The Von Solbrig Hospital, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 273 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

THE VON SOLBRIG HOSPITAL, INC 273
The Von Solbrig Hospital , Inc. and Hospital Employ-
ees Labor Program (HELP). Case 13-CA-9910
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
March 24, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND
KENNEDY
On December 14, 1970, Trial Examiner Herbert
Silberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief. General Counsel filed a brief in
reply to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
Respondent, The Von Solbrig Hospital, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial
Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions
were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188
F 2d 362 (C A 3) We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial
Examiner's credibility findings in this case
HERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on June 15, 1970, by Hospital Employees Labor
Program (HELP), herein called the Union, a complaint
dated August 14, 1970, was issued alleging that The Von
Solbrig Hospital, Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in
conduct constituting unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. In substance, the complaint, as
amended, alleges that the Respondent on June 3, 1970,
unlawfully discharged Veronica Brongel because she had
engaged in union activities and, by reason of said discharge
and other conduct set forth in the complaint, Respondent
also has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Respondent filed answers to the complaint and its
amendments generally denying that it had engaged in the
alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing in these proceed-
ings was held in Chicago, Illinois, on October 13, 14, and
15, 1970. Subsequent to the hearing, Respondent filed a
brief which has been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Illinois corporation, operates a proprie-
tary hospital in Chicago, Illinois. During the calendar year
1969 its gross revenues exceeded $1 million. During said
period Respondent purchased and received supplies valued
at $ 1,925.78 which originated outside the State of Illinois
and which were shipped directly to Respondent's hospital
through channels of interstate commerce and, in addition,
purchased food products and other supplies valued at
approximately $83,000 from business concerns located
within the State of Illinois which in turn obtained some of
those products and supplies from places outside the State of
Illinois. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over Respondent's hospital facility.'
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General Service Employees Union Local No. 73,
Building Service Employees ' International Union,
AFL-CIO, and the Warehouse and Mail Order Employees
Union , Local No. 743, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, acting jointly, have established Hospital Employ-
ees Labor Program (HELP) for the purpose of organizing
and representing hospital and other health care employees
in the Chicago metropolitan area.2 The Union accepts
87
i Fairview Hospital, 174 NLRB No 192, Rosewood, Inc, 185 NLRB No
2 The most recent version of the constitution and bylaws of the Union is
dated December 1, 1967
189 NLRB No. 46
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees as members and deals with employers by
negotiating collective-bargaining agreements covering
persons represented by the Union, by adjusting grievances,
and by other related activities. Membership in the Union
automatically entitles the member to membership in one of
the two sponsoring organizations. The governing body of
the Union is composed of delegates appointed by the
sponsoring organizations. Although the Union is the
creature of its sponsoring organizations it nevertheless
constitutes a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.3
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Hospital is a three-story structure with only the first
two stories being used for patient care There are
approximately 26 beds on the first floor and a larger
number on the second floor. The hospital employs on its
nursing staff approximately 20 registered nurses, 2 licensed
practical nurses, and about 25 or 30 nurses aides. These
employees are under the immediate supervision of Sylvia
Uptain, director of nurses. She in turn is directly
responsible to Dr. C. R. Von Solbrig, president of
Respondent, who is in administrative charge of the
Hospital's operations. Although the registered nurses direct
the normal activities of the aides there is no contention that
they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
The focus of these proceedings is upon the discharge of
Veronica Brongel, a nurses aide. She was employed in that
capacity for approximately 10 years until her discharge on
June 3, 1970 During the last 4 years of her employment she
worked on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on the first floor with
the same registered nurse, Denise Funchion. No other
nurse or aide worked with them Both Mrs. Brongel and
Mrs. Funr'_uon worked 6 nights a week and had the same
night off, Friday. Thus, during the 4 years preceding Mrs.
Brongel's discharge Mrs. Funchion was the only nurse who
had any regular or extended opportunity to observe Mrs.
Brongel 's performance of her work 4
In April 1970, Mrs. Brongel contacted Dominic Licata,
who is the director of the Union, about organizing the
Hospital's employees. Licata assigned the matter to Jeanne
Smith, another union representative. From a list of names
and addresses of employees furnished to her by Mrs.
Brongel, Smith caused a letter to be mailed to the Hospital's
employees inviting them to a union meeting on May 26
Only two employees appeared at the meeting. They were
Brongel and a registered nurse, Vilma Kirchner. Kirchner is
the charge nurse for the first floor on the morning shift,
which follows Brongel's shift. At the meeting Brongel
3 The same labor organization was the charging party in Fairview
Hospital, 174 NLRB No 192 In that case the organization described itself
as "Hospital Employees Labor Program, Local 743, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, and Local 73, Building Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, Jointly " The abbreviated version of its name used in this case
does not change the character or the identity of the Union
4 Vilma Kirchner, a registered nurse who normally works on the
morning shift, was the only witness called by Respondent to testify about
Brongel's allegedly poor work record Significantly, however, Kirchner did
not testify that she personally observed any alleged failure in duty on
Brongel 's part , although on at least one occasion , when Funchion was
absent , she worked with Brongel
5 Before he testified on cross-examination about his conversation with
complained that newer employees were being paid more
than she was being paid. Kirchner said that if this were so it
was unfair and she would check into it. The next morning
Kirchner relayed Brongel's complaint to Uptam, also
informing Uptain that the complaint was made during the
union meeting on the previous day.
Kirchner testified that when she received the Union's
invitation to the meeting of May 26 she openly discussed
her intentions of attending the meeting and Dr. Von Solbng
testified that he learned that Kirchner would be at the
union meeting. Dr. Von Solbrig further testified that on the
day of the meeting or the next day he approached Mrs.
Kirchner in the Hospital's dining room about the subject.
According to Dr. Von Solbrig, "I think I said that I
understand you had a meeting. She said, `What meeting?' I
said, `A union meeting.' She said , `Yes.' I said, `Who all was
there9' I believe she said that Brongel was there... .
Kirchner also told Dr. Von Solbrig that no one else other
than Brongel was at the meeting.5
Beginning about 5:30 a.m. on June 3 Union Representa-
tives Licata and Smith distributed a leaflet to the Hospital's
employees as they were going to work. The leaflet stated,
among other things, that the employees were receiving as
much as $1 an hour less than union hospital workers, asked
how long they were going to wait for the raise that had been
promised them, and concluded with the statement, "if you
are tired of waiting, sign the attached card and drop it in the
mailbox." 6 About 7:10 that morning, Dr. Von Solbng tele-
phoned Mrs. Funchion and asked if she had allowed any
people into the building with literature . She replied that she
had not, but that employees were bringing the literature in
with them Von Solbrig instructed her to prepare a list of
names of the employees who brought the literature into the
building and to slip the list under his door the following
morning.
Later that afternoon Mrs. Brongel was informed by a
telephone call to her home by the payroll clerk that she was
discharged. Brongel telephoned Funchion and advised her
of what had happened. Funchion promised Brongel that
she would try to find out why Brongel had been discharged.
Early the next morning Funchion asked Dr. Von Solbng
why Brongel had been discharged According to Funchfon,
"He said that Vern had attended a union meeting and that
he would fire anybody who had anything to do with the
union " During the same conversation Funchion told Von
Solbrig that practically every employee had brought union
literature into the hospital building the previous morning.
Dr. Von Solbrig asked her if she knew who had slipped a
Kirchner, described above, Dr Von Solbng on examination by
Respondent 's counsel testified that he was not aware that Mrs Brongel had
engaged in union activity of any type
6 Smith testified that the June 3 distribution was the only distribution
made by the Union to the employees of Respondent Dr Von Solbrig
testified that there was no distribution of union leaflets on June 3
According to Dr Von Solbng leaflets had been "passed out about a week
or ten days or two weeks before that ," and during May and June there
were four or five distributions of leaflets I do not credit Dr Von Solbrig in
this regard His testimony was not based upon personal observations, is not
corroborated, and conflicts with the testimony of Smith who I find is a
credible witness Furthermore, while Von Solbng was unable to fix the date
of any particular distribution, Smith , Funchion , and Brongel testified
specifically that union leaflets were distributed on June 3
THE VON SOLBRIG HOSPITAL , INC. 275
leaflet under his door and Funchion told him whom she
thought it was.7
Dr. Von Solbrig's testimony is to the effect that
ultimately he was responsible for the decision to discharge
Brongel on June 3, 1970.8 According to Dr. Von Solbrig, "I
received reports three or four or five months before we let
her go about things she was doing that were things we
didn't like, and so I spoke to Miss Uptain and told her to
talk to the girl or have someone else talk to her and correct
these mistakes." Dr. Von Solbrig testified that the
unfavorable reports he had received about Brongel were:
that Brongel had falsely reported that she had done clini-
tests when in fact she had not made such tests; 9 that
Brongel on many occasions had refused to go to the second
floor to assist the registered nurse, Miss Larsen, when the
latter had asked for Brongel's help; and that Brongel had
refused to work on any shift other than her regular shift
which was a serious inconvenience to the Hospital
particularly when there were unanticipated employee
absences. Dr. Von Solbrig also testified that at the time he
told Uptain to reprimand Brongel he directed Uptain to
"look for someone to replace her; and, if she does not get
better then we have to let her go." Although Dr Von
Solbrig was unable to give any reason why Brongel was
discharged on June 3, a Wednesday, he testified, "I had
tolerated her knowing that she had been making these
mistakes, making these errors, that she hadn't corrected
them in a five-or-six-month time I felt she was a detriment
to the hospital to keep her on." Dr. Von Solbng further
testified that on the day of Brongel's discharge or on the
previous day he discussed Brongel's performance with Miss
Uptain in his office. They called Mrs. Kirchner tojoin them
in order to ask her a few questions about Brongel's work.
According to Dr. Von Solbrig, "I asked [Kirchner] if Mrs.
Brongel was still giving these false readings on the clini-
tests and she said `Yes, she was,' she knew of several
patients that had told her that day or previously a short
time before that they asked for this test to be done. They
said the test wasn't done and here we had a reading already
where it was supposed to have been done and we have a
false reading. Then she said either one or two or three
patients that had brought it to her attention that day." Dr.
Von Solbrig also testified that he made no independent
investigation of the facts reported to him by Kirchner.
Dr Von Solbrig's explanation for Brongel's discharge is
belied by the evidence. First, he testified that several
7 Dr Von Solbrig denied the incriminatory portions of Funchion's
testimony I credit Funchion who impressed me as being a truthful witness
who was careful to answer the questions asked her precisely and without
exaggeration Dr Von Solbrig's testimony tended to be general, somewhat
vague and uncertain, and wholly uncorroborated even as to matters where
corroboration should have been available I find that Dr Von Solbrig was
an unreliable witness
8 Dr Von Solbrig appeared to be uncertain even as to this subject
He testified as follows
Q Whose decision was it to finally discharge Mrs Brongel on
that date, on June 3rd9
A I think it was my decision It might have been Miss Uptain I
don't recall
Q You don't recall9
A No, I don't We talked about it very seriously several times we
should let her go
9 The clmf-test which is used for diabetic patients who are on a sliding
scale, that is, who receive varying dosages of insulin, is performed by
months before Brongel's discharge he instructed Uptain to
reprimand Brongel. This was never done. Brongel's
uncontradicted testimony is that during the last 6 months of
her employment no one criticized her work performance.
Furthermore, although Dr. Von Solbng testified that there
was dissatisfaction with Brongel's work, no inquiry was
made of Funchion, who by far had the best opportunity to
observe Brongel, about Brongel's performance. Funchion's
opinion given to Dr. Von Solbrig on the day after Brongel
was discharged was that Brongel was "a good aide and she
liked her and she would like to keep her on." Additionally,
it is difficult to believe Dr. Von Solbrig's testimony that he
received advice that Brongel had made false clini-test
reports, which could have resulted in a patient's death, and
nothing more affirmative was done by him than to tell
Uptain to reprimand Brongel. Second, Dr. Von Solbrig
testified to a meeting with Kirchner and Uptain on the day
or on the day before Brongel's discharge at which time
Kirchner informed him that Brongel was "still giving these
false readings on the clini-tests." Kirchner denied attending
any such meeting. Uptain was not called upon to
corroborate Dr. Von Solbng's testimony. Third, the only
evidence offered by Respondent to prove Brongel's alleged
derelictions in the performance of her duties was through
the testimony of Kirchner. It is unnecessary to summarize
Kirchner's testimony in this regard. Kirchner acknowl-
edged that she had no firsthand knowledge of Brongel's
claimed deficiencies and the evidence shows that Kirchner
was seriously mistaken about some of Brongel's alleged
shortcomings, particularly in regard to the cline-tests. There
is no convincing evidence that Brongel was guilty of any of
the specific faults detailed by Dr. Von Solbrig.10 Finally,
despite Dr. Von Solbrig's testimony that he had instructed
Uptain to hire a replacement in anticipation of Brongel's
discharge, there is no evidence that any such replacement
was hired either before Brongel was discharged or soon
thereafter.
I find that Respondent had no valid cause for discharging
Brongel on June 3, 1970. On the other hand, Dr. Von
Solbrig knew that Brongel was the only employee who had
attended the union meeting on May 26, other than
Kirchner who seems to enjoy Respondent's special
confidence.ii In these circumstances, Brongel's precipitous
discharge with no forewarning, in the middle of a pay
period despite 10 years of continuous employment, shortly
after Respondent learned that Brongel had become
dipping a chemically treated paper into a sample of the patient's urine The
paper changes color and by comparing the color with colors on a punted
chart a determination is made as to the dosage of insulin for the patient
Dr Von Solbng testified that a failure to give a patient the proper dose of
insulin "could mean the life of a patient " However, only the registered
nurse on duty, not the aide, records the results of the chni-tests on the
patients' charts and administers the insulin injections
10 Sometime before her discharge Uptafn spoke with Brongel about
working with Miss Larsen on a rotating basis Brongel then told Uptain
that she would rather quit than do that Uptain assured Brongel that she
would not be required to work on a regular shift with Larsen Brongel's
attitude in regard to working with Larsen, in these circumstances, would
not appear to have prompted a hasty decision to discharge her
ii Kirchner testified that prior to Easter 1970, she assisted Uptain in
making an evaluation of about 20 employees Furthermore, other than D
Von Solbng, she was the only witness called by Respondent to testify in
this proceeding
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interested in promoting the Union, and on the very day that
the Union engaged in its first distribution of handbills at
the Hospital, leads to the conclusion that Brongel was
discharged for her union activities. This conclusion is
reinforced by Dr. Von Solbrig's statement to Funchion that
he terminated Brongel because she had attended a union
meeting and that he would fire anybody who had anything
to do with the Union. I further find that by discharging
Veronica Brongel on June 3, 1970, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and thereby also interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Dr. Von Solbrig's statement to Mrs. Funchion on June
4 that he discharged Brongel because she had attended a
union meeting and his threat that he would fire anybody
who had anything to do with the Union are further
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Also, in the
circumstances described above, Respondent engaged in
unlawful interrogation by Dr. Von Solbng's instruction to
Funchion on June 3 to prepare a list of employees who
brought union literature into the Hospital and his inquiry of
her the next day as to who had slipped a union leaflet under
his door and his questioning Kirchner regarding employee
attendance at the union meeting of May 26.
percent per annum shall be added to such net backpay and
shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discriminatorily discharging Veronica Brongel on
June 3, 1970, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
2. By threatening that employees will be discharged for
attending union meetings or for having anything to do with
the Union and by coercively questioning employees about
their or other employees union activities , Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in further unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged
Veronica Brongel or. June 3, 1970, I shall recommend that
the Respondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement
to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or to other rights and privileges, and make her
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her by payment to her
of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would
have earned from the aforesaid date of her discharge to the
date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement less her net
earnings during such period. The backpay provided for
herein shall be computed on the basis of calendar quarters,
in accordance with the method prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest at the rate of 6
ORDER 12
The Von Solbng Hospital , Inc., its officers , agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Hospital Employees
Labor Program (HELP), or any other labor organization,
by discharging or by otherwise discriminating in regard to
the hire, tenure of employment, or other terms and
conditions of employment of any of its employees.
(b) Coercively interrogating its employees regarding their
or other employees union activities.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge or other
reprisals because of attendance at union meetings or
because of other union activities.
(d) In any , other manner interfering with , restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Veronica Brongel immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former position or, if that position no longer
exists , to a substantially equivalent position , without
prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges
and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimination against
her in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and , upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports , and other records relevant to
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of shall , as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
findings , conclusions, recommendations , and recommended Order herein all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
THE VON SOLBRIG HOSPITAL , INC. 277
its determination of the amount of backpay due to
Veronica Brongel.
(c) Notify Veronica Brongel if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(d) Post at its Hospital in Chicago , Illinois, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix ." 13 Copies of said
notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being duly signed by its authorized
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
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e)Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.14
13 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
14 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date of
this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Hospital
Employees Labor Program (HELP), or any other labor
organization , by discharging or by otherwise discrimi-
nating against any of our employees in regard to their
hire, tenure of employment , or any other term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization , to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Hospital Employees Labor Program
(HELP), or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer Veronica Brongel reinstatement to her
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges and we will
make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered by reason of our unlawful discrimination
against her.
WE WILL notify Veronica Brongel if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to
full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
or other reprisals for attending union meetings or
engaging in other union activities.
WE WILL NOT question our employees about their
union membership , or about their union sympathies or
their union activities or about the union membership,
sympathies , or activities of other employees.
Dated By
THE VON SOLBRIG
HOSPITAL, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice, or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 881
Everett McKinley Dirksen Senate Building , 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago , Illinois 60604, Telephone
312-353-7572.