upon their partial dissent in GTE Lenkurt, Incorporated, 204 NLRB 921. 922
(1973).
2 The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree. that Respondent
violated Sec. 8(aX3) by reprimanding union adherent Jane Yee on May 8.
1978, for soliciting on behalf of the Union during nonworktime in Respon-
dent's lobby. Although not alleged in the complaint as a violation of Sec.
8(aX3), counsel for the General Counsel filed a posthearing motion to amend
the complaint in that regard. The Administrative Law Judge failed to rule
expressly on the motion. We find that the matter was fully litigated at the
hearing and that Respondent is not prejudiced thereby Consequentil. we
shall grant counsel or the General Counsel's motion and hereby amend the
Administrative Law Judge's conclusions of law accordingly. In any event. we
note that the remedy is not affected.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, St. Vincent Hospital, Santa
Fe, New Mexico, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order.
Il IS FURTHER ORDERED that the representation
election conducted on May 17. 1978, in Case 28-RC-
3463 be, and the same hereby is, set aside, and that
Case 28 RC 3463 be, and it hereby is, remanded to
the Regional Director for Region 28 for the purpose
of conducting a new election at such time as he deems
the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargain-
ing representative.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
DECISION
SIATEMEN r OF TIlE CASE
EARI.IAN V. S. ROBBINs, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me in Sante Fe. New Mexico on
December 4 and 5, 1978. The charge in Case 28 CA-4844
was filed by National Union of Hospital and Health Care
Employees, St. Vincent Organizing Committee, affiliated
with National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employ-
ees, RWDSU. AFL CIO. herein called the Union, and
served on Respondent. St. Vincent Hospital, on May 10,
1978. The complaint, which issued on June 27. 1978, alleges
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)( I) of the National
Labor Relations Act. as amended. herein called the Act.
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election approved on April 6. 1978, an election by secret
ballot was conducted by the National Labor Relations
Board. herein called the Board, which resulted in 78 ballots
cast for the Petitioner and 149 ballots cast against the Peti-
tioner with no challenged ballots. Objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election were timely filed by the
Petitioner on May 22, 1978. On June 30, 1978, the Regional
Director issued his report and recommendation on objec-
tions to conduct affecting results of election, order directing
hearing and notice of hearing in which he recommended
that various of the Petitioner's objections be overruled and
that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised by various
objections and certain unalleged conduct. On July 28, 1978,
the Board issued its order adopting the Regional Director's
recommendations. On July 27, 1978. an order issued con-
solidating Case 28 RC 3463 with Case 28 CA 4844 for
purposes of hearing, ruling and decision by an Administra-
tive Law Judge.
The principal issues raised by the complaint in Case 28
CA 4844 and by Objections I and 24 in Case 28 RC 3463
are:
I. Whether Respondent maintained and discriminatorilv
enforced an unlawful rule prohibiting its employees from
244 NLRB No. 71
331
[3DECISIONS OF: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR)
entering upon, or remaining upon, its premises outside their
duty hours.
2. Whether Respondent prohibited employees from so-
liciting on behalf of the Union during nonworktime in the
lobby of' Respondent's premises and whether in the course
thereof. Respondent engaged in unlawful interrogation and
surveillance.
3. Whether Respondent unlawfully reprimanded a lead-
ing union adherent for being present on, and for soliciting
on, Respondent's premises during nonwork time.
Additional issues raises by objections in Case 28-RC
3463 are whether the Respondent engaged in the following
conduct and if so, whether such is sufficient to warrant set-
ting aside the May 17 election:
I. That portion of Objection 8 which alleges that Re-
spondent engaged in surveillance of a May 16 union meet-
ing.
2. That portion of Objection 17 which alleges that Re-
spondent unlawfully prohibited the display of certain cam-
paign propaganda relative to the May 17 election on a bul-
letin board reserved for the use of the bargaining
representative of another unit of Respondent's employees
and whether Respondent's representative stated that such
removal was required by the Board.
3. Objection 21 which alleges that Respondent promised
an employee that Respondent would take care of its em-
ployees, whereas the Union could not take care of its mem-
bers-specifically that Respondent would assist, over and
above its normal policy, the employee in paying a hospital
bill that had been rejected by the insurance carrier as not
covered by Respondent's employee insurance.
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FAC-I
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a New Mexico corporation with an office
and hospital facility in Santa Fe, New Mexico, is engaged
in the operation of a nonprofit hospital. During the 12-
month period preceding the issuance of the complaint
herein, Respondent had gross revenues in excess of
$250,000 and purchased goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 which were transported in interstate com-
merce and delivered to its place of business in Santa Fe,
New Mexico, directly from States of the United States
other than the State of New Mexico.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits and I find,
that Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR OR(iANIZATION
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits and I find.
that the Union is now, and has been at all times material
I Upon the motion of the counsel for the General Counsel, the official
transcript is hereby corrected.
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. ItIE At.LEOLl) UNFAIR L.ABOR PRA( IICES
A. Facts
The Union began its organizational campaign among
certain of Respondent's employees in December 1977
which resulted in a Board-conducted election on May 17.
Jane Yee, a unit secretary, was the most prominent leader
in the campaign. The parties stipulated that her activities
on behalf of the Union were open and notorious. During
the first week in March 19782 in the timeclock area after she
had clocked out, Yee spoke to a fellow employee Joe Ma-
drid seeking his support for the Union and his signature on
a union authorization card. Madrid had either clocked out
or was about to clock out. This was in an enclosed area not
open to patients. The switchboard operator works in an
enclosed space within this area.
On the afternoon of March 8, Yee was summoned into
the office of Alberta Barnes, director of nurses. Present dur-
ing the ensuing conversation was personnel director.
George Holmes,' and, at Yee's request, employee Rosemary
Montoya. According to Yee, Holmes said he had received a
complaint from Madrid that Yee had been harassing him.
Referring to the timeclock area incident, Yee said that they
were both off duty so how could she be harrassing him
when he was free to leave at all times. Yee further said, it
was just a conversation about the Union and the election in
which both she and Madrid participated.
Montoya asked what exactly had Yee done to harass Ma-
drid. Holmes said Yee was talking to Madrid about the
Union and he did not want to talk about it, but Yee just
kept on talking. Holmes said Yee had to be very careful
about soliciting authorization cards because the employees
would complain to him. Holmes then said that Respondent
had a no-solicitation policy, gave her a copy of the policy
and told her to read it. The policy given to Yee reads:
SOLICITATION AND DISTRIBUTION
No solicitations of any kind, collections for any pur-
pose, ticket or merchandise sales or distribution of lit-
erature are permitted at any time within the Medical
Center by visitors or patients.
Employees are prohibited from soliciting other em-
ployees or patients of the hospital during their working
time during the working time of the person being solic-
ited, and are prohibited at any time from such solicita-
tion in immediate patient care areas (e.g., patients'
rooms, operating rooms and places where patients re-
ceive treatment, as in X-ray and therapy areas). Fur-
thermore, employees are prohibited at all times from
distributing literature in any patient care and other
working areas within the hospital premises.
2 All dates hereinafter will be in 1978 unless otherwise indicated.
Both Barnes and Holmes are admitted supervisors.
332
ST. VINCENT
EMPILOYEE ACCESS TO HOSPITAL PREMISES
Employees may not enter on hospital premises or
remain thereon except as required by the work rela-
tionship unless they are themselves patients of the hos-
pital or visiting a patient of the hospital.
Without waiting for her to read the policy., Holmes said if
you violate this rule you will be subject to disciplinary mea-
sures up to and including termination.
Holmes testified that on March 7. Supervisor Leo San-
chez told him that Madrid was complaining that he was
being harassed by Yee. Holmes told Sanchez to have Ma-
drid write an account of the incident. Later that day.
Holmes was given a written account signed by Madrid
which states that when Madrid went to clock out. Yee was
at the timeclock. She asked, "Well did you think about the
Union." Madrid said yes, that he did not want to sign a
union authorization card. Yee asked why. He said he just
did not want the Union. Yee was insistent and asked sev-
eral times why he did not want to sign. Yee gave him some
campaign propaganda referring to the support of the Union
by the nurses. The account ended with a statement, "I
would not want her to talk to me about this anymore be-
cause all she does is force you not talk to you."
According to Holmes, he then discussed the incident with
Barnes and they reached the conclusion that Yee was solic-
iting, that they should try to solve the complaint before it
went any further and that they should discuss the matter
with Yee. His own opinion, testified Holmes. was that Yee
had not violated the no-solicitation rule. The main reason
the matter was discussed, according to Holmes, was (1) to
counsel Yee as to the complaint of harassment and to lay
that matter to rest; and (2) since they knew Yee was solicit-
ing to inform her as to the no-solicitation, no-distribution,
and employee-access rules.
Holmes further testified that during the meeting. he told
Yee that a complaint had been received from an employee
that she was harassing him. He further said that because of
this complaint, they realized that she was soliciting and
therefore wanted to give her a copy of Respondent's policy
on no-solicitation and no-distribution and employee access
so she would know where she could and could not solicit.
He denies that he said he was reprimanding her but admits
that he said he was warning her in the sense that they
wanted to be sure that she knew the policy because if she
violated it in the future, disciplinary action could result.
According to Holmes he had similar meetings with em-
ployees in the past. One occurred in June or July 1978 when
Barnes received a complaint that a registered nurse was
soliciting. Barnes testified in essential agreement except that
on cross-examination, in response to a leading question. she
testified that Holmes told Yee that she had violated the no-
solicitation rule and could be subject to discipline. includ-
ing termination.
Yee testified that at the end of her shift on May 6 after
she had clocked out and was enroute to the cafeteria to
meet a fellow employee, she stopped to speak to two unit
employees seated in the lobby, Phillip Cardenas and his
wife Tessie. Phillip Cardenas, a linen orderly, was off duty
and out of uniform. Tessie Cardenas, a maid, was on duty.
Yee asked them to sign a petition sponsored by the Union
333
which called for a debate between the Union and Respon-
dent. Mrs. Cardenas signed. Mr. Cardenas said he had pre-
viously signed the petition. They then engaged in a general
discussion regarding the Union.
After a few minutes, Nursing Coordinator Rosemary
Kraemer4 and Security Guard Gary Weimer came into the
lobby. Kraemer picked the petition up from a table in front
of Yee, looked at it and said to Yee. "Are you getting signa-
tures on this petition?" Yee said they were conversing.
Kraemer then said to Phillip and Tessie Cardenas. "Was
she trying to get your signature on this petition?" One of
them replied that they were conversing. Kraemer then said
to Yee. "It is my understanding that you have received a
copy' of the no-solicitation policy from Mr. George Holmes
and you are not to solicit in this area, in this lobby. You're
not to get signatures on this petition." Yee said, "Why are
you saying that I can't get signatures on this petition when
I know that other people are getting other signatures on
petitions in the hospital."' Kraemer replied. "You've
punched out and you have to leave." Kraemer asked Wei-
mer to escort Yee to the exit. which he did.
Phillip Cardenas testified, on direct examination, that he
cannot recall absolutely whether Kraemer asked if they had
signed the petition but he is fairly certain that she did.
Kraemer did ask Yee if she was off duty. When Yee replied
that she was, Kraemer said. "I know you are, since four-
thirty." and asked Weimer to escort Yee from the building.
Kraemer returned the petition and said to Cardenas, "You
should know better than that." On cross-examination, he
testified that when Kraemer removed the petition from the
table. she asked whether they had signed the petition and
he replied, no. According to him, Kraemer did not inquire
whether Yee had asked them to sign.
Kraemer testified that at about 4:45 p.m. Weimer tele-
phoned her and told her that Yee was in the lobby with a
petition she had been circulating throughout the day. Krae-
mer asked what he meant. He explained that it had been
reported to him that Yee was circulating a petition calling
for a debate between the Union and Respondent and that
she was then in the hospital with the petition talking to
Phillip and Tessie Cardenas. Kraemer checked the schedule
to see if Yee was on duty but made no effort to verify
whether Phillip and Tessie Cardenas were on duty.
Kraemer further testified that when she saw that Yee's
shift ended at 4:30 p.m., she telephoned Roger Brumley. the
administrator on call, and inquired if Yee was aware of the
employee access policy. Brumley said she was. Kraemer
then telephoned Holmes and made the same inquiry.
Holmes said he had given Yee a copy of the policy. He read
the policy to Kraemer and instructed her to ask Yee to
leave and to make a record of the occurrences. She did not
inquire as to whether Mr. and Mrs Cardenas were aware of
the policy. Kraemer asked Weimer to go to the lobby with
her as a witness.
According to Kraemer, she walked up to Yee. picked up
the petition, glanced at it briefly and said to Yee. "Are you
' Kraemer is an admitted supervisor
s Yee testified that she was referring to an antiunmon petition that had been
circulated a few days previously. However. she did not specifica;ll say to
Kraemer that she was referring to this petiition
I)4E('ISI()NS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RI.A''IONS BOARI)
soliciting?" Yee did not answer. Kraemer then said to (Car-
denas, "Was she soliciting to ou?" Neither of them an-
swered. Kraemer said to Yee, "You are off duty, you know
you are not to be here, you will have to leave." Yee said
nothing. Kraemer denies that Yee mentioned other emploN-
ees circulating petitions. Kraemer also denies telling Yee
she was not to solicit in the lobby. Kraemer asked Weimer
to remain with Yee until she left. She also apologized to Mr.
and Mrs. Cardenas for any embarrassment the incident
may have caused them.
Kraemer called Barnes at home and reported the inci-
dent. Barnes instructed her to write it up and Kraemer
wrote an account of the incident for Yee's personnel file.6
She did not write a chronological report for Mr. and Mrs.
Cardenas nor did she report the (Cardenases' involvement
other than to mention it in the account she wrote for Yee's
file even though she learned later that evening that Mr.
Cardenas was off duty at the time of the incident.
On May 8, Yee was summoned to Barnes' office. At her
request she was accompanied by employee Lillian Romero.
When they arrived at Barnes' office, Barnes and Staffing
Coordinator Wanda (Cougens was present. Barnes gave her
a copy of the chronological report prepared by Kraemer on
the May 6 incident and a written reprimand. Barnes said
Yee was being reprimanded for soliciting in the lobby. Ihe
Kraemer report reads inter alia.
5 6 78 (Saturday): At approximately 4:50 p.m. I re-
ceived a call from Gary Weimer, security guard, in-
forming me of the presence of Jane Yee in the main
lobby of the hospital and of her apparent activities.
I proceeded to the hospital lobby and observed Ms.
Yee kneeling before a small table with a clipboard in
front of her .... I picked up the clipboard which
contained a partial list of signatures of hospital em-
ployees and was a petition for an 1199 Union and hos-
pital administrative debate.
In view of the fact that I was aware of the fact that
Ms. Yee had previously been informed by the person-
nel director, Mr. G. Holmes, of the limitations of the
"No Solicitation, Employee Access to Hospital Prem-
ises" policy and had been presented with a copy' of the
same, I quietly informed her that no solicitation was
allowed in that area, reminded her she was off duty,
and instructed her to leave immediately ....
The written reprimand signed by Barnes reads:
5/8/78: It has been brought to my attention that
you were seen in hospital lobby after your scheduled
duty hours discussing with other employees a petition
concerning a debate with the 1199 Union Organizers
and the hospital administration. You were given a
copy of the "No-solicitation, Employee Access to Hos-
pital Premises" policy by Mr. George Holmes in my
office some time ago. You can consider this a written
warning that if you are found not to be complying with
6 Such accounts or various other comments, both positive and negative.
are written up on a form called a chronological report. These reports are
kept in an employee's personnel file. Some supervisors make such reports on
a regular basis. others do not. Kraemer is one of the latter.
this policy you will be subject to further disciplinary
measures.
According to Yee, she said she did not think she was
violating the no-solicitation policy, she was off duty and, in
her opinion, the lobb\ was not a work area. Barnes replied
that the lobbhh was a work area and accordingly Yee could
not solicit there. Yee expressed disagreement with this and
Barnes summoned Holmes by telephone to explain the pol-
icy again to Yee. When Holmes arrived, Yee said she felt
she had a right to solicit in the lobby because she was off
duty and the lobby was not a work area. Holmes said it was
a work area and mentioned the name of some recent law to
the effect that the lobby was a work area. Yee said she did
not know anything about such laws. Romero said, "If the
lobby is a work area where can we solicit. I guess we'll
solicit even if it's in the bathroom."
Barnes testified that after Yee read the chronological re-
port and the warning, Yee initiated a discussion as to what
was considered a working area. After some discussion.
Barnes concluded that Yee was not comprehending what
she was trying to say so she asked Holmes to join them.
When Holmes arrived. Barnes told him they were having a
discussion as to what was a working area, that she had tried
to explain but evidently Yee did not understand. IHolmes
then explained what was a working area. According to
Barnes, she does not recall the details of the discussion and
she does not recall whether Holmes mentioned the em-
ployee-access rule. She does recall that as they were leaving
the office. Romero said "Well we will find a place. we will
solicit even if it has to be in the bathrooms." Barnes admits
that it was her understanding that the lobby was a working
area and she so informed Yee during the discussion.
Holmes testified that when Kraemer telephoned him at
home on May 6 and reported that Yee was in the lobby
soliciting, he asked when Yee's shift ended. When Kraemer
replied 4:30 p.m., he told Kraemer that it appeared to be a
violation of the employee-access rule, read her the rule and
instructed her to get a security guard and enforce the policy
and then write an account of the incident. On May 8, in
accordance with normal practice, Barnes showed him a
copy of the reprimand she had written for Yee concerning
the incident. Holmes consulted Respondent's attorney and
it was decided that a written disciplinary reprimand would
be given to Yee by Barnes.
Holmes further testified that on May 8 when he entered
Barnes' office, there was a discussion in progress regarding
the no-solicitation rule. Yee was attempting to elicit infor-
mation from Barnes as to where she could solicit and dis-
tribute material. Yee said she felt she could solicit inside the
hospital premises. Barnes said she could in certain areas but
could not solicit in areas devoted to direct patient care.
Barnes then turned to Holmes and said. "Isn't that right."
Holmes agreed. Yee said, "Well, as far as distributing mate-
rials, I don't think the lobby is a working area." Holmes
said there were a number of court interpretations that the
lobby was a working area because of the number of work
functions that go on, either directly there or adjacent
thereto. He thinks he specifically referred to the St. John's
case.
According to Holmes. he then said he had arrived late
and he did not know why the no-solicitation, no-distribu-
334
Si. VIN('.N I 110)SPHI AI
tion polic was being discussed, that what a a issue, the
reason the ineeting was called was tfr a wsritten reprimand
for violating the employee-access rule. Hie said the no-solici-
tation discussion had nothing to do v itil the reason for the
meeting, which was the reprim;and. Yee said she felt she
was being harassed in terms of the employee-access rule
because the rule was not uniformly enforced, that she knevw
other employees who were in the hospital outside of their
regular dut 3 hours. Ilolmes said. "Na me one." Yee did nl
reply. Holmes said the policy was being uniftrmli en-
forced, insofar as it possibly could be. Romero said. "Well.
I guess we will have to solicit il the restroom. in the 'John'."
Holmes replied. "Well, that is perfectly legal." Barnes asked
if Yee had further questions. Yee said no and the meeting
ended.
Although (ouzen's recollection as not as detailed. sIhe
did recollect that there was a discussion as to Ihe sorkilng
area, that Barnes said the lobby was a working area, hbut
Yee argued that it was not. She also recalls that olohes
said the question of work area was not relevant i;lslLuch s
the issue was the employee-access rule.
On May 15. according to Yee. she was about to file somc
patients' records when Nursing ('oordinator (onrac I lesch'
told her "it's 4:30: you'll have to leave." Yee went to get her
belongings. When she returned. Roger Brumle, adminis-
trative assistant for support services, Robert l.eMlunon.
who's position was not identified and (ar Weimer were at
the nurse's station. Yee asked them if they were there to
escort her out of the hospital. One of them replied es. and
they followed her to the exit.
Hesch testified that on Mray 13. Brumley telephoned her
and instructed her that if Yee remained past the end of her
shift. Hesch should ask her to leave. Hesch was buss so she
asked Weimer to notify her if Yee remained after 4:30 p.m.
Later, about 4:35 or 4:40 p.m.. Weimer notified Hesch that
Yee was still in the building. Hesch immediately went look-
ing for Yee. When she found her. Hesch said. "I'm sorrs
but you'll have to leave. It's past your time ofl. Y'ee said
"You are harassing me. you don't treat me like other em-
ployees." Hesch replied, "Other employees don't stay after
hours." Since then. according to Hesch she has seen Yee in
the hospital many times after the end of her shift. On those
occasions, Hesch inquires of Yee as to the time her shift
ends. Each time, Yee replies that she is leaving and she
does.
Brumley admits that he telephoned Hesch and asked her
to be sure that Yee left at 4:30 p.m. According to him, he
did this because he had noticed. during the course of per-
forming his duty of reading the daily security reports" that
Yee had been reported as remaining beyond her duty hours
three or four times during the preceding 2 months. Brumley
further testified that he went to Yee's work area that day
because Weimer had telephoned him to report that Yee was
still in the building. LeMunyon's presence was coincidental.
He admits that he arrived at Yee's work area between 4:30
and 4:35 p.m.
'The parties stipulated that Hesch is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.
I These security reports were not offered into evidence
I he May 17 election was held in to sessions. Yee was
an observer Ior Petitioner. Fiolowuing the closing of the polls
after the first session. Yee wris starding in the lobby with
two other eployees and several union representaliives.
Brlilles ar. he d of secturit. ere also in
tile lobb . Respondent sas spon soring a rafilec for a color
television tllat da . s Yee inquired herce she should go to
get her raffle ticket. Millcr said. "Over there soimec place."
Brumley said, "Y'ou hln e to leae, ou union people have
to lease." Yee said she wanted to get her ratile ticket and go
to the caftteteria lor a doughnut. Brumley replied. ' I hat's
not allowed, no politicking o election day." 'Yee said.
"(citting it doughnut is politickig'''" Brunile said. "Yes.
for you Jalle. getting a doughnut is politickiig.'
Brunmle did nit esti) in any detail regarding this ncl-
dient. Ilo ecver. he does admni that thc asked the group to
lea, Ce.
B. ( o',',11 / ¥ie 1.
l'he issues herein are all related to Respondent's solicita-
tion, distribution. aid eniplo, ee-access rules. 'Ihe com-
plailit alleges th;at the emploee-access rule is unlawful anid
is discrimin;atorils enforced and that Respondent Uinlaw-
fully prohibited employees fron m soliciting on behall' (ofi the
I. nion during nonssorktimle in its lobby. reprimanded an
employee tfor enga;ging in such solicitation anid in the course
of prohihiting such solicita;tio n engaged in unlawl'ul interro-
gation andt surveillance. all in violation of Section 8(a)( I of
the Act.' Respondent contends that its empluoyee-access rule
is valid ;nd is impartially eniforced. Respondent further
coiitenids that it never prohibited union solicitation in the
lohhbb and that ans retraint on such was onl,, an indirect
result of its enforcemenit of the empl(oyee-access rule.
It Is well settled that an employer may not. absent special
circunstlances. prohibit employees lawfully on the premises
fromnt soliciting un ii support during nonvsorktime.
N. I..R. . ith Brh,cA & li/,cox. (.. 351 U.S. 105
(1965). However. a emploer may. in some circumstances,
lawfully restrict otf-dut! employees access to its premises.
(TE l Illakurt. Iorporau'd, 204 NLRB 921 (1973). In Tn-
(;rollv ,eldicul ('cit'r.e] 1s.. 222 NLRB 1089 (1976) the
Board set forth certain criteria go'txerning such restrictions.
In that case. the Board cncluded that a rule restricting off-
duty employees from entering upon the employer's prem-
ises is valid only if it ( I limits access solely with respect to
the interior oft' the plant and other working areas: (2) is
clearly disseminiated to all employees: and (3) applies to tff-
duty employees seeking access to the plant tor any purpose
and not just to those employees engaging in union activity.
lHere, the rule on its face does not meet the Tri-Cit
Medical ('enter criteria inasmuch as it does not clearl' limit
the restriction to the interior oft' the building. There is no
evidence that Respondent has ever sought to widely dis-
seminate to its employees its interpretation of the term
"work relationship" or its alleged interpretation of the term
"premises" to mean only the interior of the building. This
detect is not remedied b' the absenlce of evidence to estab-
(rCounsel lor Ihe (ienerall ('tiunel argues in his hriel that the reprimand,
are violative of Sec i(;aj3) , the Acl tioeever. the complaint does nl
allege them as iolative of Sec gl) oi the Act
335
DE)I('ISIONS Ot- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lish any attempt to prohibit access to the exterior premises.
See Blue Cross Blue Shield ofAlah41ama, 225 NL.RB 1217. ti.
9 (1976). The Tinmes Publishing Copan v,. 231 N'.RB 207
(1977). Pacero, A Di'ision of Fruehll (Corporation, 237
NLRB 399 (1978).
Furthermore, the rule is not strictly enforced. Thus, em-
ployees frequent the cafeteria befitre and after their shifts.
off-duty employees return to the hospital for employee par-
ties, to visit patients, to visit on-duty employees, and to
attend educational courses which apparently are not re-
quired as a condition of retaining employment,"' Some em-
ployees habitually enter the premises a halt' hour or so be-
fore their shift commences and remain fior a period of time
after the shift ends. Respondent's administrator admits that
the rule would be difficult to enforce and it is clear that no
serious effort was made to enforce it except during the pe-
riod of the election campaign, as to Yee."
In these circumstances, I find that Respondent has main-
tained and discriminatorily enforced an invalid no-access
rule in violation of Section 8a)( 1 of the Act. More specif-
ically. considering the curious absence of notations of viola-
tions of this rule in the daily security reports except as to
Yee and the May 6. 16, and 17 incidents involving Yee. I
find that Yee was specifically targeted for strict entorce-
ment of said rule because of her activity on behalf of the
Union and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)( I) of the
Act by issuing her a written reprimand for iter alia violat-
ing the employee-access rule, and by enforcing the rule as
to Yee on May 6. 16. and 17.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent discrim-
inatorily applied its no-solicitation rule to Yee. It is well
established that an employer may not prohibit employees
from soliciting on behalf of a union during nonwork time in
areas of the hospital not devoted to patient treatment or
care, unless it can justify such prohibition as necessary to
avoid disruption of health care operations or the distur-
bance of patients. Beth Israel Hopital v .. R. B.. 434 U.S.
483 (1978): S. Joseph Hospital. 228 NLRB 158 (1977); The
Presbyterian Medical Center 227 NLRB 904 (1977): St.
John's Hospital and School of Nursing. Inc.. 222 N LRB 150
(1976). The areas involved here are the timeclock area and
the lobby. Respondent concedes in its brief that solicitation
is permissible in these areas. So the issue is whether Re-
spondent attempted to prohibit solicitation in these areas.
I find that Holmes' and Barnes' March 8 meeting with
Yee was a thinly disguised attempt to intimidate her in her
union activities by threatening disciplinary action. The no-
solicitation rule was posted and Yee had not violated the
rule. Thus there was no legitimate reason for discussion the
rule with Yee. Contrary to Respondent's contention I fur-
ther conclude that this conversation constituted an oral rep-
rimand for solicitation on behalf of the Union during non-
work time in an area not devoted to patient care and
treatment. Accordingly, I find that by this conduct. Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
I also find that Kraemer prohibited Yee rom soliciting in
the lobby on May 6 in violation of Section 8(a)( I) of the
10 Courses are offered by the local high school and the community college
for GED certificates, and college credit.
" In reaching this conclusion I have full) considered the evidence ad-
duced by Respondent, of two or three isolated instances of enforcemenl.
Act. I do not credit Kraemer's testimony as to what oc-
curred on that occasion. She testified that she did not tell
Yee that soliciting was prohibited in the lobby. Yet Krae-
mer's account of the incident written by her on that same
date states "I quietly informed her that no solicitation was
allowed in that area, reminded her she was off duty, and
instructed her to leave immediately. On the other hand. I
found Yee and Phillip ('ardenas to be honest, reliable wkit-
nesses whom I credit.
I also find that by taking the petition and reading it.
Kraemer engaged in surveillance in violation of' Section
8(a)(I) of the Act.'2 I further find that Kraemer's interroga-
tion of Yee and the Cardenases as to whether Yee was solic-
iting and as to whether the Cardenases had signed the peti-
tion was coercive and thus violative of Section 8(a)( 1) of the
Act.
I also find that Yee was issued a written reprimand on
May 8 for soliciting in the lobby as well as for being in the
lobhb while off duty. The reprimand recites both that she
was in the lobby after her scheduled duty hours and that
she was discussing the petition. The reprimand then states
that Yee was previously given a copy of' the "no-solicita-
tion. employee access to hospital premises" and "you can
consider this a written warning that if you are found not to
be complying with this policy you will be subject to further
disciplinary action."
A further indication that the reprimand was for soliciting
in the lobby wits that fact that Phillip ('ardenas was not
reprimanded even though he was also off duty. Also. I
credit Yee that Barnes told her she could not solicit in the
lobby. Moreover, when asked whether Yee, by the May 6
incident, violated the employee solicitation and distribution
policy. Barnes testified. "Well, she was in the hospital when
she wasn't supposed to be there. and she was soliciting."
Since Yee wtas engaged in lawful solicitation on behalf of'
the Union. I find that her reprimand therefor was violative
of Section 8(a)( I) and (3) ofl' the Act. I further find violative
of Section 8)( 1) oF' the Act the statements made to Yee in
the May 8 interview that she could not solicit in the lobby.
i\. III (ttIi( tIIONS
Objection 8 alleges inter (alia, that Respondent engaged in
surveillance of a May 16 union meeting. The only evidence
adduced in support thereof was the testimony of several
employees that Holmes drove by the union hall three sepa-
rate times during the time the meeting was being held, and
immediately prior thereto as people were assembling.
Holmes admits that he drove past the union hall but states
that this is the normal route he used to go to his girlfriend's
house. His girlfriend. Donna Shomaker. testified that this
route follows the directions she gave him when they first
began dating. They both testified that on this particular
evening, he drove to her house, picked her up and after
having dinner and making one or two other stops he drove
her home. In these circumstances. I find that the evidence is
insufficient to support a finding that I lolmes was engaged in
11 I do not credit Kraemer's denial that she read the petition. It is clear
Irom her written account o the incident that she read it Also. in her pre-
hearing affidavitl Kraemer states. "I picked up the petition and read i."
336
ST. VINCF.N [tOSPI IAl.
surveillance of the union meeting. Accordingl. I recom-
mend that objection 8 be overruled insofar as it alleges sur-
veillance of the union meeting.
As to objection 17. employee Nancy l.ee Baker' testified
that at about 4 a.m. on May 17, she was in the cafeteria on
a coffeebreak with several other employees, including some
in the unit involved herein, when Holmes approached her
and asked her to remove some papers from the P.P.A. bul-
letin board and told her she had an hour to do it. He men-
tioned something about the NLRB and quoted a particular
article number with letters. Initially she testified that he
said by the order of NLRB, quoting the article number, she
had an hour to remove the items from the bulletin board.
On cross-examination it became apparent that she has no
recollection of exactly what Holmes said except that he
made some reference to NLRB. quoted some article, and
requested her to remove items from the bulletin board. She
clearly has no recollection of the context of these state-
ments. He asked if she had a key. She said no and he said
he would meet her at the bulletin board in a few minutes.
Holmes unlocked the bulletin board and Baker removed
items from the bulletin board including a telegram from
Caesar Chavez. president of the United Farm Workers,
wishing Petitioner success in the election. There may have
been other campaign propaganda relating to the election.
Employee Diana Brody testified that she was seated near
the table occupied by Baker when Holmes approached the
table. Holmes said he was looking for a P.P.A. representa-
tive. Then he said to Baker. "Nancy Baker. you are a repre-
sentative of the P.P.A. By order of the NLRB, you have one
hour to take union literature down off of the bulletin board
at the employees' entrance." Baker said she did not have a
key. Holmes said he had a key in his car. he would get it
and meet her at the cafeteria door. Brody testified that she
specifically remembers that Holmes made no reference to
section numbers.
Holmes testified that he went to the hospital at around 3
a.m. because he had to remove some campaign material
posted near what would be the polling place. While doing
this, he noticed two items posted on the P.P.A. bulletin
board that was not in conformance with the requirements
of article 6 of the collective-bargaining agreement, which
reads:
ARTICLE 6
Bulletin Board
SECTION A. The Employer shall provide a place
for a P.P.A. bulletin board on the ground floor of the
hospital .... Prior to removing any material from the
bulletin hoard, the Administrator shall first notify the
P.P.A. President if she or he is on duty. or in her or his
absence any official representative or officer of the
P.P.A.
SECTION B. Bulletin board notices must he re-
stricted to: notices of P.P.A. recreational and social
0 Baker is an employee representative for St. Vincent's Professional Per-
formance Association, the collective-bargaining representative for a unit of
Respondent's registered nurses and licensed practical nurses employees.
aflairs. notices of P.P.A. elections, notices of P.P.A.
appointments and results of P.P.A. elections, notices of
P.P.A. meetings and other notices concerning P.P.A.
affairs which are not partisan political or controversial
in nature. Any notices not restricted to the above shall
require prior approval for posting from the Adminis-
trator or the Administrator's designated representative.
Specifically, there were two items which he considered
objectionable. a Xerox copy of a newspaper article dated
May 15 stating that four staff doctors supported the Peti-
tioner in the election and the C'havez telegram. He went to
the night coordinator, Doris Kilkenny who was seated in
the cafeteria with Baker and several other employees. iHe
asked Kilkennv if she knew the identity of the P.P.A. repre-
sentative. Baker said she was the representative for that
shift.
According to Holmes. he had requested the removal of
items on the bulletin board on about five previous occasions
so he had a prepared statement which he always made. This
was the statement he made to Baker. Holmes testified that
he said. "There is something on the P.P.A. bulletin board
that is not according to article 6, section B. so therefore as
the administrator's designated representative, I am request-
ing that you remove it. I will give you one hour to remove it
from the board, otherwise I will undertake to remove it
myself." Baker said she did not have a key. Holmes said he
did. Baker said. "Well let's do it, show me what and I'll do
it." They then proceeded to the bulletin board. Holmes un-
locked the bulletin board, pointed to the two items, and
Baker removed them.
Kilkenny testified that Holmes inquired as to who was
the P.P.A. representative. No one replied and Holmes said.
"I believe you are Nancy." Baker said she was. Holmes said
you have an article on your bulletin board that should be
removed and asked he to remove it. She does not recall
whether the NLRB was mentioned.
It is arguable that the two items were posted contrary to
the P.P.A. agreement. Holmes' position in this regard was
not an unreasonable interpretation. In the circumstances,
particularly since the article was readily available to unit
employees through the newspaper and since the Union dis-
tributed copies of the telegrams to unit employees. I find
that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Holmes'
conduct in requiring the removal of these items interfered
with the employees' free choice in the election. Thus the
issue is whether Respondent interfered with the Board pro-
cesses by stating that the items must be removed by the
order of NLRB.
I conclude that Holmes did not say the items must he
removed by order of the NLRB. Although Baker does not
recall the conversation in any detail. she does recall that
Holmes mentioned an article number. In the context of the
conversation, the mention of an article number is more con-
sistent with a reference to the P.P.A. agreement than it is to
a reference to an order of' the NLRB. I do not credit Bro-
dy's testimony that Holmes said "by order of the NLRB."
She was not seated at the table with Baker. thus she may
have misunderstood. Furthermore. contrary to the testi-
mony of' both Baker and lHolmes. whom I credit in this
regard. she insists that no reference was made to an article
337
I)VI('ISIONS () NAI IONA LABOR RELA'l ONS BOARI)
number Accordingly, I recommend that Objection 17 he
overruled to the extent it is based on this conduct.
As to Objection 21, unit employec Rose Gallegos testified
that in January 1978 she was hospitalized for 3 days which
resulted in a bill from Respondent in excess of $800. Gialle-
gos submitted the bill for payment under Respondent's em-
ployee insurance program and was notified by Blue ('ross
that they would not pay the bill because her hospitalization
was for diagnostic purposes.
According to Gallegos during a discussion as to benefits
at an election campaign meeting conducted by Holmes
prior to the May 17 election, she mentioned Blue Cross'
refusal to pay her hospitalization bill. Holmes said he did
not understand the refusal, that he was sure he could do
something about it. He asked her to bring the bill to him
which she did the next day. Holmes said he would take care
of it. Holmes further said the administration was always
there to help employees if they needed it. but if they joined
the Union they would have to write people elsewhere, it
would take forever and they could probably care less any-
way. Holmes said the Union could not held the way Re-
spondent could.
A week or two later, according to Gallegos, Holmes told
her everything had been taken care of as to her hospital bill.
He said there might be a small balance which the insurance
would not cover but that there would be a 50 percent dis-
count on this balance. Holmes then said. "Well as you can
see that is what we are here fbr, administration, to help you.
If you would join the Union no way that you are going to
get this kind of help from them."
Approximately 2 weeks later, Gallegos received another
bill from Respondent. She went to Respondent's business
office and discussed the bill with a supervisor. Nancy Portil-
lo. Portillo said she would resubmit the bill to the insurance
company. Gallegos said Holmes told her everything had
been taken care of: Portillo said Holmes had not taken care
of the bill, that he had nothing to do with it. Gallegos said
Holmes had told her that the hospital would give her a 50-
percent discount on the amount of the bill in excess of what
the insurance would cover. Portillo said she had never
heard of any kind of discount. She said as far as she knew,
Respondent was not giving discounts, that it was not like it
was in the old hospital.'4
Holmes denies that Gallegos mentioned her hospital bill
during the meeting. According to him the only thing she
said during the meeting was that she was a unit secretary
and she felt she should receive premium pay because she
had to float from unit to unit depending on her shift assign-
ment. However, she did approach him at another time,
about a week or two prior to the election and told him she
had a hospital bill which Blue Cross had not paid. She said
her husband's insurance had paid its coinsurance portion of
the bill and she wondered why Blue C'ross would not pay.
Holmes replied he did not know but if she would bring the
bill to him he would either contact the insurance represent-
ative and get an answer or send her over to the business
office for assistance."
4 Respondent moved into new hospital facilities in 1977. Prior to this
move, its policy was to give employees a 50-percent discount
05 Holmes handles claims under the major medical coverage. The business
office handles all other claims.
A day or two later, according to Holmes, Gallegos
brought him the bill. Upon examining the bill, he saw that
it was a diagnostic admission. He told Gallegos that the
Blue ('ross policy did not cover diagnostic admissions but
there was a good possibility that it would fall under the
major medical coverage, in which case it would be covered
on a $100 deductible, 80-20 coinsurance basis. The reason
he told her that he would contact the insurance representa-
tive was that her statement that her husband's insurance
had paid a portion of the claim had raised a question in his
mind and he wanted to find out exactly what was involved.
Holmes also read to her Respondent's policy on employee
discounts and hospital charges which provides a 20-percent
discount on hospital charges in excess of the $100 deduct-
ible amount.
Holmes testified that he did discuss the situation with the
insurance representative who suggested that the bill be re-
submitted under the hospitalization coverage. Holmes re-
ported this suggestion to the business manager and the bill
was resubmitted. Portillo admits that Gallegos discussed
this claim with her on two occasions. She denies that she
ever discussed with Gallegos Respondent's policy on em-
ployee discounts on hospital charges and denies that any
mention was made of Holmes or that she told Gallegos that
Respondent did not give employee discounts.
The bill was resubmitted and some portion of it was paid
by the insurance carrier but Gallegos does not recall how
much. Gallegos testified that she received no discount on
the balance. I do not credit Gallegos' testimony that she
discussed this matter with Holmes during the course of a
meeting. Gallegos testified that about 10 to 15 people at-
tended this meeting yet there was no testimony in corrobo-
ration of CGallegos' account. I also consider it unlikely in
view of Respondent's discount policy that Portillo would
tell her that there was no discount. Hence, I do not credit
Gallegos' account of the conversations with Holmes. How-
ever. even assuming rguendo that the conversations oc-
curred as related by Gallegos Holmes' statement does not
warrant the setting aside of the election. There is no evi-
dence that the assistance given Gallegos was any different
from that which would be given to any employee regardless
of an election campaign and there is no evidence that Gal-
legos was told the assistance was dependent upon her not
voting ftor the Union, Accordingly. I recommend that Ob-
jection 21 be overruled.
Objections I and 24 allege the discriminatory enfbrce-
ment of the employee-access rule. Objection 24 alleges spe-
cifically that antiunion leaders and employer observers
were permitted to remain in the hospital whereas union
leader and observers were required to leave the hospital
between election sessions. Although I find in the circum-
stances that the request that Yee leave the premises was
violative of the Act, this finding relates to Objection 1.
There is insufficient evidence that off-duty antiunion lead-
ers and employer observers were specifically permitted to
remain on the premises. Accordingly, I shall recommend
that Objection 24 be overruled.
I have heretofore found that Respondent, in violation of
Section 8(a)( I) of the Act, maintained and discriminatorily
enforced an invalid rule restricting the access of off-duty
employees to its premises. I also found that in the process of
138
ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL.
enforcing such rule. Respondent engaged in unlawful inter-
rogation and surveillance of its employees' union activities:
and that Yee was reprimanded for violating the no-solicita-
tion and employee-access rules, in violation of Section
8(a)( I ) of the Act. In the circumstances, particularly in view
of the timing and Yee's prominent position in the union
organizational campaign. I conclude that by restricting her
right to engage in union solicitation on Respondent's prem-
ises during the last I days of the election campaign. Re-
spondent has interfered with the free choice of the employ-
ees in the election. Accordingly, I recommend that
objection I be sustained, that the election of May 17. 1978
be set aside. that Case 28-RC 3463 be remanded to the
Regional Director and that a new election be directed by
the Regional Director at an appropriate time.
CONC.USIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining a no-access rule which prohibits off-
duty employees from entering upon, or remaining on, its
premises which is couched in language broad enough to
encompass it exterior premises and which does not apply to
all off-duty employees seeking access for any purpose: by
reprimanding or otherwise disciplining its employees for
violating such an invalid no-access rule: and by discrimina-
torily enforcing a no-access rule so as to permit off-duty
employees to enter, or remain on its premises for various
purposes but not for union solicitation, and otherwise inter-
fering with its employees' rights to solicit on behalf of the
Union, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. By preventing employees from, and reprimanding or
otherwise disciplining them for, soliciting on behalf of the
Union during nonwork time in areas of the hospital not
devoted to patient care and treatment; and by telling em-
ployees they cannot solicit on behalf of the Union during
nonwork time in an area of the hospital not devoted to
patient care and treatment, Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)( 1) of the Act.
5. By engaging in surveillance of the union activities of
its employees. and by coercively interrogating employees as
to their union activities. Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(I) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. By engaging in the aforesaid unfair labor practices,
Respondent has interfered with the representation election
held on May 17. 1978.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to rem-
edy the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
By way of affirmative relief; I shall recommend that the
Respondent rescind and expunge from its personnel or
other records the May 8, 1978 written warning issued to
Yee and all chronological reports or other references to ans
other alleged violations b Jane Yee of its "solicitation and
distribution" and "employee access to hospital premises"
rules or to any counseling sessions it had with Yee concern-
ing such rules commencing with March 6. 1978.
Upon the basis of' the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
ORDERS'
The Respondent, St. Vincent Hospital. Santa Fe. New
Mexico. its officers, agents. successors. and assigns. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining a no-access rule prohibiting off-duty em-
ployees from entering upon, or remaining on, its premises
which is couched in language broad enough to encompass
its exterior premises and which does not apply to all off-
duty employees seeking access for any purpose; and repri-
manding or otherwise disciplining employees for violating
such an invalid no-access rule: and discriminatoril enforc-
ing a no-access rule so as to permit off-dut, employees to
enter or remain on its premises for various purposes but not
for union solicitation or so as to unlawfull 3 interfere in any
way with its employees' rights to solicit on behalf of a labor
organization.
(b) Preventing employees from, and reprimanding or
otherwise disciplining them for. soliciting on behalf of an,
labor organization during nonworktime in areas of the hos-
pital not devoted to patient care and treatment.
(c) Telling employees that they cannot solicit on behalf
of any labor organization during nonwork time in an area
of the hospital not devoted to patient care and treatment.
(d) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its
employees.
(e) Coercively interrogating employees as to their union
activities.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to remedy the
unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Rescind and expunge from its personnel, or other.
records the May 8. 1978. written warning issued to Jane
Yee, and all chronological reports or other references to any
other alleged violations by Jane Yee of its "solicitation and
distribution" and "employee access to hospital premises"
rules or to any counseling sessions it had with Yee concern-
ing such rules commencing with March 6. 1978.
16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as prosided In Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted b the Board and become its
findings. conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
339
D[)'(EISI()NS ()1 NATIONAI. IABOR RELATIONS BOAR[)
(b) Post at its fi'cility in Santa Fe. New Mexico, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix.""' Copies of said
notice. on forms provided bh the Regional Director for Re-
gion 28 after being duly signed by alln authorized represent-
ative of Respondent. shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered. defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
I1 IS FI1RIIi R (O)MMI-.NI)L) that Objection I be sus-
tained and that the election held on May 17. 1978, be set
aside and a second election by secret ballot be conducted.
at such time and manner as the Regional Director deems
appropriate.
II IS AlSO() REC(O()MMNDED that the remainder of the ob-
jections involved herein be overruled.
17 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court ,f Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of' the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
No'tIl(' To EMPLOYIIS
POSIED BY ORDER ()I 1Itil
NAIIONAI. LABOR REI.AIINS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, an administrative law judge of the National La-
bor Relations Board has found that we violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act and we have been ordered to
post this notice.
The Act gives the employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization, to form, join, or
assist any union
To bargain collectively through represen atives of
their own choosing
To engage in activities together for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To refrain from the exercise of any or all such
activities.
WE wit . Not do anything that interferes with these
rights. More specifically.
WI wl I1. Nor maintain a no-access rule prohibiting
off-duty employees from entering upon, or remaining
on, our premises which is couched in language broad
enough to encompass our exterior premises and which
does not apply to all off-duty employees seeking access
for any purpose NOR WIl.l. WE reprimand or otherwise
discipline our employees for violating such an invalid
no-access rule.
WI. VWIIJ. Not discriminatorily enforce a no-access
rule so as to permit off-duts employees to enter, or
remain, on our premises for various purposes but not
lfor union solicitation or so as to unlawfully interfere in
any way with our employees' rights to solicit on behalf
of any labor organization.
WL Wil.l. NOT prevent employees from, or reprimand
or otherwise discipline them for, soliciting on behalf of
any' labor organization during nonwork time in areas
of' our hospital not devoted to patient care and treat-
ment.
WE WILL NOI tell our employees that they cannot
solicit on behalf of any labor organization during non-
work time in an area of our hospital which is not de-
voted to patient care and treatment.
WE wil. Nr engage in surveillance of the union
activities of our employees.
WE wvil. NOT coercively interrogate our employees
as to their union activities.
WE VWILL NOT in any' like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE vwii.. rescind and expunge from our personnel or
other records the Mav 8. 1978, written warning issued
to Jane Yee. and all chronological reports or other ref-
erences to any other alleged violations by Jane Yee of
our "solicitation and distribution" and "employee ac-
cess to hospital premises" rules or to any counseling
sessions we had with Yee concerning such rules com-
mencing with March 6. 1978.
SI. VIN(F N1 HOSPIIAl.
140