UPMC and its Subsidiary, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside, Single Employer, d/b/a UPMC Presbyterian Hospi

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 14, 2014

06-CA-102465 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 14, 2014)

JD–62–14
Pittsburgh, PA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
UPMC AND ITS SUBSIDIARY, UPMC
PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE, SINGLE EMPLOYER,
d/b/a UPMC PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL AND
d/b/a UPMC SHADYSIDE HOSPITAL
Cases 06–CA–102465
06–CA–102494
and 06–CA–102516
06–CA–102518
06–CA–102525
06–CA–102534
SEIU HEALTHCARE PENNSYLVANIA CTW, CLC 06–CA–102540
06–CA–102542
06–CA–102544
Suzanne Donsky, Julie Stern and David Shepley, Esqs., 06–CA–102555
for the General Counsel. 06–CA–102559
Mark Stubley, Michael Mitchell, Ruthie Goodboe, 06–CA–102566
Jennifer Betts, April Dugan, and Thomas Smock, Esqs., 06–CA–104090
for the Respondent. 06–CA–104104
Claudia Davidson and Kathy Krieger, Esqs., 06–CA–106636
for the Charging Party. 06–CA–107127
06–CA–107431
06–CA–107532
06–CA–107896
06–CA–108547
06–CA–111578
06–CA–115826
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARK CARISSIMI, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania on February 12-14, February 20-21, February 24- 27, March 3- 6, March 31-April
4, and April 8, 2014. SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania CTW, CLC (the Union) filed the charge in
6–CA–102465 on April 10, 2013. 1 Thereafter, the Union filed additional charges in 06–CA–
102494, 06–CA–102516, 06–CA–102518, 06–CA–102525, 06–CA–102534, 06–CA–102540,
06–CA–102542, 06–CA102544, 06–CA–102555, 06–CA–102559, 06–CA–102566, 06–CA–
104090, 06–CA–104104, 06–CA–106636, 06–CA–107127,

1 All dates are 2013 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–62–14
2
06–CA–107431, 06–CA–107532, 06–CA–107896, 06–CA–108547, 06–CA–111578, and 06–
CA–115826. On September 30, 2013, the General Counsel issued an order consolidating cases,
consolidated complaint, and notice of hearing. On November 5, 2013, the General Counsel
issued an order further consolidating cases and an amendment to the consolidated complaint. On
January 9, 2014, the General Counsel issued a second order further consolidating cases and 5
amended consolidated complaint (the complaint). In the complaint the General Counsel alleges
that Respondent UPMC and Respondent UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside (Respondent
Presbyterian) constitute a single employer. After the issuance of the complaint, Respondent
UPMC and Respondent Presbyterian (the Respondents) filed with the Board a motion to dismiss
the allegation that Respondent UPMC and Respondent Presbyterian constitute a single employer. 10
On February 7, 2014, the Board issued an order denying the Respondents’ motion.
As noted above, the trial in the instant matter opened on February 12, 2014. The parties
agreed, with my approval, to first litigate the substantive unfair labor practice allegations in the
complaint against Respondent Presbyterian and then litigate the issue of whether Respondent 15
UPMC and Respondent Presbyterian constituted a single employer within the meaning of the
Act. Thus, the trial commenced with the litigation of the substantive unfair labor practice
allegations. Although the General Counsel and the Union had issued subpoenas duces tecum to
both Respondent UPMC and Respondent Presbyterian Shadyside that related solely to the single-
employer issue prior to the commencement of the hearing, rulings on the petitions to revoke that 20
had been filed to each of those subpoenas was initially deferred. As the trial regarding the unfair
labor practice allegations progressed, it became necessary to address the issues raised by the
petitions to revoke those subpoenas so that the parties could prepare to litigate the single
employer phase of the proceeding. On February 24, 2014, on the record, I denied, in substantial
part, petitions to revoke the subpoenas duces tecum that the General Counsel had served on 25
Respondent UPMC and Respondent Presbyterian Shadyside, respectively, and a subpoena duces
tecum that the Union had served on Respondent UPMC. Consequently, I ordered both the
Respondents to produce documents pursuant to the subpoenas. Thereafter, the Respondents
indicated they would not comply with my order and thus on March 20, 2014, on behalf of the
Board, the General Counsel filed an application to enforce all three subpoenas in the United 30
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
On April 3, 2014, I issued an order, on the record, severing the single-employer
allegations from the unfair labor practice allegations in the complaint. I determined it was
appropriate to first issue a decision regarding the alleged unfair labor practices committed by 35
Respondent Presbyterian and later issue a supplemental decision regarding the issue of whether
Respondent UPMC and Respondent Presbyterian Shadyside constitute a single employer.2 My
reason for doing so was that, in light of the ongoing subpoena enforcement proceedings in the
district court, there was substantial uncertainty as to when the single-employer allegations in the
complaint would proceed to trial.3 I do not believe that it would aid in the efficient administration 40

2 There are no allegations in the complaint that Respondent UPMC itself committed any
unfair labor practices. Respondent UPMC would only have liability for any unfair labor practices
if it is found to be a single employer with Respondent Presbyterian.
3 On August 22, 2014, the district court issued an order granting the Board's application for
enforcement of the three subpoenas, which it amended on September 2, 2014. The district court
stayed its order pending an appeal by the Respondents.
JD–62–14
3
of the Act to delay the disposition of the substantive allegations of the complaint while awaiting
the outcome of the protracted subpoena enforcement litigation involving the single-employer
issue. Consequently, this decision involves only the allegations of the complaint that Respondent
Presbyterian committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, the term
Respondent as it is used in this decision refers only to Respondent Presbyterian.5
Post-hearing Motions
After receiving a series of extensions, the parties filed their briefs in this matter on July
18, 2014. On the same date, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed motions to correct the 10
transcript. On August 6, 2014, the Union filed an opposition to the Respondent’s motion to
correct the transcript. The record in this case is lengthy (over 3100 pages) and both motions point
out a number of errors contained in the transcript and set forth the appropriate corrections. I grant
both motions. Because of the number of corrections, I will not list them in this decision but
rather order that both motions are hereby included in the record and that the transcript is 15
corrected in the manner set forth in the motions.
On July 23, 2014, the General Counsel filed a motion to withdraw paragraph 8 and
paragraphs 34(a), (b), and (c) of the complaint. I grant the General Counsel’s motion since the
record does not contain evidence to support those complaint allegations.20
On July 28, 2014, the General Counsel filed a motion to strike articles contained in
appendix 8 of the Respondent’s post-hearing brief regarding “Factors Affecting Medication
Errors Among Staff Nurses: Basis in the Formulation of Medication Information Guide” and
references to that article contained in footnote 148. The General Counsel also moved to strike the 25
reference to information on a website regarding “ODC Guidelines for Disinfection and
Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities” contained on page 78 of the Respondent’s brief. On August
11, 2014, the Respondent filed an opposition to the General Counsel’s motion. The basis for the
General Counsel’s motion is that neither of these documents was introduced into evidence at the
hearing. I grant the General Counsel’s motion regarding these two issues. Since these documents 30
were not introduced as evidence at the hearing they cannot be introduced into the record at this
point. International Bridge & Iron Co., 357 NLRB No. 35, JD slip op. at 2 (2011); King
Soopers, Inc., 344 NLRB 842 fn.1 (2005), enfd. 476 F. 3d 843 (10th Cir. 2007); Section 102.45
(b) of the Boards Rules and Regulations.
35
The General Counsel’s motion to strike also requests that I strike certain references in the
Respondent’s brief on the basis that those references are not supported by record evidence. I
deny this aspect of the General Counsel’s motion to strike as it is in the nature of an answering
brief. There is no provision in Section 102.42 of Board’s Rules and Regulations for the filing of
an answering brief with an Administrative Law Judge. Moreover, I am perfectly capable of 40
evaluating the record support for assertions made in a brief.
Finally, all of the parties filed a statement of position regarding the effect of the Supreme
Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014) on certain cases referred to
the post-hearing briefs45
JD–62–14
4
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,4and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and the Respondent, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT5
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent Presbyterian, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, with offices and places
of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has been engaged in the operation of acute care hospitals 10
providing inpatient and outpatient medical care. Annually Respondent Presbyterian, in
conducting its operations described above, derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and
purchases and receives at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania facilities goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Respondent
Presbyterian admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning 15
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and is a health care institution within the meaning of
Section 2(14) of the Act. I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES20
The substantive allegations of the complaint, as amended, allege that, commencing in
February 2013, the Respondent engaged in numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
including, creating the impression of surveillance of employees union activities, engaging in
surveillance of union activities, threatening employees with discipline, threatening to arrest 25
employees, interrogating employees, impliedly threatening an employee with a poor evaluation,
photographing an employee engaged in union activity, and disparately enforcing its solicitation
policy in several instances.
The complaint further alleges that since February 20, 2013, the Respondent violated 30
Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by dominating and giving support to the Presbyterian Hospital
Environmental Support Services Employee Council (the ESS employee council), a labor
organization it established and by dealing with the ESS employee council concerning terms and
conditions of employment.
35

4 In making my findings regarding the credibility of witnesses, I have considered their
demeanor, the content of the testimony and the inherent probabilities based on the record as a
whole. In certain instances, I credited some, but not all, of what the witness said. I note, in this
regard, that “nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some and
not all” of the testimony of a witness. Jerry Ryce Builders, 352 NLRB 1262 fn. 2 (2008), citing
NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749, 754 (2d Cir. 1950), revd. on other grounds 340
U.S. 474 (1951). See also J. Shaw Associates, LLC, 349 NLRB 939, 939-940 (2007). In addition,
I have carefully considered all the testimony in contradiction to my factual findings but have
discredited such testimony.
JD–62–14
5
The complaint also alleges that on March 20, 2013, the Respondent discharged Ronald
Oakes and on March 28, 2013, issued a final written warning to Chaney Lewis in violation of
Section 8 (a)(4), (3), and (1) of the Act.
Finally, the complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the 5
Act by: on December 20, 2012, issuing a final written warning to Felicia Penn; on February 27,
2013, issuing a written warning to David Jones; on February 28, 2013 suspending Leslie Poston;
on March 11, 2013, issuing a final written warning to Poston; on March 9 discharging Finley
Littlejohn; on April 4, 2013, issuing a verbal warning to James Staus; on April 23, 2013, issuing
a final written warning to Albert Turner; on April 26, 2013 issuing a verbal warning to Staus; on 10
May 14, 2013 placing Staus on a Performance Improvement Plan; on June 18, 2013, discharging
Albert Turner; and on July 1, 2013, discharging Staus.
Background
15
The Respondent, which is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is composed of
Presbyterian Hospital5 and Shadyside Hospital, which are located adjacent to each other.
Presbyterian and Shadyside are operated as one hospital and have one taxpayer identification
number. The Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (WPIC) is also administratively part of the
Respondent and is located near Presbyterian and Shadyside. At Presbyterian Hospital there are 20
approximately 6000 employees, including approximately 2100 nonclinical support employees,
employed in approximately 200 departments. At Shadyside Hospital there are approximately
3000 employees, including 1400 nonclinical support employees, employed in 100 departments.
Many departments operate at both hospitals.
25
Dr. Margaret Reidy, the Respondent’s senior vice president for medical affairs, testified
that there are some nurses and support employees that are represented by a union at WPIC and
that some maintenance employees and security officers are represented at Presbyterian. While
Dr. Reidy testified that these employees have been represented for a period of time, she was
uncertain as to whether the employees were organized at the time that the Respondent took over 30
those facilities. Gerald Moran, the Respondent’s security operations manager, testified that there
are 26 security officers at Presbyterian Hospital and that they have been represented from
approximately the mid to late 1990’s. There is no evidence in the record regarding a description
of these bargaining units or the name of the collective-bargaining representative for each unit.
35
In the spring of 2012, the Union began a campaign to organize the nonclinical support
employees employed at the Respondent. Union representative Sarah Fishbein testified that she
was hired by the Union in June 2012 and was assigned to the ongoing campaign to organize the
Respondent’s support employees. As part of the campaign the Union distributed union buttons,
lanyards and flyers to employees. The committee of the employees supporting the Union 40
included Leslie Poston, Chaney Lewis, Larry Ward, Frank Lavelle, Albert Turner, Bonita

5 Presbyterian Hospital also includes “Montefiore Hospital” which is also located adjacent to
Presbyterian and had been acquired by Presbyterian and merged into its operations. Although
Montefiore no longer exists as a separate hospital, witnesses used that name to describe the
building where Montefiore was formerly located.
JD–62–14
6
McWhrrter, James Staus, and Finley Littlejohn. The Union’s campaign was continuing at the
time of the hearing. The Union has not filed a petition for an election.
The Respondent has openly indicated that it is opposed to the Union’s attempt to organize
its nonclinical support employees. In this regard, the Respondent posted a document on its 5
website entitled “UPMC Cares.” (CP Exh. 6), which contains information about the SEIU and
unions in general. It also contains a section entitled “Why Unions Aren’t Necessary” which
indicates, inter alia:
We respect our associates-lawful right to choose or reject union representation. 10
However, we believe that our associates don’t need a union to represent them.
We believe that unionization is Not in the best interest of our associates. (Emphasis in the
original.)
The presence of the union could change relationships between managers, supervisors and15
associate her testimony thats. A contract could force associates to go through a union
steward instead of talking directly with management. (CP Exh. 6 pp. 3-4.)
The copy of the material contained on “UPMC Cares” introduced into evidence is dated
February 14, 2013. The record establishes, however, that this website was operating since at least 20
the fall of 2012. In addition, since at least the fall of 2012, the Respondent has utilized screen
savers on employees’ computers throughout the hospital which scroll messages regarding the
Union. One such message indicated “You can say NO to the SEIU. It’s your right.” (Emphasis in
the original.) The screensavers direct employees to the UPMC Cares website for more
information. (CP Exh. 5)25
The Prior Settlement Agreements
Pursuant to unfair labor practice charges filed by the Union, on February 7, 2013, the
Regional Director for Region 6 approved an informal settlement agreement in a case captioned 30
“UPMC and its subsidiaries UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside and Magee-Women’s Hospital of
UPMC, Single Employer, d/b/a Shadyside Hospital and/or Presbyterian Hospital and/or
Montefiore Hospital and/or Magee-Women’s Hospital,” Cases 06–CA–081896, 06–CA–086542,
06–CA–090063, 06–CA–090133, 06–CA–090144, 06–CA–092507, 06–CA–092828, 06–CA–
094095, and 06–CA–095735. (ALJ Exh. 1.) This settlement agreement was executed by UPMC 35
Presbyterian Shadyside and provided for, inter alia, the payment of back pay and offers of
reinstatement to employees Frank Lavelle and Ronald Oakes. The settlement agreement contains
a nonadmission clause.
The settlement agreement also indicates that the notice would be posted in UPMC 40
Presbyterian Hospital, UPMC Shadyside Hospital, and Montefiore Hospital. The settlement
agreement indicates that it did not settle certain allegations of the amended consolidated
complaint in Case 06–CA–081896 with respect to the solicitation, electronic mail and
messaging, and acceptable use of information technology resources policies. It further provided
that: “ The reference in the caption of this case to the Single Employer is not intended to be, and 45
will not be proffered as, evidence that a Single Employer relationship exists, during this or any
other proceeding or case, including any default proceeding.”
JD–62–14
7
The settlement agreement also contains the following “default” language:
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-compliance system-wide as to the
policies alleged in the amended consolidated complaint and all other allegations in the 5
amended consolidated complaint occurring at UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside with any of
the terms of this Settlement Agreement by the Charged Party within 180 days of the
closing of this case, and after 14 days notice from the Regional Director of the National
Labor Relations Board of such noncompliance without remedy by the Charged Party, the
Regional Director will reissue the portion of the complaint previously issued on 10
December 13, 2012, and amended on January 8, 2013, in the instant case, which relates
to that part of this Agreement with which the Charge Party is not in compliance.
Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a motion for default judgment with the Board
on the allegations contained in the pertinent portion of the complaint, excluding all single
employer allegations. The Charged Party understands and agrees that such allegations of 15
the aforementioned complaint will be deemed admitted and its Answer to such portion of
the complaint will be considered withdrawn. The only issue that may be raised before the
Board is whether the Charge Party defaulted on some terms of this Settlement
Agreement. The Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other proceeding, find
such allegations of the complaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of 20
law consistent with those allegations adverse to the Charged Party on the issues raised in
the General Counsel’s motion for default. The Board may then issue an order providing a
full remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy such violations. The
parties further agree that a U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered enforcing the
Board order ex parte, after service or attempted service upon Charge Party/Respondent 25
at the last address provided to the General Counsel.
On February 7, 2013, the Regional Director for Region 6 also approved an informal
settlement agreement with the same case caption noted above in Case 06–CA–081896. (ALJ
Exh. 2.) The settlement agreement was executed by Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC and 30
provided for a notice posting at that hospital reflecting that it would not maintain certain policies
and that it would not discriminatorily enforce other policies. The settlement also includes a non-
admission clause. This settlement agreement contained the same scope of the agreement
language indicating that this agreement did not settle certain allegations in the amended
consolidated complaint in Case 06–CA–081896 regarding the solicitation, electronic mail and 35
messaging, an acceptable use of information technology resources policy. The settlement
agreement also contained the same language quoted above regarding the reference to the single
employer in the case caption. It also includes the same “default” language except that it makes
specific reference to “Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC” in the first sentence rather than
referring to “UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside.”40
The Regional Director issued in order severing the remaining allegations of Case 06–
CA–081896 from the settled cases issued on February 8, 2013, and a second amended complaint
issued on February 11, 2013.
45
Thereafter, a trial was held with respect to the remaining allegations Case 06-CA-081896
on February 20, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge David Goldman. The issues in that case
JD–62–14
8
were whether Respondent Presbyterian and Respondent Magee maintained an unlawful
solicitation policy effective from December 15, 2011, until October 9, 2012; and an “electronic
mail and messaging policy” and an “ acceptable use of information technology resources policy”
that were overly broad and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5
On April 19, 2013, Judge Goldman issued a decision (JD–28–13) finding that the
solicitation policy was facially lawful and therefore he dismissed that allegation in the complaint.
He also found, however, that the electronic mail and messaging policy and the acceptable use of
the information technology resources policy were overly broad and violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Judge Goldman construed the amended complaint that issued on February 11, 2013, as 10
not naming UPMC as a Respondent (JD–28–13, slip op. at 21).
As part of the record in that proceeding, however, Respondent Presbyterian Shadyside,
Respondent Magee-Women’s Hospital, and UPMC entered into the following stipulation:
15
The undersigned parties hereby stipulate that any policies either adjudicated as
unlawful, or which Respondent agrees to voluntarily rescind in connection with the
instant matter, will be expunged wherever they exist on a systemwide basis at any and all
of Respondent’s facilities within the United States and its territories, including, but not
limited to, those which are operated by UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside and Magee-20
Womens Hospital of UPMC.
Moreover, Respondent agrees that it will notify all of its employees at all
of Respondent’s facilities within the United States and its territories where such policies
were in existence, including but not limited to, those employees working in facilities 25
which are operated by UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside and Magee-Womens Hospital of
UPMC, that such policies have been rescinded and will no longer be enforced.
Appropriate notice to employees of the rescission will be accomplished by whatever
means Respondent has traditionally used to announce similar policy changes to
employees and other circumstances.30
Presbyterian Shadyside, Magee and UPMC shall comply with the terms of
the stipulation. (JD-28-13, slip op. at 23)
The Respondents and the Charging Party filed exceptions to Judge Goldman’s 35
decision and that case is presently pending before the Board.
At the hearing in the instant case, counsel for the General Counsel claimed that the
Respondent has committed sufficient unfair labor practices since the execution of the above
noted settlement agreement (ALJ Exh. 1) so as to constitute a default under the terms of the 40
settlement agreement. Counsel for the General Counsel further indicated that if I find that the
Respondent committed unfair labor practices in the instant proceeding, the General Counsel will
file a motion for default judgment, pursuant to the terms of that settlement agreement, directly
with the Board after I issue a decision.
45
The instant decision involves only the allegations of the complaint before me and my
findings and conclusions are based on the evidence contained in this record. I have made no
JD–62–14
9
findings, drawn any inferences, or made any conclusions based upon the settlement agreements
noted above in the prior cases. The issue of whether the Respondent has defaulted on any terms
of the settlement agreement between it the General Counsel and the Union is for the Board to
decide, if and when the General Counsel files a motion for default judgment.
5
The Reinstatement of Employees Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
Between the Parties
Pursuant to the settlement agreement between the General Counsel, the Respondent, and
the Union in Case 06–CA–081896 at al., Employees Ronald Oakes and Frank Lavelle were10
reinstated on February 25, 2013. On the same date, the Union held a rally across the street from
the emergency room entrance to UPMC Presbyterian Hospital to celebrate their reinstatement.
After Oakes shift ended on February 25 at approximately 3 p.m., Oakes walked out of the
hospital and crossed the street to attend the rally. As Oakes left the hospital he was accompanied
by employees Chaney Lewis and Finley Littlejohn. Several of the Respondent’s security guards, 15
including Donald Charley, the vice president for parking and security for UPMC Presbyterian
Hospital and UPMC Magee Hospital, were standing outside where the three employees exited
Presbyterian Hospital and watched them as they crossed the street to the rally where
approximately 200 employees had gathered. At the rally Oakes thanked everyone for their
support for him.20
The Spring 2012 Conversation between Bart Wyss and Albert Turner
As noted above, the General Counsel, with my approval, has withdrawn Paragraph 8 of
the complaint which alleged that on about November 19, 2012, the Respondent, by Bart Wyss,25
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling employees it knew what they were discussing,
created an impression of surveillance of employees’ union activities.
Although I will not consider the evidence adduced at the hearing regarding this matter as
an unfair labor practice, I consider it to be relevant background information.30
Albert Turner testified on behalf of the General Counsel regarding this issue. Turner was
employed as a shuttle bus driver by the Respondent from the time that the Respondent acquired
the shuttle bus operation from Transportation Solutions, Inc. in November 2010 until he was
discharged in June 2013. Turner had worked as a shuttle bus driver at the Respondent’s facilities 35
for Transportation Solutions since 2007.
Turner credibly testified that he began to support the Union in the spring of 2012. In this
connection, he solicited other employees to sign authorization cards. He also placed union
literature on bulletin boards in the trailer that housed the Kronos time clock that shuttle bus 40
drivers used to swipe in and out of work.
According to Turner, in the spring of 2012, one of the dispatchers, Nancy MacCracken,
called him and told him that before he started his route to come down to the office and meet with
Bart Wyss, who was then the Respondent’s operations manager for employee transit.45
JD–62–14
10
Turner testified that when he arrived at Wyss’s office, Wyss asked him if he knew about
the Respondent’s solicitation policy. Turner replied no and Wyss said he was going to read it to
him and then read the Respondent’s solicitation policy to Turner. After reading the policy, Wyss
told Turner that he was not allowed to solicit on any UPMC property, even on Forbes Avenue,
and that he was not allowed to go to any of the homes of his coworkers. Turner testified that the 5
Respondent has a few office buildings on Forbes Avenue.6
Turner replied by telling Wyss that he “can tell me what to do here but you can’t tell me
what to do on my own time.” Turner also asked Wyss why he was reading him the solicitation
policy and Wyss replied that he had a good source that told him Turner was soliciting. When 10
Turner asked him who the source was, Wyss replied it not matter who it was, but it was a good
source.
Wyss testified that in June 2012 employees reported to him that Turner was soliciting
them regarding the Union. These employees further indicated that while they had asked Turner 15
to stop speaking to them about the Union, he persisted in doing so. Wyss contacted the
Respondent’s human resources department and reported what the employees had informed him
regarding Turner’s solicitation of employees on behalf of the Union. According to Wyss, either
Shannon Corcoran or Jennifer Delsandro in the human resources department instructed him to
read the solicitation policy to Turner to make him aware of it. Wyss testified that he requested 20
Supervisor Ted Hill have Turner report to his office. According to Wyss, when Turner arrived
he read him the solicitation policy to him and told him he was free to go. Wyss testified that he
did not recall what Turner said to him on this occasion.
I credit Turner’s testimony regarding his conversation. Turner’s testimony was more 25
detailed and his demeanor reflected certainty with respect to what was said to him. While Wyss
admitted reading the solicitation policy, his testimony contained no further details regarding
what he said. Wyss admitted that he did not recall what Turner said to him during this meeting. I
find Wyss’s testimony that he called Turner into his office, read him the solicitation policy, and
then told him he was free to go, without saying anything more, to be implausible.30
Based on Turner’s credited testimony, I find that sometime in the spring of 2012, Wyss
called Turner to his office and read him the then current version of the Respondent’s solicitation
policy. Wyss added his reason for doing so was that good sources had reported to him that
Turner was soliciting on behalf of the Union. In addition, Wyss told Turner that he could not 35
solicit for the Union on the Respondent’s property and, in addition, he was not permitted to
solicit employees at their homes. Since the first unfair labor practice charge underlying this
complaint, 06–CA–012465, was filed on April 10, 2013, this incident occurred far outside of the
10(b) period and cannot serve as a basis for an unfair labor practice finding. However, this
incident is certainly relevant as background to the allegations in the complaint. In the first 40
instance, it establishes that the Respondent knew that Turner was a supporter of the Union as

6 On cross-examination Turner testified that he spoke to Wyss about the solicitation policy in
February 2013. Considering the record as a whole, I find that Turner's conversation with Wyss
about the solicitation policy took place in the spring of 2012, as Turner testified on direct
examination or, at the latest, in June 2012, which is when Wyss recalled the conversation
occurring.
JD–62–14
11
early as the spring of 2012 and also conveyed the impression that his union activities were under
surveillance. In addition, when Wyss told Turner that he could not solicit for the Union
anywhere on the Respondent’s property and could not solicit employees at their home, he was
placing unlawful restrictions on his right to solicit for the Union. It has been clear since Republic
Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945), that it is unlawful for an employer to maintain a 5
general rule prohibiting solicitation at any time on its premises. With regard to Wyss’
instructions to Turner to not engage in home visits, an employer has no right to interfere with the
union activities of an employee that occur while the employee is not working and not on the
employer’s property.
10
The Cafeteria Incident
Facts
Paragraphs 11 through 14 complaint allege that on February 21, 2013, the Respondent, by 15
Gerald Moran: in the presence of employees, threatened to arrest nonemployees as they were
engaged in lawful union activities with its employees; in the presence of its employees
threatened to arrest its employees as they were engaged in lawful union activity; engaged in
surveillance of its employees as they were engaged in lawful union activities; and coerced and
intimidated its employees by requesting that they show their identification badges to Respondent20
as they were engaged in lawful union activities. The complaint alleges that this conduct violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
According to the mutually corroborative testimony of union representatives Fishbein and
Amber Stenman, at approximately 11a.m. on February 21, 2013, they entered the Respondent’s 25
cafeteria, which is located on the 11th floor of Presbyterian Hospital, and met with a group of
employees that included Leslie Poston, Chaney Lewis, Albert Turner, Mazell Holiday, Larry
Ward, and Rob Marshall. Poston, Holliday, and Marshall were not on duty on that date. The
union representatives were seated with the employees at two tables. Some other employees
stopped at the tables during the time the union representatives were there.7 The union 30
representatives discussed union matters, including the recent NLRB settlement, with the
employees who were present. There were union flyers and pins at the table that the union
representatives and employees were sitting at. Some of the employees seated at the table,
including Albert Turner, passed out some of the flyers. (Tr. 112, 145.) The union representatives
did not distribute any of the flyers and did not leave the tables that they were sitting at during the 35
entire period they were in the cafeteria. Many of the customers of the cafeteria at the time were
employees wearing hospital uniforms.
There is nothing posted in the cafeteria placing any limitations on who may patronize it.
The Respondent’s solicitation policy in effect on that date states: “Non-staff members may not 40
solicit, distribute or post material at any time on UPMC premises.” (GC Exh. 162.)

7 The testimony of Fishbein and Stenman is corroborated by the contemporaneous notes
Steadman made about the incident in the cafeteria on February 21, 2013. (R. Exh. 196.) Their
testimony is also generally corroborated by the testimony of Poston.
JD–62–14
12
At approximately 12:40 p.m., Gerald Moran, the Respondent’s security operations
manager, approached the group and asked Fishbein what they were doing there. Moran also
asked Fishbein for her identification. Moran was not in a uniform but rather was wearing a shirt
and tie. Fishbein replied that they were having lunch and talking about the Union. Fishbein then
asked Moran who he was and Moran replied that he was a police officer. Fishbein asked to see 5
his badge, which Moran showed her.8 Moran asked if Fishbein was an employee and Fishbein
replied, “no.” Fishbein asked why he was “harassing” them and Moran replied that he was
investigating a complaint about unauthorized persons in the cafeteria. Fishbein asked Moran if he
had heard about the settlement that had just occurred that brought two employees back to work
and also indicated that employees had the right to talk about the Union in nonpatient areas. 10
Moran said he had heard about the settlement and talked to legal counsel about it and then he
again asked Fishbein for identification. Fishbein then showed Moran her identification and
Moran wrote down some of the information contained on it.
Moran then asked the other individual seated at the table whether they were UPMC 15
employees and Stenman replied that she was not. Moran then asked her for identification.
Stenman replied that she did not have her ID; all that she had was her debit card that she brought
to buy her lunch that day. Moran asked Stenman to see it and she told him she did not feel
comfortable doing that. Stenman told Moran her name and he wrote it down.
20
Moran then went to each person at the table with Fishbein and Stenman and asked them
for their identification.9 When Fishbein asked him if he asked everyone in the cafeteria for
identification, Moran replied only when he received a complaint. Moran asked employee
Mozelle Holiday if she was an employee and she replied that she was. Several of the employees
said that they had a right to be there and talk about the Union in the cafeteria. Holiday stated that 25
“this is ridiculous” and that they were allowed to be there. Moran told Holliday that she was
getting loud and that if she did not quiet down, she would have to leave. When Moran asked Rob
Marshall whether he was an employee, Marshall replied that he was, but he refused to show his
identification. Marshall and Lewis asked Moran about the nature of the complaint that he had
received and Moran replied the complaint was that there were people in the cafeteria who were 30
not authorized to be there. Moran said that the only people authorized to be in the cafeteria were
patients, their families, visitors of patients, and employees.
According to Stenman, there was a woman sitting near the employees and union
representatives who they had spoken to earlier about the union but that she had replied that she 35
did not work there and was waiting for her friend who worked there to have lunch. Stenman told
Moran that the individual they had spoken to was not an employee, a patient or family member
and asked whether she would also have to leave. Moran responded, “Maybe but I’m dealing with
this right now.”
40

8 Moran received a commission as a police officer from the Allegheny County Court in
October 2008.
9 A brief recording from Lewis' cell phone that was introduced into evidence by the
Respondent confirms that Moran questioned employees about whether they had identification.
(R. Exh. 155)
JD–62–14
13
Marshall and Lewis then asked Moran to turn his ID badge around and Lewis began to
videotape Moran. Moran spoke to Lewis by name and told him that there was no videotaping
allowed in the hospital. When Lewis asked Moran how he knew his name because he never seen
Moran before, Moran replied, “You’re Chaney Lewis. You go around the hospital destroying
property and posting flyers.” 5
Moran then stated that individuals who were not employed at the hospital would have to
leave after they finished lunch.10After Fishbein stated that they were having lunch and were not
leaving, Moran went over to a phone on the wall and made a phone call. He was later observed
making a phone call on his cell phone by the union representatives and employees seated at the 10
table.
At approximately 1:25 p..m. Moran again approached the table that the union
representatives and employees were sitting at. He was accompanied by approximately four
uniformed Pittsburgh police officers and two uniformed University of Pittsburgh police officers. 15
A Pittsburgh police officer identified himself as Anthony Yauch and said that he received a 911
call from the hospital regarding unauthorized people being in the cafeteria. According to
Fishbein, she told Yauch that there had been a “settlement” and that the employees were there
eating lunch and talking about the Union. Yauch replied that was a civil case and he was
investigating a criminal complaint and that “we would have to leave the hospital property.” (Tr. 20
59.) According to Stenman, Yauck stated, “I’m going to have to ask you to leave.” (Tr. 125.) At
that point the union representatives and the remaining employees got up from the table and
proceeded to walk out of the cafeteria to the elevator. The group of police officers walked behind
the union representatives and employees as they exited the cafeteria.
25
Moran testified that on February 21, 2013, he received a phone call from Christine
Kieffer Wolff, one of the Respondent’s managers, who reported to him that there were
nonemployees in the cafeteria soliciting for the Union and handing out flyers. Wolff also said
that they were taking up a number of tables in the seating area of the cafeteria. Shortly thereafter,
Moran received a call from an employee who reported that he as he was exiting the cafeteria and30
an individual put a union flyer, “in his face” and that he was upset over this incident.

10 I base this finding on the credited testimony of Stenman on cross-examination. Her
testimony on this point (Tr. 149) is supported by her contemporaneous notes of this incident (R.
Exh. 196) which reflect that after Moran identified Fishbein and Stenman as Union
representatives he stated "We are not allowed to be here having lunch with workers." I therefore
find Stenman's cross-examination testimony on this point more reliable than her vague testimony
on redirect examination by the Union that when Moran approached the table he did not tell
employees they could stay (Tr. 217). I also note that Steadman credibly testified that Moran
asked an individual named Terry Brown, who was seated at a table with the Union
representatives, whether she was an employee and Brown replied that she was not. Moran told
Brown that she would have to leave the cafeteria when she finished with her lunch. (Tr. 121-
122.) The status of Brown is not further identified in the record. Poston testified in a generalized
manner that Moran "Asked us to leave." (Tr. 251.) I find Stenman's account to be the most
reliable version of what Moran said regarding who had to leave the cafeteria.
JD–62–14
14
After receiving these reports, Moran spoke to his superior Donald Charley, the vice
president for parking and security for Presbyterian Hospital and UPMC Magee Hospital, about
this matter. Charley directed Moran to contact one of the Respondent’s in-house counsel to
discuss the matter. After speaking to counsel, Moran went to the cafeteria to investigate the
complaints that he had received. When Moran arrived at the cafeteria, he first went to the tray 5
line area and did not observe anyone handing out flyers. He then walked in the cafeteria seating
area and observed two or three tables pushed together and individuals standing around the tables.
He also observed a number of flyers on the table that were printed on yellow paper. From past
experience Moran recognized these as union flyers. In this connection, Moran testified that every
Thursday for a few months he had observed a group of “people” with tables together with flyers 10
on the table. Moran then testified somewhat vaguely “they were handing things out. Most times
that I observed it, most of the time it was just employees doing it.” (Tr. 2817.) Although Moran’s
testimony is somewhat indistinct, I find that that he observed only employees handing out flyers
in the cafeteria in these previous incidents. Given his reaction to the incident that occurred on
February 21, if there were individuals suspected to be union representatives distributing material 15
in previous Thursday meetings in the cafeteria, I am certain that he would have further
investigated the matter
After observing the situation, Moran went to a phone located on a support column in the
cafeteria and reported his observations to Charley. Charley asked him if he recognized20
everybody seated in the group, and Moran responded that there were two women seated at the
table that he did not recognize. He also reported that other individuals seated there seemed
familiar and some were wearing ID badges and others were not. Charley again instructed Moran
to contact the Respondent’s in-house counsel. According to Moran, while he was on the phone,
Lewis came up to within a foot of him. Moran told Lewis he was on the phone and that if Lewis 25
needed to use the phone there was another one located across the hall in the cafeteria. Lewis,
however, remained close by Moran during his phone conversation.
Moran testified that after finishing his phone call, he approached an individual who he
later learned was Fishbein and told her that he was with security at the hospital and that he was a 30
police officer. Moran held up his identification to Fishbein so that she could see it. Moran
testified that he then asked Fishbein what her business was at the hospital and whether she was
there for a medical purposes or visiting a patient. Fishbein replied no and said that she was there
having lunch with her union friends.
35
Moran asked Fishbein for her identification and she initially refused to provide it. Moran
then told Fishbein that if she did not provide her information she could suffer the consequences.
(Tr. 2859.) At that point Fishbein provided identification. Moran testified that he then told
Fishbein that she was going to have “to pack up and leave” (Tr. 2823). When Fishbein replied
that she was having her lunch, Moran told her that she could have a couple of minutes while he 40
obtained “this other person’s identification but you going to have to pack up and leave.”
Moran then proceeded to ask Stenman the same questions he had asked Fishbein.
Stenman also replied that she was having lunch with her union friends. When Moran asked
Stenman for identification she replied that she had no identification with her except her credit 45
card. When Moran asked to see the credit card because he wanted to obtain her name, Stenman
JD–62–14
15
replied that she would not show it to him because she was afraid he would steal her information
from it. Moran then told Stenman that she was going to also have to leave.
At that point there were approximately four other females seated at the table and some of them
looked familiar to Moran. He asked them for identification and they replied that they were not
showing him anything.5
Moran testified that he then updated Charley and in-house counsel and then contacted
911. While he was making these phone calls Moran testified that Lewis would come up to within
12 inches of him and that he ended up using his cell phone to make the calls.
10
According to Moran, the first police officer that arrived was a plainclothes Pittsburgh
police officer, Detective Pasquarelli. When Pasquarelli approached Moran, who was standing in
the middle of the cafeteria, Lewis came up and stood between them. When Pasquarelli asked
Lewis if there was a problem Lewis replied, “this guy surveilling me.” When Pasquarelli asked if
there was anything else, Lewis replied, “he’s violating my rights.” Pasquarelli told Lewis to go 15
back over to the table and that he would speak to him shortly.
Moran then told Pasquarelli that there were some nonemployees soliciting in the cafeteria
and he pointed out Fishbein and Stenman, and said that he would like to have them removed
from the hospital. Moran told Pasquarelli that he already asked them to leave and that they were 20
refusing. Moran stated that he told Pasquarelli that the employees that are seated at the table can
stay. Moran told Pasquarelli that he would like his assistance in order to get the nonemployees
out.
Pasquarelli informed Moran that there were uniformed officers responding to the call and 25
he said that they would wait until the uniformed officers showed up. When the uniformed
officers arrived in the cafeteria, Moran and the police officers had a discussion and a decision
was made that officer Yauch would be the spokesman. Moran and the group of police officers
then approached the table where Fishbein, Stenman, and the employees were seated. Yauck told
them that he was a Pittsburgh police officer and that there had been a complaint that the police 30
were responding to. Moran testified that Yauck said that anybody who was a nonemployee was
going to have to leave and the police would escort them out. At that point the group of police
officers escorted Fishbein and Steadman out of the building.
That same day Moran prepared a police report regarding this incident (GC Exh. 144),35
which I have considered in determining the facts regarding this incident. Moran’s report
indicates, in part: “I proceeded up to the cafeteria and saw a table full of union material and some
employees as well as 4 unknown women sitting at the table.” After describing his request for
Fishbein and Stenman to provide identification, Moran’s report reflects: “I proceeded to ask the
2 B/Fs for identification and they refused. At this point I advised the 4 women that they needed 40
to leave the property because they do not have any hospital business here. They all refused.”11
While many of the operative facts regarding this incident are not in dispute, to the extent
the testimony of Moran conflicts with that of Fishbein and Stenman, I generally credit the
testimony of Fishbein and Stenman when over that of Moran. As noted above, the testimony of 45

11 I find that the reference to "2 B/Fs" to mean two black females.
JD–62–14
16
Fishbein and Stenman is mutually corroborative and is further corroborated by Stenman’s
contemporaneous notes of the incident. At times, Moran’s testimony appeared to overstate
certain aspects of the incident in order to buttress the Respondent’s defense. For example,
although I do not think this fact to be of any real significance in deciding this issue, Moran
testified on direct examination that immediately after he first observed Stenman and Fishbein5
and a group of employees in the cafeteria and went to make a phone call to report to Charley,
Lewis stood close by him while he made the call. (Tr. 2820-2821.) On cross-examination,
however, Moran testified did Lewis did not him approach him at that time (Tr. 2857). In
addition, the report Moran made of the incident does not contain any specific reference to
making a call to Charley immediately after observing the group seated at the table or to Lewis’ 10
close presence to him during such a call. The report does corroborate Moran’s testimony,
however, that Lewis stood close by Moran in his later phone calls to Charley and corporate
counsel.12
I credit Moran’s testimony regarding the conversations he had with police officers 15
outside of the presence of Fishbein and Stenman as his testimony in that respect is
uncontradicted and plausible. I also credit his testimony that officer Yauck stated that anyone
seated in the group who was not a hospital employee would have to leave the cafeteria. Moran’s
testimony that Yauck made such a statement is consistent with what Moran asked the officers to
do when they first arrived in the cafeteria. I also note that the testimony of Stenman and Fishbein 20
was very general with regard to what officer Yauck said to the individuals seated at the table. I
find Moran’s accounts regarding this issue to be more reliable. I also credit Moran’s admissions
that he informed Fishbein that she could “suffer the consequences” if she refused to provide him
identification and that he instructed the two union representatives, the individual referred to as
Terry Brown, and one other unidentified black female that they had to leave the cafeteria as soon 25
as they finished their lunch.
I find that the credible evidence establishes the following operative facts. Fishbein and
Stenman arrived in the cafeteria at Presbyterian hospital at approximately 11:30 a.m. to discuss
the Union’s campaign with employee supporters of the Union. Thereafter, Moran received two30
reports regarding the fact that nonemployees were in the cafeteria soliciting for the union and the
union flyers are being distributed. After discussing these reports with his superior, Charley,
Moran went to the cafeteria and first looked to see if there were any flyers being distributed.
After he did not observe the distribution of any flyers, he observed four individuals who he did
not recognize seated at tables along with some individuals who he recognized as employees. At 35
approximately 12:40 p.m., Moran approached the group and asked Fishbein what she was doing
there when asked to see her identification. Fishbein asked Moran who he was and when Moran
replied that he was a police officer, Fishbein asked to see his badge, which Moran showed her.
Fishbein stated that she was not an employee but was there having lunch and talking about the
union. When Fishbein asked why Moran was “harassing” them, Moran replied that he was 40
investigating a complaint about unauthorized persons being in the cafeteria. Fishbein asked
Moran if he had heard about the settlement that had recently occurred that brought employees
back to work and also indicated that employees have the right to talk about the Union in
nonpatient areas. Moran said he had heard about the settlement and talked to counsel about it and

12 Although Lewis testified at the hearing he did not testify regarding the incident in the
cafeteria.
JD–62–14
17
then asked Fishbein again for identification saying that if she refused she could suffer the
consequences. After Fishbein provided her identification, Moran instructed her that she was
going to have to leave the cafeteria. After establishing that Stenman was not an employee and
after obtaining her name, Moran also instructed her that she would have to leave the cafeteria.
Moran stated that the only individuals authorized to be in the cafeteria were patients, their 5
families, visitors of patients, and employees.
Moran then asked the employees seated at the table for identification but several of them,
although indicating they were employees, refused to provide identification. Moran stated that
Fishbein, Stenman, the individual referred to as Terry Brown, and an unidentified black female, 10
who refused to provide identification, had to leave after they finished lunch because they did not
have any hospital business. Fishbein replied that they were having lunch and were not leaving.
Moran then updated Charley regarding the situation by phone and then called 911.
Detective Pasquarelli of the Pittsburgh police was the first police officer to arrive15
pursuant to Moran’s 911 call. Moran told him that there was some nonemployees’ soliciting for
the Union in the cafeteria and that he had already asked to leave but they had refused. Pasquarelli
informed Moran that there were uniformed officers responding to the call and they would wait
until they arrived. Thereafter four uniformed Pittsburgh police and two University of Pittsburgh
police officers arrived. After Moran and the group of officers determined that Pittsburgh police 20
officer Yauch would be the police spokesperson, Moran, Pasquarelli and the uniformed officers
approached Fishbein, Stenman, and the employees seated at the table. After identifying himself,
Yauck indicated that the police had received a 911 call from the hospital regarding unauthorized
people being in the cafeteria. Fishbein explained to Yauck that there been a settlement and she
was there eating lunch and discussing the Union. Yauck replied that involved a civil case, he was 25
investigating a criminal complaint, and that anyone who was a nonemployee of the hospital
would have to leave and the police would escort them out. At that point, Fishbein, Steadman got
up from the table and began to leave the cafeteria and the employees seated at the table with
them also got up and left with them. The group of police officers escorted Fishbein and
Steadman out of the cafeteria and ultimately out of the building.30
The Respondent’s policy is to respond to reports regarding attempts at solicitation in the
cafeteria, but normally it does not monitor who is present in its cafeteria. In this connection, on
October 21, 2011, a report was made to security that an individual was soliciting customers from
money. Security officers gave the individual or trespass warning and escorted him to the lobby.35
On June 9, 2012, a supervisor reported to security that an individual he suspected to be union
organizer was in the cafeteria approaching employees. The suspected organizer became aware of
the supervisor’s report to security and left the area before a security officer arrived. (GC Exh.
145.) On June 13, 2012, a report was made to security regarding an individual who was soliciting
money from customers and had taken a food item from the cafeteria without paying. After 40
investigating, the security officer explained to the individual that he was trespassing and escorted
him from the cafeteria. (R. Exh. 492.) On March 25, 2013, Moran received reports that two
individuals were handing out literature in the front of the cafeteria. The individuals stated that
they were handing out literature for “Falun Gong.” Moran informed them that they were not
permitted to solicit on the Respondent’s property and they were escorted from the facility (R 45
Exh. 494).
JD–62–14
18
Analysis
The General Counsel contends that the Board has held that, in a hospital setting, that an
employer may not restrict solicitation or distribution during nonworking time in nonworking
areas, even if the area in question may be accessible to patients. Brockton Hospital, 333 NLRB 5
1367, 1368 (2001). The General Counsel also relies on Southern Maryland Hospital, 293 NLRB
1209 (1989), for the proposition that the Respondent in the instant case violated Section 8(a)(1)
when it selectively and disparately denied nonemployee union organizers access to its cafeteria,
which is generally open to the public. The General Counsel further contends that Moran’s
actions constituted unlawful surveillance and that his demand that employees show their 10
identification badges while participating in lawful union activities also violated Section 8(a)(1).
The Charging Party contends that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) on a basis similar to
that advanced by the General Counsel.
The Respondent contends that it has a right to bar union organizers who are engaged in 15
organizational efforts from its cafeteria pursuant to the Board’s decision in Farm Fresh, Inc., 326
NLRB 997 (1998), and consequently acted lawfully in calling the police to remove the
organizers when they refused to accede to Moran’s request for them to leave the cafeteria. In
further support of its argument that it had a right to exclude the nonemployee union
representatives engage in organizational efforts from its cafeteria the Respondent relies on 20
Oakwood Hospital v. NLRB, 983 F.2d 698 (6th Cir. 1993); NLRB v. Southern Maryland Hosp.
Center, 916 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1990); Baptist Medical System, 876 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1989). The
Respondent further contends that Moran did not threaten to arrest employees and did not engage
in unlawful surveillance. Finally, the Respondent contends that under the circumstances it had a
right to request the individuals seated at the table with the union representatives to produce 25
identification to determine who was an employee.
I find that the Respondent’s reliance on Farm Fresh, Inc., 326 NLRB 997 (1998) (Farm
Fresh I), as supporting its right to bar the union representatives from its cafeteria on February 21
to be misplaced. In Food & Commercial Workers, Local 400 v. NLRB, 222 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 30
2000), the court reversed the Board majority opinion in Farm Fresh I and remanded the case to
the Board. In its supplemental decision and order, Farm Fresh, Inc, 326 NLRB 1424 (2000)
(Farm Fresh II) the Board specifically noted that the legal issue of whether the Supreme Court’s
decision in Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), had effectively overruled the Board’s
decision in Montgomery Ward & Co., 288 NLRB 126 (1988) was not presented in Farm Fresh I.35
The Board therefore vacated the part of the original Board decision that addressed that issue. In
deciding the issue in Farm Fresh II of whether the employer was entitled to eject to union
representatives from its cafeteria solely on the basis of trespass warrants pending against them,
the Board adopted and relied on the analysis set forth in the concurring opinion of Members Fox
and Liebman in Farm Fresh I, 326 NLRB at 1425.40
The concurring opinion of Members Fox and Liebman in Farm Fresh I that became the
rationale for the Board’s decision in Farm Fresh II noted at 326 NLRB at 1006-1007 that :
The rule that union organizers cannot be barred from engaging in solicitation in 45
restaurants if they are conducting themselves in a manner consistent with that of
other restaurant patrons is specifically predicated on the Supreme Court’s
JD–62–14
19
admonition in Babcock & Wilcox, [351 U.S. 105 (1956)] that an employer’s
access rules may not discriminate against union solicitation. Montgomery Ward &
Co., supra at 288 NLRB at 127. As the Board has repeatedly recognized
Lechmere did not disturb the prohibition against discrimination in Babcock. See,
e.g., Schear’s Food Center, 318 NLRB 261 (1965); Great Scot, Inc., 309 NLRB 5
548 fn. 2 (1992), enf. denied on other grounds 39 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 1994).
The opinion further noted at 1007 that:
[U]nder the long-standing rule reaffirmed by the Board in the 1988 Montgomery10
Ward case, the Board and the courts have traditionally held that union organizers
cannot be prohibited from soliciting off-duty employees in restaurants open to the
public as long as they conduct themselves in a manner consistent with that of
other patrons of the restaurant. 288 NLRB at 126.
15
I find that the Board’s decision in Farm Fresh II clearly establishes the continued
viability of the Board’s decision in Montgomery Ward, 288 NLRB 126 (1988). In doing so, it
also implicitly reaffirmed the continued viability of the Board’s decisions in Oakwood Hospital,
305 NLRB 680 (1991); Southern Maryland Hospital Center, 293 NLRB 1209 (1989); Baptist
Medical System, 288 NLRB 882 (1988); and Southern Maryland Hospital Center, 276 NLRB 20
1349 (1985) enf. in relevant part 801 F.2d 666 (4th Cir. 1986).
In these cases, the Board held that it was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act for an
employer to cause the removal of nonemployee union organizers from a hospital cafeteria, open
to use by the general public, who were using the cafeteria to meet with off-duty employees while 25
eating in the cafeteria. As noted above, the Respondent relies on circuit court decisions denying
enforcement to the Board’s order in three cases noted above as supporting its position. With all
due respect to the court of appeals for the 4th, 6th and 8th circuits, I am obligated to follow
Board precedent unless and until it is reversed by the Supreme Court. Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB
746, 749 fn. 14 (1984); Los Angeles New Hospital, 244 NLRB 960, 962 fn. 4 (1979), enfd. 640 30
F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981); and Iowa Beef Packers, 144 NLRB 615, 616 (1963), enfd. in part 331
F.2d 176 (8th Cir. 1964). Accordingly, I will apply the principles expressed in the Board’s
decisions in Montgomery Ward, Oakwood Hospital, and both decisions in Southern Maryland
Hospital Center in deciding whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it
caused the removal of nonemployee union organizers from its cafeteria on February 21, 2013.35
The Respondents cafeteria is primarily patronized by employees and visitors to patients,
although, at times, patients also use the cafeteria. Union representatives Fishbein and Stenman
conducted themselves in a manner consistent with the purpose of the cafeteria. In this regard,
they purchased food and beverage and behaved in an orderly fashion. They did not go from table 40
to table in the cafeteria and they did not distribute any union literature while they were there. The
union representatives spoke to off-duty employees about the Union and particularly the recent
settlement that the Union, the Respondent, and the General Counsel had entered into. It is clear
that the Respondent instructed the union representatives to leave the cafeteria and caused the
police to remove them because they were discussing union related matters with employees.45
Under existing Board precedent, set forth in the cases noted above, to exclude the union
representatives on this basis treats them in a disparate and discriminatory basis from the other
JD–62–14
20
members of the public patronizing the cafeteria. Accordingly, I find that by causing the police to
remove the union representatives, the Respondent interfered with the Section 7 rights of its
employees to lawfully communicate with the Union and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.13
5
I also find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Moran’s conduct in
the remaining in close proximity to the employees speaking to Fishbein and Stenman in the
cafeteria. Since the employees were engaged in lawful, protected activity in meeting with and
talking to the two union representatives, the Respondent acted unlawfully in engaging in
surveillance of such activity. Oakwood Hospital, supra at 688-689 and cases cited therein. See 10
also Southern Maryland Hosp., 293 NLRB at 1217.
I further find that by asking the employees seated at the table with the union
representatives in the cafeteria to provide identification, the Respondent further violated Section
8(a)(1). In Oakwood Hosp., supra at 688- 689, the Board found that such conduct is in the nature 15
of unlawful surveillance and discourages employees from engaging in this type of lawful union
activity.
Since there is no evidence that the Respondent threatened to arrest employees on
February 21, I shall dismiss this allegation in the complaint.20
The 8(a)(2) and (1) Allegations
Facts
25
The complaint alleges that since about February 20, 2013, the Respondent has recognized
the ESS employee council at Presbyterian Hospital as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its ESS employees at Presbyterian Hospital and has dealt with the ESS employee council
concerning working conditions in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
30
Current employee Shaun Painter testified on behalf of the General Counsel pursuant to a
subpoena. At the time of the hearing, Painter worked in the Presbyterian Hospital environmental
support services department, also referred to as the housekeeping department. Painter worked in
the Montefiore building and had been employed by the Respondent for approximately 4 years. I
found Painter to be a credible witness. His testimony was detailed and thorough and was 35
consistent on both direct and cross-examination. In addition, as a current employee who was
testifying against the interest of his Employer, it is unlikely that his testimony would be false.
Bloomington-Normal Seating Co., 339 NLRB 191, 193 (2003).

13 I find that this conduct by the Respondent is sufficiently related to the allegation in
paragraph 11 of the complaint that the Respondent threatened to arrest nonemployees engaged in
lawful union activity with its employees to be considered as an unfair labor practice. High-Tech
Cable Corp., 318 NLRB 280 (1995), enfd. in part 128 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1997); Irving Ready-
Mix, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 105, slip op. at 14 fn. 13 (2011). Since there is insufficient evidence to
support the allegation that the Respondent, through Moran, threatened to arrest nonemployees on
February 21, I shall dismiss that specific allegation in the complaint
JD–62–14
21
Daniel Gasparovic testified on behalf of the Respondent regarding this issue. Gasparovic
is employed by Aramark, one of the Respondent’s contractors, and at the time of the hearing was
the area manager for health care in the greater Pittsburgh area. In 2012 and 2013 Gasparovic,
although employed by Aramark, was the director of environmental services at Presbyterian
Hospital. Gasparovic generally testified credibly, particularly with respect to the genesis of the 5
ESS employee council at Presbyterian Hospital. With respect to the actual meetings and
operation of the ESS employee council, however, to the extent that Gasparovic’s testimony
conflicts with that of Painter, I credit Painter. Gasparovic’s testimony on those issues was not as
detailed as that of Painters and consequently I do not find it as reliable.
10
Gasparovic testified that during the time he was the director of environmental support
services at Presbyterian Hospital, he reported to John Krolicki, the Respondent’s vice president
of operations. Five managers, who were employed by Aramark, reported to Gasparovic, as did
approximately 13 supervisors, who were employed by the Respondent. There was approximately
260 environmental services support employees employed at Presbyterian Hospital in 2013.15
In approximately August 2012, Krolicki informed Gasparovic that an employee council
had been established by the Respondent at Shadyside Hospital and asked Gasparovic if one could
be formed at Presbyterian Hospital. In this connection, Krolicki asked Gasparovic to contact
Amy DiPasquale, who was the director of environmental support services at Shadyside Hospital,20
to find out how the Shadyside employee council operated. Krolicki also told Gasparovic that the
Shadyside employee council had established bylaws that could be used at Presbyterian Hospital.
Gasparovic then contacted DiPasquale and she sent the Shadyside employee council bylaws to
him by email.
25
The Respondent then posted a notice inviting employees to join an employee council at
Presbyterian Hospital. Painter testified that he observed a notice posted on a bulletin board near
the employee time clock in the Montefiore building. The notice indicated that a council was
being established to discuss employment issues and that a manager would be present for all of
the meetings. Employees were asked to sign an attached sign-up sheet if they were interested. 30
Painter signed the sign-up sheet and 1 week later he was informed by his supervisor that he was
on the employee committee and the date, time, and place of the meeting.
According to Gasparovic’s uncontradicted testimony, approximately 10 employees
signed the signup sheets and all of those employees were invited to attend the first meeting. The 35
meeting was conducted at sometime in October 2012, at 3 p.m.in the manager’s conference room
at the BMT building in Presbyterian Hospital. Gasparovic determined the date, time, and place of
the first meeting.
Painter was present at the first meeting along with employees Donna Green, Janine 40
Graham, Lucas Cope, Sade Russell, and William Wingo, all of whom were housekeeping
employees in the Montefiore building. In addition, employee Andrew Pitt, who was employed in
the Presbyterian building was also present. Gasparovic was also present. All of the employees
who attended were on the work schedule at the time of the meeting and all were paid for their
attendance at this meeting and all future ESS employee council meetings.45
JD–62–14
22
Gasparovic began the meeting by indicating that the purpose of the ESS employee
council was to be involved in process improvement, team building and increasing morale.
Gasparovic passed out the Shadyside employee council bylaws that he had received from
DiPasquale and stated that they had seemed to work well for that organization. The employee
Council members approved the Shadyside employee council bylaws and mission statement in its 5
entirety except for a change as to the date and time for future meetings. Gasparovic said that he
would be attending the future ESS employee council meetings. Painter testified that Gasparovic
also told the employee members of the ESS employee council that he would be the liaison
between it and upper management and that “anything that the committee came up with as far as
ideas, he would take them and see whether or not would be feasible for us to do.” (Tr. 1350.)10
The ESS employee council met again 2 weeks after the initial meeting. At this meeting,
even though no vote had been taken by the committee, Gasparovic informed the employee
council members that Janine Graham was the chairperson of the ESS cmployee council and Sade
Russell in and Andrew Pitt would share the co-chairperson position.15
At one of the early ESS employee council meetings, Pitt raised the issue of employees
“hoarding” mop heads and not returning them to the appropriate location so that other employees
may use them. This caused a shortage for other employees regarding that piece of equipment.
ESS Employee Council members also discussed a concern that some housekeeping employees 20
were not using the appropriate machine to distribute the proper amount of cleaning chemicals,
but rather were just pouring them into cleaning equipment. This resulted in an improper
concentration of chemicals to water and was a wasteful practice that at times led to a shortage of
supplies. With regard to the usage of chemicals and the issue of employees retaining mop heads,
the committee proposed to Gasparovic that the Respondent provide them bulletin boards in both 25
the Presbyterian and Montefiore buildings in order to carry out an educational campaign to the
housekeeping employees on these and other topics. Gasparovic admitted that this issue of not
having enough supplies when employees started their shifts was an important issue to council
members (Tr. 3007). In response to this request, Gasparovic had the maintenance staff put up
new bulletin boards for the ESS employee council in both the Presbyterian and Montefiore 30
buildings.
ESS employee council members Graham, Cope, and Russell placed letters at the top of
each bulletin board stating “ESS Council.” Committee members posted on the bulletin boards a
cartoon with a caption stating “Don’t be a deadhead, return your mop heads.” The two bulletin 35
boards also contain information about properly mixing the appropriate chemical solutions for use
in cleaning.
At an ESS employee council meeting held in the fall of 2012, a council member raised
the issue that some employees were not returning their cleaning carts to the appropriate 40
designated area and that when the next shift came in to work, some employees would have to
spend time locating the cleaning cart and the appropriate supplies. The ESS employee council
proposed to Gasparovic that the carts be locked in the location to which they should be returned,
so that the employees on the next shift would have to use their own carts. After the ESS
employee council raised this issue with Gasparovic, he spoke to supervisors about the issue and a 45
few days after the council meeting, supervisors advised employees that they were to return their
cleaning cart to the appropriate location at the end of their shift.
JD–62–14
23
At one of the early meetings ESS employee council members also raised an issue with
Gasparovic regarding the department dispatcher calling employees to give them their next
assignment during their lunch break. When employees would not immediately return her calls,
the dispatcher would complain to an employee in a lunchbreak that her call was not returned5
sooner. Gasparovic indicated that he would speak to the dispatcher and supervisors about this
issue and thereafter, for the most part, the dispatcher did not call people during their lunch
breaks.
At the ESS employee council’s third meeting in approximately December 2012, members10
discussed a proposal advanced by Graham regarding having an “Employee of the Month Award
“ (EOM award) in the Presbyterian and Montefiore buildings, in order to recognize
environmental service employees for performing good work. In establishing the basis to grant
such an award the Council discussed with Gasparovic what the criteria should be. When ESS
employee council members were having difficulty in determining what the criteria should be, 15
Gasparovic suggested that the awards be based on based on employees’ attendance records and
their HCAP scores.14 The ESS employee council members agreed with Gasparovic’s suggestion.
At the first meeting when the issue of the EOM award was discussed, ESS employee council
members proposed to Gasparovic that the winner of each award be given a month of free parking
or a bus transit pass for the month. The ESS employee council also considered and proposed to20
Gasparovic that the Respondent award the winners a grocery store or gas station gift card.
Gasparovic indicated that he had to discuss with human resources whether these proposals would
be approved. At approximately the fifth ESS employee council meeting, Gasparovic and Graham
told the employee council members that the other proposals made by the employee council were
too expensive and that the employee of the month award would be a $25 Visa gift card.25
With regard to the determination of the two EOM award recipients,Gasparovic would
review the HCAP scores and attendance record and announce to the council members at a
meeting the employee in each building that had the highest score and best attendance. Those
individuals were the winners of the award. The money for the gift cards came from Aramark and 30
was accounted for in Aramark’s budget for services that are provided to the Respondent. 15 The
first EOM awards were given in January 2013. (GC Exh. 83(c).)
After the winners of the EOM awards were determined, the photographs of the winners
were taken, and were posted on the ESS employee council bulletin boards in both the 35
Presbyterian and Montefiore buildings. At the monthly departmental meeting of the
environmental services department, which was attended by approximately 100 employees, the
manager conducting the meeting would present the EOM award winners with their gift cards. At
these meetings, the Respondent set aside time for ESS employee council chairperson Graham to
speak. Graham would discuss activities that the employee council was involved in including the 40

14 HCAP scores are based on a supervisor's review of a housekeeping employee’s work in
keeping his or her assigned area clean.
15 While Aramark had previously given $25 gift cards to employees on a somewhat regular
basis, those were based on recommendations from a patient or a doctor and were not given on the
basis of the objective, performance related criteria established by the Respondent and the ESS
employee committee..
JD–62–14
24
EOM award. The Respondent prepared minutes of the monthly departmental meetings which
were posted on bulletin boards in both the Presbyterian and Montefiore buildings which included
Graham’s monthly ESS employee council reports and the announcement of the EOM award
winners. (GC Exh. 83.)
5
At one of the ESS employee council meetings, Painter raised an issue regarding the fact
that second shift employees at Montefiore were being required to perform work extra at
Presbyterian because the second shift housekeepers assigned to Presbyterian would regularly call
off without any action being taken against them. This meeting was attended by Gasparovic and
another manager, either Krolicki or Tom Faulk. Painter could not recall specifically who the 10
other manager was. Painter was asked what he thought could be done about that and he
responded that discipline should be imposed on the people who were calling off every weekend.
Painter was told that management would look into the issue but there is no evidence that any
changes were made as a result of the ESS employee council’s proposal.
15
At one of the ESS employee council meetings, members also raised with Gasparovic the
fact that the department printer was broken and requested a new one. While Gasparovic indicated
that he would look into having the printer replaced, there is no evidence that it was. Similarly, an
issue was raised at a meeting about the Respondent needing to monitor the stock of
housekeeping supplies and supply closets. While Gasparovic indicated that he would look into 20
that issue, there was no evidence that the Respondent instituted any changes pursuant to this
request.
At one meeting, an employee council member stated her desire for a reevaluation of her
work assignments as she believed she had too much to do. Painter acknowledged, however, that 25
this employee had a tendency to complain about her work assignments. While the Respondent
did, in fact, alter work assignments after this meeting, Gasparovic testified, without
contradiction, that the distribution of work in the ESS department is regularly reviewed and
revised periodically.
30
The distribution of work is determined by computerized program that considered factors
such as square footage, the type of room to be cleaned, and the frequency of tasks to be
performed in the room. Gasparovic further testified that the changes that were made in 2013
were instituted as a result of the application of the Respondent’s normal processes and that
nothing was changed because of any discussions regarding work assignments that were 35
conducted in the ESS employee council. I find, based on the record as a whole, that any changes
in the distribution of work that occurred in 2013 did not occur as a result of any proposals made
by the ESS employee council.
On May 26, 2013, the ESS employee council held a social event, referred to as a 40
“Memorial Day picnic,” on the 7th floor of the Montefiore building. Next to the room where the
food was located there was an outdoor space where people could sit and eat. The Respondent
donated the meat that was prepared for the picnic and assigned one or two dietary employees to
assist in preparing the food for this event. For several months prior to this event, the ESS
employee council held bake sales and candy sales at the Respondent’s facility to raise money for 45
this event. Gasparovic donated $100 of his own money to assist in getting the fundraising efforts
going. The bake sales were located on the third floor of the Montefiore building, outside of a
JD–62–14
25
supervisor’s office. One manager baked some items for the bake sales and several supervisors
purchased baked goods. The candy sales were held in a management office. The Respondent also
permitted employees to post flyers regarding this event throughout the hospital. As part of its
effort to raise funds for the Memorial Day picnic, the ESS employee council sold raffle tickets
for a “Work Your Boss Day.” The winner of the raffle could choose a manager or supervisor in 5
the environmental services department to perform the winning employee’s work for half a day.
The ESS employee council stopped meeting and conducting activities in September or
October 2013.
10
Analysis
The General Counsel and the Union contend that the ESS employee council is a labor
organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act and that the Respondent has dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the ESS Employee Council within the 15
meaning of Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990 (1992), enfd. 35 F.2d 1148 (7th Cir. 1994), and
E. I. DuPont & Co., 311 NLRB 893 (1993) and therefore has violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act.
The Respondent contends that the ESS employee council is not a labor organization as 20
defined in the Act as it did not it did not deal with the ESS employee council regarding
mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Respondent also contends that it did not dominate or
otherwise interfere with the operation of the ESS employee council.
Section 2(5) of the Act provides:25
[t]he term “labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or any
agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees
participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with
employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of 30
employment, or conditions of work.
In the instant case, it is clear that employees participated in the ESS employee council.
The real issue in determining whether the ESS employee council is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act is whether it exists for the purpose, at least in part, of “dealing with” the 35
Respondent concerning the matters set forth in Section 2(5). In EFCO Corp., 327 NLRB 350,
353 (1998) the Board held:
The concept of “dealing with” essentially involves a bilateral process, ordinarily
entailing a pattern or practice by which a group of employees makes proposals to 40
management and management responds to these proposals by acceptance or
rejection by word or deed. E. I. du Pont & Co., 311 NLRB 893, 894 (1993). In
NLRB v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203, 210- 211 (1959), the Supreme Court
held that the term “dealing with” in Section 2(5) is broader than the term
“collective bargaining” and applies the situations outside the negotiation of 45
collective-bargaining agreements.
JD–62–14
26
In the instant case, the evidence set forth above establishes that employee members of the
ESS employee council raised issues regarding the working conditions of the employees in the
Respondent’s environmental services department. For example, the ESS employee council
members raised the issue of employees hoarding mop heads and improperly mixing cleaning
solvents, both of which caused the shortage of supplies. In order to address this problem, the ESS 5
employee council proposed that the Respondent provide it with bulletin boards so that the ESS
employee council could post materials urging employees to follow proper procedures regarding
the use of equipment and supplies. The Respondent responded to this proposal by placing two
bulletin boards in both the Presbyterian and Montefiore buildings and allowing ESS employee
council members to post materials on those boards regarding the proper use of cleaning 10
equipment and supplies.
The ESS employee council also raised the issue of the dispatcher notifying employees of
their next assignment while they were on a lunchbreak. Gasparovic responded by saying that he
would speak to the dispatcher and supervisors involved about this concern of ESS employee 15
council members and thereafter such calls stopped for the most part.
ESS employee council members raised the issue of the failure of some employees to
return their cleaning carts to the appropriate designated area, causing the employees on the next
shift to spend time locating the cleaning cart and the appropriate supplies. The ESS employee 20
council proposed that the areas to which the carts were returned be locked, so that the employees
on the incoming shift would have to use their own carts. In response, Gasparovic spoke to
supervisors and, a few days after this ESS employee council meeting, supervisors instructed
employees that they were to return their cart to the appropriate location at the end of their shift.
25
As noted above, the ESS employee council proposed that employees be given an
employee of the month award but had difficulty in determining what the criteria should be.
Gasparovic suggested criteria and the ESS employee council agreed with his proposal. The ESS
Employee Council also made suggestions as to the appropriate benefit that an employee should
receive for this award. Gasparovic indicated that he would discuss this issue with human 30
resources and respond at a later meeting. Gasparovic later indicated that some of the proposals
made by the ESS employee council were too expensive and that the employee of the month
award would be a $25 Visa gift card.
Other issues raised by the ESS employee council such as a broken printer, a suggestion 35
that the Respondent more closely monitor cleaning supplies and the apparent avoidance of some
employees to working on weekends, were not specifically addressed by the Respondent.
However, when these issues were raised, Gasparovic told ESS employee council members that
management would “look into” the issues raised, and they were never informed that these were
inappropriate topics for the ESS employee council to raise.40
I find that the evidence establishes that the Respondent engaged in “dealing with” the
ESS employee council with respect to the subjects set forth in Section 2(5) of the Act. The
process between the ESS employee council and the Respondent was bilateral in that employee
members of the ESS Employee Council made proposals and a management representative, 45
typically Gasparovic, responded to the proposal and often granted it. This process occurred on a
regular basis over a sustained period of time and numerous proposals were made. Applying the
JD–62–14
27
principles expressed above to the circumstances present in this case, I find that the ESS
employee council and the Respondent dealt with each other over wages and conditions of work,
subjects enumerated in Section 2(5) of the Act.
In Electromation, supra, 309 NLRB at 995 the Board held that a labor organization that is 5
the creation of management, and whose structure, function, and continued existence are
essentially determined by management, is one whose formulation or administration is dominated
under Section 8(a)(2).
In the instant case, it was the Respondent’s idea to create the ESS employee council as10
the Respondent’s vice president Krolicki suggested to Gasparovic that he solicit volunteers to
establish such a committee at Presbyterian Hospital. Krolicki also suggested that Gasparovic
contact the director of environmental services at Shadyside Hospital and obtain the bylaws that
the employee council at that hospital was using. The Respondent, through Gasparovic, then
solicited volunteers from the Presbyterian ESS department and determined the date and time and 15
place of the initial meeting. This meeting was held in a management conference room as were all
the other committee meetings. At the first meeting, Gasparovic presented at the ESS employee
council with the Shadyside employee council bylaws, which the ESS employee council accepted
as their own with one minor exception
20
Despite telling the ESS employee council members at the first meeting that they would
vote on a chairperson and co-chairpersons, at the second meeting Gasparovic and informed the
ESS Employee Council that Graham was the chairperson and that two other employees had been
designated as co-chairpersons.
25
The ESS employee Council’s fundraising efforts, the “Work Your Boss” raffle, the bake
sales and candy store, all required the use of the Respondent’s facility and the permission of
management. The employee of the month award was determined based on information supplied
by management and management funded the gift cards that were given to the selected
employees. The Respondent specifically provided the ESS employee council with bulletin 30
boards to promote its activities. It is clear that the ESS employee council’s activities were all
conducted inside the facility and done with the Respondent’s approval and assistance. There is
no evidence that the ESS employee council conducted any activities outside of the facility. In
Miller Industries Towing Equipment, 342 NLRB 1074, 1090 (2004), the Board found that
a”continous improvement committee” that dealt with the employer regarding mandatory subjects 35
of bargaining was formed, sponsored and assisted by the employer in violation of Section 8(a)(2)
and (1). In so finding the Board specifically noted that there was “no evidence that the committee
had any independent existence outside the will of Respondent.”
I also note that the Respondent formed and assisted the ESS employee council in the 40
context of the Union’s organizing campaign that was directed toward employees that included
the environmental services department employees. As set forth in this decision, I find that the
Respondent responded to this campaign, in part, by the commission of unfair labor practices.
Under the circumstances present here, I find that the Respondent’s initiation and support of the
ESS employee council was designed to interfere with employee free choice in selecting a 45
bargaining representative.
JD–62–14
28
I find the instant case to be distinguishable from Stoody Co., 320 NLRB 18 (1995), which
is relied on by the Respondent. In that case the employer established a handbook committee and
contributed financial support to it. The purpose of that committee was to gather information
about different areas in the handbook that were inconsistent with current practices, obsolete, or
misunderstood by employees in order for the employer to revise the handbook. However, the 5
handbook committee conducted only one meeting that lasted for 1 hour. The Board concluded
that the 1-hour meeting did not establish a pattern or practice of dealing with the employer. In the
instant case, as set forth in detail above, the Respondent, after establishing the ESS employee
council, engaged in a practice of dealing with it for a period of approximately 10 months.
10
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1)
by initiating, forming and thereafter sponsoring, assisting and dominating the ESS employee
council.
15
The Alleged Discriminatory Application of the Respondent’s Solicitation Policy
Paragraph 27 of the complaint alleges that during the time material to the complaint.
Respondent maintained a solicitation policy which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
20
II. SCOPE
This policy applies both to the person doing the soliciting or distribution of
literature and the person being solicited or receiving the distribution in UPMC
facilities located in the United States.25
. . .
IV. PROCEDURE
A. No staff member shall engage in solicitation of other staff members, patients, 30
and visitors during working time.
B. No staff member may engage in solicitation during working or nonworking
time in patient care areas, such as patient rooms, operating rooms, patient lounges,
areas where patients received treatment, corridors and sitting rooms 35
adjacent to patient care areas if a patient or family member is present. For other
work areas, no staff member may engage in solicitation during working time.
C. No staff member may distribute any form of literature that is not related to
UPMC business or staff duties at any time in any work area, patient care, or 40
treatment areas. Additionally, staff members may not use UPMC electronic
messaging systems to engage in solicitation . . .
E. Only professional recognition, employer service pins and staff member ID
badges may be worn in patient care or treatment areas.45
JD–62–14
29
G. All situations of unauthorized solicitation or distribution must be immediately
reported to a supervisor or department director and the Human Resources
Department and may subject the staff member to corrective action up to and
including discharge.
5
As finally amended, paragraph 34 of the complaint alleges that the Respondent, through
named supervisors, on dates listed below, disparately enforced the above noted rule by requiring
employees to remove items bearing prounion insignia, while permitting its employees to wear, in
patient care areas, items bearing insignia that did not qualify as “professional recognition, items,
“employer service pins” and/or “staff member ID badges.”10
(d) April 2013-Tim Nedley
(e) April 5, 2013-Lisa Fennick
(f) April 16, 2013- Carlton Clark
(g) February 2013-Nickolai Stoichkov 1615
Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the complaint allege that the Respondent, in March 2013,
through Denise Touray and Emily Bowman, disparately enforced the above noted solicitation
rule by permitting employees to utilize the Respondent’s bulletin boards for purposes not related
to Respondent sponsored matters but prohibiting employees from posting items in support of the 20
Union on such bulletin boards.
With respect to the allegations of paragraphs 34, I will address only paragraph 34(e) in
this section of the decision. Turner is the primary witness with respect to paragraphs 34(d) and
(f). David Jones is the primary witness with respect to paragraph 34(g). I will address those 25
allegations of the complaint in relation to discussion of the 8(a)(3) and (1) allegations regarding
Turner and Jones.
Several witnesses testified on behalf of the General Counsel regarding the Respondent’s
practice with respect to the wearing of various insignia on employee uniforms and with respect 30
to its practice of posting materials on bulletin boards. Employees are required to wear an ID
badge attached to their uniform while at work. Current employee Chaney Lewis testified that at
the time of the hearing he had been employed by the Respondent for 9 years as a transporter in
the Respondent’s transportation department. By virtue of his position Lewis transports patients in
patient care areas. Lewis testified during the entire time of his employment he has observed 35
employees in the transportation department with lanyards attached to their ID badges with
various insignia that had not been issued by the Respondent. Lewis testified that the entities
displayed on lanyards worn by employees included the Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Penguins
and the US Army. Lewis often wore a lanyard stating, “WPIAL Wrestling.”17 Lewis is an open
union supporter and after the campaign began he also often wore a purple and yellow lanyard 40
stating “You Can’t Stop Us Now” with the Union’s logo on it.

16 The General Counsel amended the complaint at the beginning of the hearing to add the
allegation contained in paragraph 34g.
17 WPIAL stands for Western Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic League.
JD–62–14
30
Shortly after the settlement agreement in Case 06–CA–081896 was entered into between
the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union on February 7, 2013, Lewis received a call
from his immediate supervisor, Darnell Grinage, instructing him to report to the office of the
transportation department manager, Denise Touray.18 Jackie Loveridge, a human resources
consultant, was also present for the meeting. Touray told Lewis that the purpose of the meeting 5
was to explain the terms of the settlement agreement and the new solicitation policy and how it
affected him. At this meeting, Touray explained the rules that Lewis should follow according to
the new solicitation policy. Touray told Lewis that he was able to pass out union literature in the
break room only during nonworking hours and that he was not allowed to enter the facility if he
was not working.10
According to Lewis, both Loveridge and Touray spoke to him about the bulletin boards
in the hospital. Lewis was told that he could not post literature on the bulletin boards anywhere
in the hospital unless it was UPMC issued material. Lewis asked whether that instruction
covered the bulletin boards in the break room. Loveridge answered and confirmed that he was 15
not allowed to post union material on the bulletin boards in the break room. Lewis was also told
that he could go to the cafeteria and pass out literature on nonwork time. Lewis was further
informed that he was not permitted to wear any buttons that were not UPMC related.
Approximately 20 minutes after his meeting with Touray and Loveridge, Lewis received 20
a call from Grinage, who told Lewis that he had received instructions to tell Lewis to remove the
lanyard that he was wearing displaying support for the Union. Lewis went to the locker room and
removed his union lanyard and put on his WPIAL lanyard.
Since that time, Lewis has continued to wear his WPIAL lanyard but has not worn his 25
union lanyard. Since that date Lewis has continued to see transportation department employees
wear lanyards that do not refer to UPMC. He has worn his WPIAL lanyard in the presence of his
supervisors Hank Rankin, Denise Touray, Carolina Clark, and Ed Keller and none of his
supervisors have instructed him to remove that lanyard. The testimony of Lewis on these issues
is uncontradicted30
Former employee Bonita McWhirter was employed by the Respondent as a patient care
technician from September 2007 until August 2013, when she voluntarily resigned. As a patient
care technician McWhirter worked in patient care areas. The uncontradicted testimony of
McWhirter establishes that for several years prior to March 2013 she had worn a “heart” lanyard 35
that was pink and attached to that was a “Pillsbury doughboy” pin about 4 inches long. The
Pillsbury doughboy pin had been given to her by her grandchildren. In March, around St.
Patrick’s Day, McWhirter had always worn a St. Patrick’s Day pin.
McWhirter was an open union supporter and, during the period from January to March 20 40
13, she wore union insignia in addition to the other personal insignia displayed on her uniform.
In January 2013, McWhirter wore a black and gold union pin stating “Make It Our UPMC” for 1
day.

18 Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, a final written warning issued to Lewis
was rescinded and he was offered monitor technician training.
JD–62–14
31
In mid-March 2013, McWhirter wore her union pin for the second time along with a
lanyard with the Union’s logo on it and the legend “Can’t Stop Us Now!” On this particular day
she also was wearing her heart lanyard, and Pillsbury doughboy and St. Patrick’s Day pins. Her
supervisor, Mara Schubert called McWhirter into her office to discuss her annual evaluation with
her. Marina Goodman, a human resources representative, was also present. Goodman told her 5
that they have heard that she was talking to a new employee in housekeeping about the Union
and that she was not allowed to talk about the Union at work. Goodman also told her that she
needed to take off the union lanyard and pin, the heart lanyard and the Pillsbury doughboy pin.
McWhirter immediately took off those items. McWhirter asked why she had to take off her
Pillsbury doughboy pin and further asked, “What am I doing, soliciting for Pillsbury doughboy.” 10
Goodman said she had to take all of those items off because of the settlement between the NLRB
and UPMC and because it did not meet the dress code. Goodman did not instruct McWhirter to
take off her St. Patrick’s Day pin and she left that on. Goodman gave her an ID holder with the
UPMC logo on it that stated, “We Care” which McWhirter put on. After this meeting McWhirter
continued to see employees wear lanyards reflecting entities not associated with the Respondent,15
and Steelers and St. Patrick’s Day pins.
Current employee Jamie Hopson has worked for the Respondent since October 2010 as a
patient care technician for the Respondent. In April 2013 she was working in the Montefiore
building on unit 12 S. Her supervisor was Lisa Fenick. One day in April 2013 Hopson wore a 20
badge pull given to her by the Union that stated “Can’t Stop Us Now” in purple letters. On top of
the above noted legend Hopson had pasted a sticker that stated, “We’re With Ron.”19 According
to Hopson’s uncontroverted testimony, when she approached the nurses’ station on unit 12 S,
Fenick told Hopson to take the “We’re with Ron” sticker off and she immediately did so. Fenick
did not indicate why Hopson had to take off the sticker. Hopson had been wearing the sticker for 25
about an hour. Fenick did not say anything about the badge pull that stated “Can’t Stop Us Now”
and Hopson continued to wear it.
The Alleged Disparate Enforcement of the Solicitation Policy regarding Union Insignia
30
The General Counsel does not contend that the solicitation rule set forth above, which
was amended on February 27, 2013, is facially invalid. Rather, the General Counsel contends
that the evidence establishes that the Respondent enforced its solicitation policy in a
discriminatory manner against union supporters.
35
The Board has long held that the application of a presumptively valid rule in a disparate
manner violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Circuit-Wise, Inc. 306 NLRB 766, 787-788 (1992);
South Nassau Hospital, 274 NLRB 1181 (1185); St. Vincent’s Hospital, 265 NLRB 38 (1982),
enfd. in pertinent part 729 F.2d 730 (11th Cir. (1984).
40
Recently, the Board has summarized its policy with respect to the right to wear union
insignia in a health care institution. In Healthbridge Management, LLC, 360 NLRB No.118 slip
op. at 2 (2014), the Board stated:

19 The "Were With Ron” stickers were given to employees by the Union and reflected
support for employee Ron Oakes. As noted above, Oakes was reinstated pursuant to the
settlement agreement on February 25, 2013. He was discharged again on March 20, 2013
JD–62–14
32
It is well established that employees have a protected right to wear union insignia
at work in the absence of “special circumstances.” See London Memorial
Hospital, 238 NLRB 704, 708 (1978); Ohio Masonic Home, 205 NLRB 357
(1973), enfd. 511 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1975); see also Republic Aviation Corp. v.5
NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801-803 (1945). In healthcare facilities, however, the
Board and the courts have refined that basic rule due to concerns about the
possibility of disruption to patient care. In nonpatient care areas, restrictions on
wearing insignia are presumptively invalid in accordance with the basic rule, and
it is the employer’s burden to establish special circumstances justifying its action. 10
Casa San Miquel, 320 NLRB. 534, 540 (1995); see also NLRB v. Baptist
Hospital, 442 U.S. 773, 781, (1979); accord: St. John’s Hospital, 222 NLRB
1150, 1150-1151 (1976). By contrast, restrictions on wearing insignia in
immediate patient care areas are presumptively valid. See Baptist Hospital, above.
That presumption of validity, however, does not apply to a selective ban on only15
certain union insignia in immediate patient care areas. See St. John’s Health
Center, 357 NLRB No. 170, slip op. at 2 (2011). In those circumstances, it
remains the employer’s burden to establish special circumstances justifying its
action; specifically, that its action was “necessary to avoid disruption of health-
care operations or disturbance of patients.” Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 20
U.S. 438, 507 (1978).
In the instant case, the Respondent required Hopson to remove the “We’re with Ron”
union sticker she was wearing in April 2013. The credited testimony of McWhirter and Lewis
establishes, however that the Respondent permitted employees to wear insignia regarding25
professional sports teams, local youth wrestling, the United States Army, St. Patrick’s Day pins,
and other personal messages, in immediate patient care areas. Since the Respondent allowed
other types of insignia to be worn in immediate patient care areas, it cannot rely on the presumed
validity of a ban against wearing all nonofficial insignia in patient care areas in barring the union
sticker that Hopson was wearing in April 2013. St. John’s Hospital, 370 NLRB No. 170 slip op. 30
at 2 (2011).
The next issue is whether the Respondent was justified in instructing Hopson to remove
the “We’re With Ron” union sticker based on special circumstances establishing that it was
“necessary to avoid disruption of health-care operations or disturbance of patients.” The 35
Respondent presented no evidence to support a reasonable belief that banning the wearing of
Hopson’s union sticker was justified by any special circumstances. Accordingly, applying the
principles set forth above, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it
required Hopson to remove her union sticker in April 2013. 20

20 As noted above I have relied on the testimony of Lewis and McWhirter in finding this
violation. Although there are no allegations in the complaint alleging that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by requiring McWhirter and Lewis to remove union insignia, in his post-
hearing brief the General Counsel urges me to find that these incidents are violative of the Act.
The Union also urges me to make such a finding in its post hearing brief. I decline to do so. At
the hearing, the Respondent objected to the testimony of Lewis regarding the solicitation rule
and its alleged disparate enforcement, contending that there were no complaint allegations
JD–62–14
33
The Alleged Disparate Application of the Respondent’s Policy Regarding Bulletin Boards
As noted above, paragraphs 29 and 30 of the complaint allege that the Respondent, in
March 2013, through Denise Touray and Emily Bowman, disparately enforced the above noted 5
solicitation rule by permitting employees to utilize the Respondent’s bulletin boards for purposes
not related to Respondent sponsored matters but prohibiting employees from posting items
in support of the Union on such bulletin boards.21
In addition to the testimony of Lewis noted above, several other witnesses 10
testified on behalf of the General Counsel regarding the Respondent’s policy is with respect to
the posting of materials on bulletin boards. Felicia Penn testified the “work room” utilized by
anesthesia technicians at Presbyterian Hospital contained a bulletin board. According to Penn’s
credited testimony, employees posted a number of personal items on the bulletin board such as
information regarding the rental of homes and the sale of cookies. Penn indicated that she posted 15
several different items in support of the Union on the bulletin board but generally these items
were taken down by the time she returned to work the next day.
Penn recalled having a telephone conversation with Emily Bowman, a human resources
representative about this bulletin board in 2013 although Penn could not recall the 20
date.22 Penn was discussing a grievance with Bowman when Bowman asked where Penn was
posting things at work regarding the Union. Penn replied that she posted union material on the

regarding this issue. In response to this objection, the General Counsel indicated that this
testimony was directly related to the existing allegations of the complaint regarding the
solicitation rule (Tr 562). At no time during the hearing did the General Counsel move to amend
the complaint to allege the incidents involving Lewis and McWhirter constituted separate unfair
labor practices. If the General Counsel wished to amend the complaint to allege additional
violations of the Act, the time to take such action was before the General Counsel rested his case
in chief. Under the circumstances present in this case, I find that the Respondent was deprived of
the opportunity to defend the incidents involving Lewis and McWhirter as separate unfair labor
practices and accordingly I will not consider them as such. See Desert Aggregates, 340 NLRB
289, 292-293 (2003).
21 While the above noted solicitation policy does not specifically refer to bulletin boards, I
note that the Respondent’s corrective action and discharge policy that became effective on
August 30, 2012, provides that a written warning can be issued for the “unauthorized use of
business unit bulletin boards.” (GC Exh. 161, p.2.) While these allegations of the complaint are
inartfully drawn because of their reference to the solicitation policy, I find that they are sufficient
to put the Respondent on notice that its policy regarding the posting of union materials on
bulletin boards was to be litigated in this case. Section 102.15 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations requires only that a complaint contain "a clear and concise description of the acts
which are claimed to constitute unfair labor practices, including where known, the approximate
dates and places of such acts and the names of respondent's agents or their representatives by
whom committed." See also Artesia Ready Mix Concrete, Inc., 339 NLRB 1224, 1226 -1227
(2003)
22 Penn first contacted Emily Bowman, at times referred to in the record as Emily Rankin, by
a fax dated January 23, 2013, regarding a written warning that Penn received on December 20,
JD–62–14
34
bulletin board in the work room. Bowman said it was up to the discretion of her manager as to
what could be posted on that bulletin board, but that Penn was not allowed to post anything to do
with the Union on the bulletin boards at work.
McWhirter testified that in January 2013 in unit 7D of Presbyterian Hospital there were 5
two bulletin boards in the break room. One bulletin board had work related issues posted on it,
such as proper skin care for patients. The other bulletin board had personal items post on it, such
as Christmas cards, letters to the staff and patients, and notifications regarding charity events for
organizations such as the American Heart Association. In the main all of unit 7D the was a “Kids
and Critter’s” bulletin board on which employees posted pictures of their families and pets.10
During the period from January through March 2013 McWhirter posted union materials
on approximately 15 occasions on both bulletin boards in the break room. Within a very short
period of time these items would be removed but McWhirter did not know who removed them or
the reasons for their removal On one occasion she posted on the “ Kids and Critter’s” bulletin 15
board a newspaper article relating to the reinstatement of Ron Oakes. RN Ronnie Hall told
McWhirter that she had to take it down pursuant to the instructions of supervisor Mara Schubert.
McWhirter continued to see personal postings on the nonwork related bulletin board until she left
her employment in August 2013.
20
Current employee Lou Berry also testified on behalf of the General Counsel regarding
materials posted on the Respondent’s bulletin boards. At the time of the hearing, Berry had been
employed at the Respondent’s Montefiore building for several years as an environmental
services employee. The environmental services office in the Montefiore building is located on
the third floor. According to Berry, in early 2013 there were two bulletin boards located at each 25
side of the entrance to the departmental office that were generally used to post employee
schedules and other departmental matters. Across the hall from the office three or four additional
bulletin boards were located that often had nothing posted on them.
In early 2013 Berry observed the bulletin boards across the hallway from the office door 30
in the Montefiore building contained postings for the ESS employee council regarding bake sales
and other fundraising events that the ESS employee council was sponsoring. These bulletin
boards also contain notices regarding the meetings of the ESS employee council. Berry also
observed on one of the bulletin boards located next to the door to the department office in the
Montefiore building a posting under the heading “UPMC Employee Council” that contained the 35
picture and information regarding the employee of the month for a 5 or 6 month period. (Tr. 675-
678; GC Exh. 197.)
Berry further testified that since he began to support the Union in 2011 he posted union
related material on the bulletin boards across from the environmental services department office 40
in the Montefiore building. His union postings would be taken down but he did not observe who

2012 (GC Exh. 16). Penn also sent a fax dated March 21, 2013, to Bowman in which Penn
mentioned posting union materials on bulletin boards at the hospital (GC Exh. 113). Based on
the March 21, 2013 fax, I find that Penn’s telephone conversation with Bowman regarding the
posting of union materials on bulletin boards occurred shortly after March 21, 2013.
JD–62–14
35
removed them. In early February 2013, the day after Berry became aware of the settlement in
UPMC I, he discussed his right to post union related literature on the bulletin boards with
department manager Gasparovic. According to Berry’s uncontradicted testimony, he told
Gasparovic that he understood that he would have the right to post union literature wherever the
Respondent posted literature in the hospital. Gasparovic told Berry that he had heard about the 5
settlement but was not sure about Berry being able to post union literature and would get back to
him regarding that issue. Approximately 2 days later Gasparovic called him and told him that he
would not be able to post union literature on the bulletin boards as they were for department use
only.
10
As I noted above in this section of the decision dealing with the ESS employee council,
from approximately January 2013 through May 2013, the Respondent permitted employees to
have bake sales outside of the department office in order to raise money for the ESS employee
council’s Memorial Day picnic. The Respondent also permitted the ESS employee council to
conduct candy sales in a management office. Finally, the Respondent permitted employees to 15
post flyers regarding the Memorial Day picnic throughout the hospital. In addition in early 2013,
the Respondent permitted employees associated with the ESS employee council to post notices
regarding the meetings held by the ESS employee council. Pursuant to the request of the ESS
employee council the Respondent furnished it with bulletin boards which the ESS employee
council used to communicate with environmental services employees about what it viewed as 20
appropriate procedures to be used by employees in performing their work. Finally, the
Respondent permitted the ESS employee council to use the departmental bulletin boards to
publicize the employee of the month for at least 5 or 6 months. As I found above, the ESS
Employee Council is a labor organization that the Respondent established and assisted in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.25
Current employee Charles Patterson works as a medical procedure unit (MPU) technician
in the GI lab at Presbyterian hospital. Until May 2013, Betsy Yetiskul was the unit director at the
GI lab/MTU. Patterson is an open supporter of the Union and has distributed flyers to employees
at the hospital and posted union flyers on bulletin boards in the MPU department. According to 30
Patterson’s credited testimony, at the beginning of 2013 there were two bulletin boards in the
MPU department. One bulletin board was located behind a desk near the nurses’ station in the
MPU unit. The other bulletin board was located in the employee break room, which Patterson
also referred to as the employee locker room. Patterson described the break room as having three
tables and a TV hanging on the wall. This room also contains what Patterson referred to as the 35
kitchen area which contained two refrigerators, a microwave, and a vending machine. Behind
this area there were approximately 45 employee lockers. The bulletin board was located in the
kitchen area near the refrigerator.
Patterson credibly testified that prior to February 2013, he had seen nonhospital related 40
material posted on both bulletin boards. With respect to the bulletin board that was located
behind the desk in the MPU unit, Patterson had observed jokes posted on it that employees had
sent through the Respondent’s email system. With respect to the bulletin board in the employee
break room, in the February/March 2013 period, Patterson recalled seeing postings regarding a
bowling party and an employee selling Pittsburgh Steelers tickets. Patterson’s testimony 45
regarding the bulletin board located in the break room is corroborated by a photo of that bulletin
JD–62–14
36
board reflecting the items that he mentioned; it also depicts restaurant menus and a flyer for
“American Discount Uniform.” (GC Exh. 47.)
On February 7, 2013, at approximately 8:33 a.m. Patterson posted a union flyer on the
bulletin board that was located behind the desk in the MPU unit. Shortly afterwards Patterson5
was working at that desk when Betsy Yetiskul, the unit director, took the union flyer from the
bulletin board. Patterson then posted another flyer which Yetiskul promptly removed. This
process of Harrison posting the union flyer on the bulletin board and Yetisku removing it
occurred a total of approximately 6 times until about 1:40p.m.. During this entire period, neither
Patterson nor Yetiskul spoke to each other about what they were doing. According to Patterson 10
there were jokes posted on the bulletin board that day that Yetiskul did not remove Patterson also
recalled that Yetiskul did not remove a flyer that she had placed on the bulletin board regarding
the sale of daffodils.
At some point after the February 7 incident, another employee in the MPU Department, 15
Jose O’Neill, took down the bulletin board that was located behind the desk in the MPU unit.
Patterson was present when this occurred and when he asked O’Neill what he was doing, O’Neill
replied that Yetiskul had instructed him to take the bulletin board down. Patterson’s testimony
20
regarding this incident is unrebutted as Yetiskul did not testify at the hearing.23
In support of the complaint allegations regarding the Respondent’s alleged disparate
application of its bulletin board policy, the General Counsel contends that the Respondent
maintained bulletin boards that were available for employee use, but prohibited the posting of 25
union literature on those boards. Relying on cases such as Bon Harbor Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, 348 NLRB 1062, 1065 fn. 4 (2006); Holly Farms Corp., 311 NLRB. 273,
274 (1993), enfd. 48 F.3d 1364 Cir. (1995)); and Honeywell, Inc., 262 NLRB 1402 (1982), enfd.
722 F.2d 405 (8th Cir. 1983), the General Counsel acknowledges that there is no statutory right
for employees to use an employer’s bulletin boards but contends that the Respondent cannot 30
discriminatorily prohibit employees from posting union notices on bulletin boards that are
available for general use by employees. The Union’s argument in support of these complaint
allegations is similar to that of the General Counsel.
The Respondent contends that it did not enforce its bulletin board policy discriminatorily 35
pursuant to the standards set forth by the Board in Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007),
enfd. in relevant part and remanded, 571 F. 3d 53 D.C. Cir.(2009)) (Register Guard I).
In Register Guard the Board reiterated its well-established rule that there is no statutory
right of employees or a union to use an employer’s bulletin board, equipment or media as long as 40
the restrictions are nondiscriminatory. 351 NLRB at 1114. In its decision in Register Guard I,

23 Patterson's testimony as a whole makes it clear that the bulletin board that was removed
was the one behind the desk in the MPU department and that this occurred after the February 7
incident. Thus, I find that the portion of his direct testimony that indicates that O'Neill informed
Patterson that Yetiskul had instructed O'Neill to take down the bulletin board in the locker room
in January 2013 is incorrect and I do not credit it.
JD–62–14
37
the Board also set forth a new analysis regarding the manner in which it would determine
whether an employer discriminated against employees who attempted to utilize its equipment,
including the email system and bulletin boards, in support of a union. In its decision the Board
adopted the analysis of the Seventh Circuit in Fleming Co., 336 NLRB 192 (2001), enf. denied
349 F. 3d 968 (7th Cir. 2003), and Guardian Industries, 313 NLRB 1275 (1994), enf. denied 49 5
F.3d 317 (7th Cir. 1995).
In Register Guard I the Board stated:
We find the Seventh Circuit’s analysis, rather than existing Board precedent, 10
better reflects the principle that discrimination means the unequal treatment of
equals. Thus, in order to be unlawful, discrimination must be along Section 7
lines. In other words, unlawful discrimination consists of disparate treatment of
activities or communications of a similar character because of their union or other
Section 7-protected status.15
….
For example, an employer clearly will violate the Act if it permitted employees to
use email to solicit for one union but not another, or if it permitted solicitation by
antiunion employees but not by prounion employees. Id. at 1117-1118 (footnote 20
omitted).
In its supplemental decision after remand from the D.C Court of Appeals, Register Guard
357 NLRB No. 27 (2011) (Register Guard II) the Board reiterated the new standard regarding
discrimination that it set forth in Register Guard I, supra. slip op. at 2. The Board also noted in 25
Register Guard II that, in contrast, under pre-Register Guard I precedent, discriminatory
enforcement of rules governing the use of an employer’s equipment or other resources consisted
of allowing employees to use that equipment for nonwork related purposes while prohibiting its
use for Section 7 related purposes. In Register Guard II the Board specifically noted that no
party had asked it to revisit this issue. 357 NLRB slip op. 2 at fn.7. Accordingly, the principles 30
set forth in Register Guard I represents existing Board law on the matter and I shall apply those
principles in deciding this issue in the instant case. Applying the Board’s rationale in Register
Guard I, the substantial amount of evidence introduced by the General Counsel and the Union
regarding the rental of homes, the sale of sports tickets, and other personal postings placed on the
bulletin boards by individual employees is of no relevance in determining whether the 35
Respondent discriminatorily prohibited the posting of union materials on its bulletin boards.
What is relevant is the Respondent’s conduct in permitting the ESS employee council’s
use of its bulletin boards. As set forth in detail above, employees were permitted to post flyers on
behalf of the ESS employee council regarding the Memorial Day picnic throughout the hospital40
for months preceding that event. In addition, in early 2013 the Respondent permitted employees
associated with the ESS employee council to post notices regarding the meetings held by the
employee council. Pursuant to the request of the ESS employee council, the Respondent
furnished to the ESS employee council with bulletin boards which it used to communicate with
employees about what the its viewed as appropriate procedures to be used by environmental 45
services employees in performing their job. Finally, the Respondent permitted the ESS employee
council to use departmental bulletin boards to publicize the employee of the month award for at
JD–62–14
38
least 5 or 6 months. As I have found above, the ESS employee council is a labor organization
that the Respondent initiated, dominated, and unlawfully assisted in violation of Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) of the Act.
The Respondent permitted the frequent use of its bulletin boards by the ESS employee 5
council during this same period that Touray and Loveridge informed Lewis in February 2013
that he could not post literature on the Respondent’s bulletin boards and when Bowmann
informed Penn in March 2013 that she was not permitted to post union material on the
Respondent’s bulletin boards. Although not alleged to be unfair labor practices in the complaint,
the Respondent also refused to permit Berry to post union materials on bulletin boards and the 10
Respondent supervisor Yetiskul repeatedly took down union material posted on a bulletin board
by Patterson.
It is clear that the Respondent permitted the use of its bulletin boards by employees to
solicit interest in, and funds to support, the ESS employee council, an unlawfully assisted labor 15
organization. At the same time, the Responded refused to allow the employees supporting the
Union to post materials on bulletin boards in support of the Union. Thus, based on the principles
set forth in Register Guard I, the Respondent has drawn a line between permitted and prohibited
activities on Section 7 grounds and has discriminatorily applied its bulletin board policy and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by informing employees that they could not post 20
union materials on bulletin boards.
Paragraph 33 alleges that the Respondent, by Betsy Yetiskul, on May 14, 2013,
disparately enforced the above noted solicitation rule by permitting employees to solicit in
patient care areas for purposes not related to Respondent-sponsored matters, while prohibiting its 25
employees from soliciting in patient care areas in support of the Union.24
Patterson also testified regarding this complaint allegation. According to Patterson, on
May 14, 2013, the Pennsylvania lottery jackpot was over $250 million and employees in the
MPU unit were discussing buying lottery tickets. Patterson was at the nurses’ station in the MPU 30
unit when Eileen Massof, a RN in the MPU unit, approached him and asked him if he wanted to
play the lottery. Patterson indicated that he did and gave Massof $2 to participate in a lottery
pool. Massof also went to other employees and asked them if they want to participate in lottery
pool. At the end of the day Massof gave the participating employees the ticket numbers she had
purchased.35
According to Patterson, there was no winning ticket in the lottery on May 14 so that the
lottery jackpot was even larger on May 16. On that date, Massof again went around and asked
employees if they want to participate in a lottery pool and collected money from them if they did.
Patterson was in the post-recovery area, a patient care area, when Massof approached him and 40
Patterson again gave Massof $2 in order to participate in the lottery pool. Patterson also observed
Massof asking other employees to participate in collecting money from employees at the nurse’s

24 Paragraphs 28, 31 and 32 of the complaint allege that the Respondent applied the rule for
disciplinary purposes only against employees who support the Union. These allegations will be
addressed later in this decision in the discussion of the complaint allegations that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) in disciplining certain employees.
JD–62–14
39
station. Later that morning, Patterson was talking to Massof when Yetiskul approach them.
Massof asked Yetiskul if employees could play the lottery and Yetiskul replied that they could
play “among their clique” but not to post anything on the bulletin board.
Masoff testified on behalf of the Respondent pursuant to a subpoena. Massof recalled that 5
the Pennsylvania lottery had a large jackpot in May 2013. According to Massof, she was at her
work station before starting work that day, when she stated to employees in the area that there
was a large lottery pool and asked if everybody had heard about. Massof further stated that she
was going to buy tickets for herself when some of the employees in the area then asked her if
they could go in with her. According to Massof, employees then approached her and gave her 10
money in order to participate. Massof purchase 11 tickets altogether and wrote down on the list
the names of the employees who participated. She also made copies of the tickets purchased but
she did not recall distributing those copies to the participating employees. She testified that
someone else may have. Massof testified that no supervisors participated in the lottery pool and
that none were present when she spoke to other employees about it. Massof specifically denied 15
having a conversation with Yetiskul about playing the lottery. Massof in not recall speaking to
other employees about another lottery drawing later that same week.
The extent there is conflict between the testimony of Patterson and Massof, I credit
Patterson. His testimony on this issue is straightforward and his demeanor reflected certainty 20
regarding the events he was testifying about. In addition, Patterson is a current employee with no
personal stake in the outcome of this proceeding. As a current employee who testified against the
interest of his employer, it is unlikely that his testimony is false. Bloomington-Normal Seating
Co., 339 NLRB 191, 193 (2003). Massof’s demeanor while testifying reflected some uncertainty
with regard to these events and on cross-examination she admitted she did not recall much of the 25
details of what occurred. (Tr. 2799.)
Based on Patterson’s credited testimony, I find that on May 14 and 16, 2013, in patient
care areas, Massof spoke to employees about playing the Pennsylvania lottery and collected
money from the employees who indicate a desire to participate. When Massof asked Yetiskul if 30
it was okay for employees to play lottery, Yetiskul indicated that they could play but they were
not to post anything on the bulletin board.
While the credited evidence establishes that the Respondent, through Yetiskul permitted
employees to solicit for the lottery in patient care areas on or about May 14, 2013, there is no 35
evidence that the Yetiskul prohibited employees from soliciting on behalf of the Union on or
about the date as alleged in paragraph 33 of the complaint. Accordingly, I shall dismiss that
complaint allegation.
Independent Allegations of Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act40
Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the complaint allege that the Respondent by John Burns, and/or
William Dilla and/or Dan Gasparovic interrogated employees and threatened employees with
discipline unless they agreed to write a statement regarding their union activities.
45
As noted above, Franklin Lavelle and Ronald Oakes reinstated pursuant to the settlement
in UPMC I on February 25, 2013. As will be discussed more fully below, on February 28, 2013,
JD–62–14
40
Leslie Poston sent an email message to a substantial number of the Respondent’s employees
welcoming Oakes and Lavelle back to work following their reinstatement. During the
Respondent’s investigation of Poston’s email message, the Respondent met with Lavelle and
questioned him about his involvement in the sending of the message.
5
The only evidence in support of this allegation is a document signed by Gasparovic and
Dilla dated March 1, 2013 (GC Exh. 148). This document states:
At approximately 3:45 PM on Friday, March 1, 2013, I had called Frank Lavelle
down to the office with William Dilla present. I informed Mr. Lavelle that human 10
resources is conducting an investigation and that I had a few questions for him to
answer.
1. I asked Mr. Lavelle if he instructed Leslie Poston to post or email the
letter.15
2. I asked Mr. Lavelle if he gave the letter to Leslie.
3. I asked Mr. Lavelle he wrote the letter, and if it was not him, who
wrote the letter.20
Mr. Lavelle said that he had no comment and was not writing a statement. I said
to him that he could have until Monday to write it. Mr. Lavelle again said he had
no comment.
25
I then instructed that the line of questioning as part of an investigation conducted
by human resources and if he fails to cooperate that he will be subjected to
disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Mr. Lavelle then said he had no comment and was not writing a statement.30
In Scheid Electric, 355 NLRB No. 27 slip op. at 1 (2010) the Board indicated in deciding
whether the questioning of an employee violate Section 8(a)(1) it determines:
{w}hether under all the circumstances the interrogation [of an employee] 35
reasonably tends to restrain, coerce or interfere with rights guaranteed by the
Act.” Bloomfield Health Care Ctr., 352 NLRB 252 (2008), quoting Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1178 fn. 20 (1984), enfd. sub nom. HERE 11 v. NLRB,
760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). Among the factors that may be considered in
making such an analysis are the identity of the questioner, the place, and method 40
of the interrogation, the background of the questioning and the nature of the
information sought, and whether the employee is an open union supporter.
In Intertape Polymer Corp., 360 NLRB No. 114 (2014) the Board also applied the above
noted factors in finding the questioning of an employee to be an unlawful interrogation45
JD–62–14
41
Applying the factors set forth by the Board in Scheid Electric, Intertape Polymer and
Rossmore House, I find that Gasparovic’s questioning of Lavelle regarding this incident
constituted an unlawful interrogation regarding his union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. In this regard, the Respondent has demonstrated hostility to the Union’s attempt to
organize its employees. I find that the questions directed to Lavelle by Gasparovic regarding who 5
wrote the email that Poston sent to employees and what, if any, role Lavelle had in instructing
Poston to send it, is not a legitimate area of inquiry regarding the question of whether Poston
used the Respondent’s email system in violation of its policy in transmitting the email. In
addition, Gasparovic was the manager of the environmental services department and summoned
Lavelle to his office for the interrogation, which was conducted in the presence of another 10
manager, Dilla. Finally, Gasparovic’s threat that Lavelle could be terminated for refusing to
answer his questions adds to the coercive nature of the interrogation. The fact that Lavelle was in
open union supporter does not privilege the Respondent to interrogate him in such a coercive
fashion Under the circumstances, I also find Gasparovic’s threat to discipline Lavelle for
refusing to participate in an unlawful interrogation is also a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the 15
Act.
Paragraph 20 of the complaint alleges that the Respondent, by Jason Hogan, at Shadyside
Hospital impliedly threatened employees with a poor evaluation if they continued their support
for the Union.20
Former employee Jynella Everett testified on behalf of the General Counsel regarding
this allegation. Everett began working for the Respondent at Shadyside Hospital as a
housekeeper in October 2012 and resigned from her employment with the Respondent in July
2013. While she was employed by the Respondent her immediate supervisor was Jason Hogan. 25
In March, 2013 Everett wore, for the first time, a badge pull given to her by the Union which
stated: “Can’t Stop Us Now.” (GC Exh. 95.) Everett was walking down a hallway the basement
of Shadyside Hospital, a nonpatient care area, with another employee when Hogan stopped her
and asked her if she knew her evaluation was coming up. Everett replied, “Yes, I do.” Hogan
looked down at her badge pull and said, “Okay. I’m just letting you know your evaluation is 30
coming up.” Everett replied that she knew that already. The conversation then ended. After her
conversation with Hogan, Everett took the union badge pull off but later that day “put it back on
because I did not want him to stop me from wearing it.” (Tr. 1395.) However, Everett did not
wear the union badge pull the next day and did not wear any union insignia until shortly before
she resigned her employment.35
Hogan testified that he recalls giving Everett a performance evaluation in March 2013.
Hogan recall discussing Everett’s upcoming evaluation with her on one occasion a few weeks
prior to giving her the evaluation. According to Hogan, he received a call asking for a restroom
cleanup and assigned Everett that task of cleaning a restroom. Everett later reported to him that 40
restroom had been “really, really bad.” Hogan apologized and told Everett that he did not know
what condition the restroom was in when he assigned for the task of cleaning it up. He gave
Everett two meal tickets and informed her that he would include her performance on that day in
her evaluation. Hogan recalled that Everett was wearing her regular housekeeping uniform on
this occasion and he did not observe her wearing anything to show support for the Union. He 45
specifically denied seeing Everett wear a badge pull with the legend “Can’t Stop’s Now.”
JD–62–14
42
The evaluation that Hogan gave Everett is dated March 27, 2013. In this evaluation
Hogan commented favorably on Everett’s performance in cleaning a restroom. (R. Exh. 388, p.
4.)
I credit Everett’s testimony regarding Hogan’s actions on the first day that she wore her
Union badge pull. Everett’s demeanor while testifying demonstrated certainty regarding her 5
encounter with Hogan. While the encounter was brief, Everett’s testimony indicated a vivid
recollection of the event. I do not credit Hogan’s denial that he ever observed Everett wearing a
badge pull with the commonly known Union phrase “Can’t Stop Us Now” on it as I do not find it
convincing. I do not doubt that Hogan told Everett that he would comment favorably on her
evaluation regarding her performance in cleaning the restroom but I find that he was describing a 10
different conversation than the one that Everett testified about.
Based on Everett’s credited testimony, I find that, under all the circumstances, Hogan’s
comments to Everett constituted an implied threat that her union activities could adversely affect
her upcoming appraisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find that Hogan’s repeated 15
statements regarding Everett’s upcoming evaluation while looking at her union badge pull had a
tendency to interfere with Everett’s protected right to display union insignia. In making this
finding, I specifically note that Hogan’s comments were made in the context of the Respondent
committing a substantial number of other unfair labor practices.
20
The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) and Related Independent Alleged
Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 25
(1983), the Board established a framework for deciding cases turning on employer motivation
regarding an adverse employment action taken against an employee. To prove an employer’s
action is discriminatorily motivated and violative of the Act, the General Counsel must first
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, an employee’s protected conduct was a motivating
factor in the employer’s decision. The elements commonly required to support such a showing 30
are union activity by the employee, employer knowledge of the activity and antiunion animus on
the part of the employer. If the General Counsel is able to establish a prima facie case of
discriminatory motivation, the burden of persuasion shifts “to the employer to demonstrate the
same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.” Wright Line,
supra, at 1089. Accord: Mesker Door, Inc. 357 NLRB No. 59 slip op. at 2 (2011). In the instant 35
case, I will apply the Board’s Wright Line doctrine in deciding the 8(a)(3), (4), and (1)
allegations in the complaint, except for the allegations in the complaint regarding the suspension
and final written warning given to Leslie Poston and the final written warning given to Chaney
Lewis.
40
An employee’s union activity and/or involvement with Board processes and the
Respondent’s knowledge of that activity varies from one employee to another and will be set
forth in detail herein. It is clear, however, that the Respondent opposes the unionization of its
nonclinical support employees. This animus to the union activities of its employees is primarily
established by the violations of the Act that I find it committed herein. The Respondent’s 45
opposition to the Union’s organizing campaign expressed on its internal website is also
indicative of animus. The Board has noted that an employer’s antiunion campaign literature,
JD–62–14
43
although not itself unlawful, can be considered as further evidence of animus. Embassy Vacation
Resorts, 340 NLRB 846, 849 fn. 15 (2003); Overnite Transportation. Co., 335 NLRB 372, 375
fn. 15 (2001) Thus, the record as a whole clearly establishes that the Respondent possesses
antiunion animus.
5
The December 20, 2012, Written Warning issued to Felicia Penn and Related
8(a)(1) Allegation
Paragraphs 36, 48 and 53 of the complaint allege that about December 20, 2012, the Respondent 10
issued a final written warning to employee Felicia Penn in violation of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1).
Penn’s Union Activity
Current employee Felicia Penn testified in support of these allegations. Penn began 15
working for the Respondent at Presbyterian hospital in approximately 2004 as an anesthesia
technician in the operating room. Jane Hackett was her direct supervisor until October 2013.
During the same period, Amy Bush the Respondent’s then director of surgical services, was
Penn’s department manager, and the human resources representatives assigned to Penn’s
department included Kathy Grills and Emily Bowman.20
Penn is an open union supporter. While her testimony is somewhat lacking in detail, Penn
testified that she had been discussing the Union at work for substantial period of time and made
reference to having been engaged in open union activity “since Frank Lavelle was terminated.”
(Tr. 471.) The record does not contain the date of Lavelle’s termination, but he was reinstated 25
pursuant to the settlement agreement in Case 8–CA–081896, which was executed on February 7,
2013. According to Judge Goldman’s decision noted above, the original complaint in 06–CA–
081896 issued on December 13, 2012. (JD–28–13, slip op. at 2.) Thus, it is clear that Lavelle’s
discharge occurred several months prior to December 13, 2012.
30
Penn also spoke to employees about supporting the Union on breaks in the anesthesia
technicians’ “work room” and outside the work room in November 2012. (Tr. 505-506.) The
work room contains supplies and a computer. The room also contains a table and a bulletin
board. Anesthesia technicians take breaks in that room, which is also used by supervisors. The
work room is inside the Presbyterian Hospital’s operating room area.35
According to Penn’s credited testimony, employees posted a number of personal items on
the bulletin board in the anesthesia technicians work room such as information regarding the
rental of homes and the sale of cookies. Penn testified that she was posting information regarding
the Union on the bulletin board in the work room in November 2012. ( Tr. 505-506.) She further 40
testified at these items were taken down by the time she returned to work the next day. Penn
testified that she would then repost the union materials.
According to Penn’s uncontradicted testimony, Hackett was present, at times, when Penn
posted union material on the bulletin board and spoke to employees about the Union (Tr. 506-45
JD–62–14
44
507.) 25It is therefore that clear that prior to Penn’s final written warning issued on December 20,
2012, she had been engaged in open union activity at work and that Hackett had knowledge of
her union support in November 2012.
Hackett’s office was located directly across from the work room. Penn testified that,5
sometime in the first part of 2013, Penn was in Hackett’s office when Hackett asked her why she
was monitoring two phones for other technicians. Penn replied that she was “holding their
phones” so they could take a lunch break. Hackett asked how Penn could give other employees
an adequate lunch period if she was monitoring two phones at one time. Penn replied that this
was a regular practice and that if she needed help she could get help from another employee. 10
Hackett then told Penn that she “was well aware of what had been going on as she has heard her
talking about the union” and that she knew exactly what Penn was doing. (Tr. 469.) Penn
indicated that Hackett was present in the lunch room earlier that day when Penn was discussing
the Union.
15
Sometime in March 2013 Penn began to wear a lanyard with the Union’s logo that stated
“CAN’T STOP US NOW” (GC Exh. 94) and that Hackett had observed her on several occasions
while she was wearing the union lanyard. Penn also testified that Hackett told her in
approximately June 2013 that she knew Penn was distributing information to other employees.
Hackett then told Penn that she knew what Penn was doing on her breaks and that Penn did not 20
have time for that.
As noted in detail above, in March 2013, a human resources representative for the
Respondent, Emily Bowman, told Penn that she was not allowed to post anything to do with the
Union on the bulletin boards at work in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.25
Penn’s December 20, 2012 Final Written Warning
Facts
30
Anesthesia technicians have a wide variety of responsibilities including setting up
operating rooms for anesthesia and assisting an anesthesiologist throughout surgical cases
including organ transplants and traumatic injuries. The Respondent operates a level 1 trauma
center and the anesthesia technologist team handles approximately 80 to 110 surgical cases a
day.35
The anesthesia technicians schedule is designed to accommodate the anticipated surgical
volume. In this connection, the number of anesthesia technicians on duty increases from the early
morning to mid day, when staffing is at its peak, then gradually is reduced during the afternoon
and into the evening. Only two anesthesia technologists are scheduled to work overnight.40
On each shift one anesthesia technician is designated by an asterisk on the schedule,
which signifies they are scheduled for overtime. While technicians are scheduled to come in at
night if additional help is needed, the designated overtime technician is required to stay over and
provide additional help for the next shift if the volume of work requires it. If no lead anesthesia 45

25 Hackett did not testify at the trial.
JD–62–14
45
technician is present, the most senior technician takes on the role of “charge technician.” The
duties of the charge technician include carrying the “charge phone” used to communicate with
the other anesthesia technicians, the anesthesiologist in charge and the nurse in charge. The
charge technician also has the responsibility to ensure proper and adequate staffing coverage and
giving a report to the next person taking charge regarding any outstanding issues or staff changes 5
that have occurred.
On November 28, 2012, Penn clocked in for her shift at 10:34 a.m. and worked until 7:04
p.m. (R. Exh. 272.) Anesthesia technician Aleasha Curtaccio was also working on the same shift
as Penn. When Hackett left at approximately 4 p.m., as the most senior person on the shift, Penn 10
became the charge technician. Penn was also the designated overtime technician on the schedule.
Prior to Hackett leaving, she discussed the assignment of overtime with Penn and because the
operating room was busy, Hackett approved the assignment of overtime. While Hackett was still
at work, Penn called Mikeia Davenport, who was scheduled to begin work at 10:30 p.m.and
asked her to come in early for overtime. Davenport agreed to come in early for overtime. The 15
assigned, overnight call person was Andrea Davis (formerly known as Andrea Henry). The
overnight call person is responsible for coming in at any time from 10:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. if
there is too much work for the two night-shift technicians and they need assistance.
The only two witnesses who testified regarding the events of November 28 who were 20
present at the hospital that evening were Penn and Curtaccio, a current employee who testified
on behalf of the Respondent. To the extent their testimony conflicts, I credit Curtaccio as her
testimony was thorough and detailed and consistent on both direct and cross-examination. In
addition, her demeanor was impressive in that she exhibited certainty when testifying about the
events of that evening. On the other hand, Penn’s testimony was, at times, vague and somewhat 25
generalized. Most importantly, however, her testimony conflicts with objective evidence on an
important point. Penn testified that she did, in fact, work overtime on the evening of November
28 until 8 p.m. The Respondent’s payroll record for that day, however, clearly establishes that
Penn clocked out at 7:04 p.m. after working for 8 hours. (R. Exh. 272, p. 10.) Accordingly, I
have determined that Curtaccio’s account of the events of that evening is more reliable than that 30
of Penn.
According to Curtaccio’s credited testimony, she had agreed with Davis to cover the on-
call responsibility for that night. Accordingly, starting at 10:30 p.m., Curtaccio was subject to
being called back in to work if necessary.35
On November 28 at 7 p.m. there was a heart transplant in progress and there were
additional transplants pending, two in the Montefiore building and two at Presbyterian. As noted
above, at 7:04 p.m. Penn clocked out after giving the charge telephone to technician Ronda
Kastle, who then took over as the charge technician. At the end of her scheduled shift at 40
approximately 7 p.m., Curtaccio met Kastle in the work room and Kastle informed Curtaccio
that Penn had left. Curtaccio and Kastle discussed the workload and discussed what was still
needed to be done. Curtaccio felt it was too busy for Kastle and Abe Young, the other anesthesia
technician who was present at Presbyterian, to handle the workload. At that time anesthesia
technician Todd Drelick was also still on duty at Montefiore. Curtaccio told Kastle that she 45
would help set up for the two transplants that were still pending but that she was going to call
JD–62–14
46
Hackett to make sure she was allowed to stay because she was not the designated overtime
person and was the on-call person.
At approximately 7:15 p.m., Curtaccio called Hackett and received permission to stay. At
approximately 7:45 p.m. Curtaccio was saw Davenport in the locker room and reported to her 5
regarding the pending workload and then Curtaccio clocked out at 8 p.m. At approximately
10:20 p.m., Kastle called Curtaccio and told her that the transplants had been canceled and that it
would not be necessary for her to come in.
On November 30, 2012, Hackett spoke to Penn about the events of November 28, in the 10
employee locker room. Hackett asked Penn why she not stayed overtime on November 28, as she
was the overtime person. Penn testified that she told Hackett that she did stay for overtime and
that Penn had initiated the phone call Curtaccio had with Hackett as Penn was still at work when
a call was made.26 Penn also stated that t the problem was that they did not have a call person that
night and Hackett was mistaken about what Curtaccio’s phone call meant. Hackett told Penn that 15
if she wanted to discuss it more she could meet her in Amy Bush’s office.
Penn testified that when Hackett, Bush and Penn met later that day in Bush’s office, Bush
told Penn that she was not a team player and that she engaged in job abandonment when she left
work when her team still needed her. Penn told Bush that she performed her duties and that a call 20
person was in place but did not have to be used so that there was no actual problem that evening.
Bush responded she would be in contact with human resources because Penn had abandoned her
job.
Bush testified that on November 30 prior to the meeting she held with Hackett and Penn, 25
Hackett reported to her that Penn had spoken to Hackett in an inappropriate way in the locker
room, using curse words. Hackett also reported that Penn had left work early when she knew
there was a potential for more surgical cases but that she had to attend to her children. Hackett
also informed Bush that Penn had stated she was not going to work on Christmas even though
she was on the schedule.30
There is some conflict between the testimony of Penn and Bush regarding what was
discussed at the November 30 meeting. Bush testified that at the meeting with Penn and Hackett
held in Bush’s office, she told Penn that it was inappropriate for her to be using such language
with Hackett. She also said that as a charge technician she had to make sure that the technicians 35
and patients were taken care of and that she could not leave until the extent of the pending
transplants were known and that the work was finished. This also told Penn that Christmas was
her scheduled holiday to work and that unless she could switch with another employee this was
her holiday to work.
40

26 While Penn was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m.to 6p.m. on November 28 (R. Exh. 272)
she actually began work at 10:34 a.m.and punched out at 7:04 p.m. that evening. (R. Exh. 272, p.
10.) Thus Penn not actually work overtime that evening. In addition, as noted above, I find that
Curtaccio called Hackett after Penn had left work that evening and thus Penn’s testimony on this
point is not credible.
JD–62–14
47
I credit Bush’s testimony regarding the meeting held with Hackett and Penn with respect
to the topics that were discussed at that meeting, as the Respondent’s later investigation into the
incident on November 28 supports Bush’s testimony on this point. However, I credit Penn’s
testimony that Bush accused her of “job abandonment.” My finding on this point is supported by
the fact that on December 5, 2012, Bush sent an email to Hackett and human resources 5
representative Grills stating, in part: “Felicia was insubordinate by telling Jane she would not
work her scheduled-she spoke in loud voice. She also abandoned her job and responsibilities by
leaving work prior to work being completed. Please get statement from Felicia and with Kathy’s
permission, let’s move forward with termination.” (GC Exh. 134.)
10
After the meeting on November 30, an investigation was conducted by the Respondent
regarding Penn’s conduct on November 28 and 30. Penn and Hackett furnished statements as
did anesthesia technicians Curtaccio and Davenport.
Hackett’s statement dated December 5 (GC Exh. 133) was submitted to Bush and Grills.15
Hackett statement indicates that when she spoke to Penn on Friday, November 30, Penn told her
that that she would not be working on Christmas even though it was scheduled because of family
issues. Penn asked Hackett if they can work something out since she would not be able to work
and Hackett told her that they would discuss it later. Hackett then asked Penn about the events of
November 28. Hackett’s statement referred to the phone call that she had received from another 20
staff member who indicated Penn was the designated lead person and left at 7:00 p.m. with a
busy schedule and work still to be done. Hackett told Penn “the lead person and especially one in
charge, needs to stay until the work is done and all cases are covered. So she needed to stay until
all that was accomplished.” Hackett statement then indicated that Penn indicated in a loud voice
that she did stay late until 7 p.m. Hackett’s statement also indicated that Penn said, “I have a lot 25
going on at my home and with my family and I just can’t stay any later.” Hackett’s statement
further indicates “Felicia uses inappropriate language in everyday speech and this encounter was
no exception.”
As noted above, on December 5, Bush sent an email to Hackett and Grills, the human 30
resources representative indicating she wanted to terminate Penn because of abandoning her job
and for being insubordinate. Bush sent this email before obtaining a statement from Penn or
other employees regarding the events of November 28.
Penn’s statement (R. Exh. 263) is dated December 6, and states in relevant part, that she35
had worked until 7 p.m. on November 28 and before she left, she made sure that things were
under control and personally spoke everyone before she left making sure it was okay for her to
leave. Penn’s statement also indicates that the last person she spoke to was Curtaccio and that
she specifically asked her if she had spoken with the call person, Andrea Henry (Davis). Penn’s
statement indicated that Curtaccio told her she had not spoken to Davis and if she needed would 40
take the call for Davis but for the time being she would stay and help out. Penn’s statement
indicates said she informed Hackett in their meeting on November 30 that when Penn left it was
not busy. Penn statement also indicated, “it had the potential to be disaster if all four transplants
went that were booked and the only issue I was aware of was we could not contact the call
person.”45
JD–62–14
48
Curtaccio’s statement dated December 11 (GC Exh. 123) was submitted to Hackett and
indicates:
You requested a statement for the evening of 11/28/12. I called you that evening
to see what I should do. When we spoke, I told you of the multiple transplants that 5
were scheduled at PUH/MUH that night with multiple donors. One donor in OR
at 8:40 pm. Abe I set up for two of the PUH transplants while Felicia [Penn]
started a transplant in OR 6. Todd was at MUH waiting to hear of the two
transplants that were pending there. With other rooms coming out and going in
and being short staffed, Felicia was the overtime person and had to stay. And she 10
did until 7:00pm. At7:00 pm, it had slowed down case wise but there was a lot
cleanup/set up to be done and if I would have left it would have only been
Rhonda and Abe (Keia was on her way in). I stayed until 8:00 pm until I knew
Keia was coming and after talking to you. I then left in case I needed to take
Andrea’s call which started at 10:30 pm, and come back in. The transplants ended 15
up canceling around 10:30 pm and Rhonda contacted me to let me know I
didn’t need to come in.
Davenport’s statement dated December 11 (GC Exh. 121) states:
20
I am writing this email on behalf of Felicia regarding the situation that arisen (sic)
on wed. nov 28, I did not feel that Felicia abandoned us. I was under the
impression that things were to be a bit busy so I came in early that evening at 7:30
pm. When I came in Aleasha [Curtaccio] was in the locker room preparing and to
leave. She informed me of the transplants that were scheduled for later on that 25
evening and stated that everything had already been set up for them. So when
I went into the work room Rhonda and Abe both had no more than 2 rooms each
and I was able to set up the entire OR for the next day. Halfway
through setting up the OR we were informed that all the transplants had been
canceled but one and that was a kidney-panc to go in at 4:30 AM. I was not under 30
any sort of distress by Felicia leaving early and did not feel the need for her or
Aleasha to stay once I had arrived.
After some further emails from Grills asking for further details from Hackett regarding
any inappropriate language that Penn used in their November 30 discussion, the Respondent35
concluded its investigation on December 16.
At that point Hackett drafted the substance of a written warning to Penn. Because Penn
had previously received a verbal warning and a written warning under the Respondent’s
corrective action policy this, was a final written warning. The final written warning, (GC Exh. 40
114) indicated the following:
On November 28, 2012, you were the designated layperson. You failed to stay beyond
7:00 PM to ensure that there was adequate staffing to handle the cases as well as set up
for the next day. Instead you gave the charge phone to another employee and left. This is 45
considered work negligence. On November 30, 2012 when I spoke you concerning the
incident your behavior and demeanor were inappropriate.
JD–62–14
49
On December 20, 2012, Hackett and Grills met with Penn and gave her the final written
warning. Thereafter, Penn filed a grievance under the Respondent’s internal grievance procedure
that was ultimately denied.
5
After the final written warning was issued to Penn on December 20, 2012, Hackett failed
to forward the signed final written warning notice and the executed disciplinary authorization
form to the human resources department to be included in Penn’s file. When the Respondent
discovered that the signed copies of these documents could not be located, the discipline was
rescinded because of the lack of signed copies.10
On June 18, 2013, Bush and Emily Bowman, a human resources consultant, met with
Penn and Bush and informed Penn that the December 20, 2012 final written warning had been
rescinded and would not be used against her. Bush also provided Penn with a letter dated June
14, 2013, indicating that the final written warning was rescinded and would not be used against 15
her in any future corrective actions (GC Exh. 122).
Analysis
Applying the Wright Line analysis to Penn’s final written warning, it is clear that prior to 20
November 28, 2012, Penn was an open employee advocate for the Union. In this regard, she
frequently spoke to other employees in support of the Union at work. She also posted literature
in support of the union on bulletin boards in the anesthesia technician break room. I also find that
Penn’s support for the Union was known to the Respondent by November 28, 2012. In this
connection, Penn’s uncontradicted testimony, which I credit, establishes that Hackett was 25
present, at times prior to November 28, 2012, when Penn posted union material on the anesthesia
technicians’ bulletin boards and spoke to employees about the Union. Although both Bush and
Grills testified that they were not aware of Penn’s support for the Union prior to issuing her a
final written warning on December 20, 2012, I do not credit their testimony on this point as I find
it to be implausible. It is clear that Hackett, Bush, and Grills had frequent discussions regarding 30
Penn during the period between November 28 and December 20. The record as a whole supports
the fact that the Respondent had an intense interest in the Union’s organizing campaign and its
supporters, and I simply do not believe that Hackett did not relay her knowledge of Penn’s
support for the Union to Bush and Grills. The Respondent has demonstrated its antiunion animus
through the violations of Section 8 (a)(1), (2), (3) and (4) that I find it committed in this case. In 35
addition, I find that the timing of the discipline issued to Penn, shortly after she engaged in open
union activity in November 2012, supports an inference that the Respondent’s final written
warning was motivated by Penn’s union activity. State Plaza Hotel, 347 NLRB 755, 755-756
(2006); Toll Mfg. Co., 341 NLRB 832, 833 (2004). Thus, I find that Penn’s final written warning
was motivated by her union activity, and the burden of persuasion shifts to the Respondent to 40
demonstrate the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected
conduct. Wright Line, supra, at 1089.
Turning to the Respondent’s defense, in its brief the Respondent contends that Penn’s
final written warning was justified because it was her responsibility to stay and work overtime if 45
additional assistance was needed on the evening of November 28, but instead she clocked out
after 8 hours and Curtaccio had to work an extra hour until additional help arrived. The
JD–62–14
50
Respondent contends that Penn’s conduct constituted work negligence. In assessing the
Respondent’s defense, I note that the Board has held “[a]n employer cannot simply present a
legitimate reason for its action but must persuade by a preponderance of the evidence that the
same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected activity.” W. F.Bolin,
Co., 311 NLRB 1118, 1119 (1993), enfd. mem 99 F.3d 1139 (6th Cir. 1996). In order to meet the 5
Wright Line burden of persuasion, an employer must establish that it is consistently and evenly
applied its disciplinary rules. DHL Express, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 87 JD slip op. at 7 (2014). In
the instant case, the Respondent has produced no evidence of other employees who have been
disciplined for “work negligence” or “inappropriate behavior and demeanor.” In light of that, I
have only the circumstances surrounding Penn’s warning in which to assess the lawfulness of the 10
Respondent’s discipline of her. In this regard, the Respondent does not point to any evidence that
establishes objective standards regarding what constitutes “work negligence” or inappropriate
demeanor or behavior.
An important factor in assessing the Respondent’s defense is that on December 5, before15
a written statement was obtained from Penn or any other employee with knowledge of the events
of November 28, Bush was advocating that Penn be terminated for acting in an insubordinate
manner to Hackett on November 30 and abandoning her job on November 28. This advocacy for
termination, without an adequate investigation, when coupled with suspicious timing, supports a
finding of discriminatory motivation. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. 355 NLRB No. 189 JD slip op. 20
at 12 (2010). While Bush’s initial recommendation to terminate Penn, without conducting an
investigation, was not followed, the evidence revealed in the investigation does not convince me
that the Respondent would have taken the same action against Penn in the absence of her
protected union activity. As noted above, before Hackett left work on November 28, and she
knew that Penn had contacted Davenport and that Davenport was going to come in earlier than 25
her scheduled 10:30 p.m. start in order to work overtime. In addition, the witness statements of
Curtaccio and Davenport, disinterested employees who were on duty that night, do not support
the allegation that Penn engaged in work negligence of November 28 when she left at 7 p.m. As
noted above, Davenport’s statement reflects that when she arrived at approximately 7:30 p.m.,
the workload was manageable. While setting up the operating room Davenport was informed that 30
all of the scheduled transplants had been canceled, except one. Davenport indicated that Penn’s
leaving did not cause her any “distress” and that she did not feel any need for Curtaccio to stay
any longer after she had arrived. Curtaccio’s statement reflects that by 7 p.m. the caseload had
slowed down but there was clean up and set up work to be done and she stayed until 8 p.m.until
she knew that Davenport was coming in. The statement further indicates that the transplants were 35
canceled at approximately 10:30 p.m.. It thus appears that the fact that Penn left at 7:00 p.m. had
no effect on patient care. The only effect on employees was that Curtaccio and not Penn worked
an additional hour. The fact that Curtaccio believed that an additional of work was appropriate
in order to properly staff the department, and sought the approval of Hackett to do so, does not ,
in my view, establish that Penn engaged in “work negligence” by leaving at 7 p.m.40
With regard to the allegations in the written warning that Penn’s behavior toward Hackett
was insubordinate on November 30, Hackett ‘s witness report indicates that the language used by
Penn on that occasion was the language that she commonly used.
45
After considering all of the evidence, I conclude that the Respondent has not
demonstrated that it would have taken the same action toward Penn in the absence of her
JD–62–14
51
protected union activity and accordingly find that the final written warning issued to her on
December 20, 2012,” violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations Directed to Penn
5
Paragraph 10 of the complaint alleges that about February 14, 2013, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by Jane Hackett, by telling employees it knew what they
were discussing, created an impression among its employees that their union activities were
under surveillance.
10
As set forth above, Penn’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that during the early part
of 2013, Hackett told Penn during the conversation that she “was well aware of what had been
going on as she has heard [Penn] talking about the union and that she knew exactly what Penn
was doing. This conversation occurred shortly after Hackett was present in the lunch room
earlier that day when Penn had been discussing the Union with other employees. In addition, 15
Penn had on several occasions openly posted union materials on the bulletin board in the lunch
room when Hackett was present.
In determining whether an employer has created an unlawful impression of surveillance
of employees’ union activities, the Board considers “whether under all the relevant 20
circumstances reasonable employees would assume from the statements in question that their
union or other protected activities had been placed under surveillance.” Camaco Lorain Mfg.
Plant, 356 NLRB No. 143, slip op. at 2 (2011); Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc. 344 NLRB
1270, 1276 (2005), enfd. 181 Fed Appx. 85 (2d Cir. 2006). Applying that test in the instant case,
it is clear that Penn openly conducted activities in support of the Union on a number of occasions 25
when Hackett was present. Penn was very open about her support for the Union and took no
steps to keep her activities secret. Under the circumstances, I find that Hackett’s remark was
simply an observation about Penn’s union activity which was conducted openly in front of her.
Accordingly, I find that, in this context, Hackett statement would not have reasonably caused
Penn to conclude that the Respondent was engaged in surveillance of employees’ union 30
activities. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) as alleged in
paragraph 10 of the complaint and I shall dismiss this allegation.
Paragraph 23(b) of the complaint alleges that on or about June 18, 2013, the Respondent,
by Amy Bush and Emily Bowman, intimidated and coerced its employees in the exercise of their 35
Section 7 rights by disparaging employees who engaged in protected concerted activities in.
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Penn testified that at the June 18, 2013, meeting between Penn, Bowman and Bush at
which Penn was notified that her December 20, 2012, final written warning was rescinded, Bush 40
told her that the letter was written being rescinded not because of a finding that she was right, but
because she “bullied her way through this process.” Bush added that Penn’s coworkers were
afraid of her and that is why they wrote statements on her behalf. According to Penn, she was not
given any further information at this meeting about the reason that her final warning was being
rescinded.45
JD–62–14
52
Bush testified that at the June 18, 2013 meeting with Penn, she informed Penn that the
final written warning she received on December 20, 2012, was being rescinded. Bush also
testified that she reminded Penn of an unrelated matter regarding her absences and also reminded
her that it was important for her to get a report when she came on her shift as well as to give a
report when she left his shift. Bush did not deny that she made any statements to Penn regarding 5
her “bulllying” the grievance process or that her coworkers were afraid of her and that is why
they wrote statements on her behalf. As noted earlier, Bowman did not testify at the hearing.
I credit Penn’s uncontradicted testimony that Bush told her on June 18, that Penn’s
December 20 warning was not being rescinded because Penn was right in the matter but rather 10
that she had the grievance process and that coworkers were afraid of her and that is why they
wrote statements on her behalf. There is no credible evidence in the record to support such a
statement. The Respondent has admitted that the reason for the rescission was the fact that the
Respondent could not produce signed copies of the warning in Penn’s personnel file. Under the
circumstances, I find that Bush’s critical comments to Penn regarding the manner in which she 15
solicited other employees to write statements on her behalf during the Respondent’s internal
grievance procedure restrained and coerced Penn that and other employees in the exercise of the
protected right to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid and protection.
Accordingly, I find that Bush’s statement to Penn violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
20
The February 27, 2013 Written Warning issued to David Jones and Related
8(a)(1) Allegation
As amended at the hearing paragraph 34(g) of the complaint alleges that on or about
February 2013, the Respondent, through Nikolai Stoichkov, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 25
by requiring employees to remove pro union insignia.
David Jones testified that he was employed by the Respondent from August 1, 2010, until
January 24, 2014, when he voluntarily left his employment to return to school. He was employed
in the environmental services department. Jones was active in the Union’s campaign. In this 30
connection, he solicited other employees to join the Union. During the period from December
2012 until mid-February 2013 he wore the union pin indicating “Make It Our UPMC” on his
uniform once or twice a week. Jones testified that he wore this pin in the presence of supervisors
Karen Reynolds, Gloria Maxell, and Nikolai Stoichkov. According to Jones uncontroverted
testimony, in approximately the mid January 2013, Stoichkov saw him in the supply room in the 35
basement of the hospital, a nonpatient care area. Jones was wearing his union pin and Stoichkov
told Jones that if he continued to wear it, Stoichkov was going to have to give him a disciplinary
action.
At the hearing, the General Counsel introduced two documents entitled “Documentation 40
of Coaching/Counseling” that were contained in Jones personnel file and produced by the
Respondent pursuant to the General Counsel’s subpoena duces tecum. Both of these documents
were prepared and signed by Stoichkov. The first one is dated February 19, 2013, and states “On
02-19-2013 I spoke to David Jones about wearing union badge on his uniform and that he is not
allowed to wear it during working hours or any areas while working and on the clock. (GC Exh. 45
155.) The second one is dated February 21, 2013, and states, “On 02-21-2013 I spoke to David
Jones again about wearing union badge on his uniform and that he is not allowed to wear it
JD–62–14
53
during working hours or any areas while working and on the clock. This is the second time he
has been made aware of this and was very clear to him that next time he is seen wearing his
union badge on the floor while working and on the clock he will be counseled. No exceptions.”
(GC Exh. 159).
5
I find that the Respondent’s records establish that Stoichkov instructed Jones on two
occasions to remove his union pin and on the second occasion threatened him with discipline if
he was observed wearing it again. I find that Jones testified credibly regarding his second
encounter with Stoichkov which involved a threat of discipline if he continued to wear his union
pin. Jones, however, did not correctly recall the date as the Respondent’s records establish that 10
the date of these occurrences were February 19 and 21, 2013.
During this same period that Stoichkov instructed Jones to remove his union pin in a non
patient care area or be subject to discipline, Jones observed other employees continuing to wear
personal buttons. As examples, Jones recalled seeing pins depicting pictures of owls and holiday 15
greetings.
As I have set forth above in section of this decision entitled “Alleged Disparate
Enforcement of the Solicitation Policy Regarding Union Insignia,” employees have a protected
right to wear union insignia at work in the absence of “special circumstances.” In a healthcare 20
facility restrictions on wearing union insignia in nonpatient care areas are presumptively invalid
unless the employer can establish special circumstances justifying its action. There are no special
circumstances which would justify the Respondent’s action in requiring Jones to remove his
union insignia in a nonpatient care area and accordingly I find that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by requiring Jones to remove his prounion insignia25
Paragraph 37, 48, and 53 of the complaint allege that on February 27, 2013, the
Respondent issued a written warning to Jones in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Facts30
On February 27, 2013, Jones was working as environmental services employee on the
7a.m.to 3 p.m. shift at Presbyterian Hospital. There is no evidence that he was wearing his union
pin that day. According to Jones, at approximately 2:30 p,m, his work for the day was finished
and he was in the area of the environmental services supervisors’ office in the basement of the 35
hospital. Jones asked Supervisors Karen Reynolds and Tim Armstrong and the arriving second-
shift supervisor, Jason Hogan, if they had any work for him to perform and they all replied
negatively.
Jones then took the elevator up to the fourth floor to go to a waiting area for patients’40
families to get a drink for his ride home. As he exited the elevator and was walking down the hall
approaching the waiting room, Supervisor Gloria Moxie saw Jones and asked him what he was
doing. Jones replied that he was going to get a drink for his ride home. According to Jones,
Moxie replied that he could not do that and that he should know that. Moxie also told him that
she was going to have to “write him up.” Moxie then instructed Jones to accompany her to the 45
room of a patient who had been discharged from the hospital and instructed him to help another
JD–62–14
54
employee get the room ready for the next patient. After finishing this assignment, Jones shift was
ending and he swiped out and left.
The next day, February 28, Moxie asked Jones to write a statement regarding the incident
that occurred the previous day on a form used by the Respondent for witness statements. Jones 5
briefly recounted the incident on the form. In the portion of the form stating “Please add any
additional comments,” Jones wrote “If I wasn’t for the union would I really be getting this write
up!” (GC Exh. 158.)
On March 2, 2013, Jones was called to the supervisors’ office, where he met with 10
Reynolds and Stoichkov. Jones was given a written warning (GC Exh. 157) which stated, in
relevant part:
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013, you were scheduled for your work shift. You
were witnessed, by Gloria Moxie, Supervisor, on an unauthorized break at 2:45 15
pm at the main entrance to the 4 East Unit. When asked for the reason, he
responded that you were there to get a bottle of soda from the vending machine.
Your scheduled break and lunch for that date were as follows: break time 8:30
am and Lunchtime 11:30 am. Therefore this is considered an unauthorized
break and a violation of our Absenteeism and Tardiness policy HR-03. 20
Unauthorized breaks disrupt department operations and can negatively impact our
ability to provide patient care/ customer service. A single unauthorized break is
grounds for the next level of corrective action notice.
The warning further noted that Jones received a verbal warning for a violation of the no 25
smoking ordinance on April 16, 2012, and that is that “in accordance with UPMC policy” he
was receiving a written warning.
Current employee Lisa Jones testified on behalf of the General Counsel in support of this
complaint allegation. Jones is an advanced patient care technician and testified that there has 30
been occasions when she has gone to a vending machine on the Starbucks on the first floor of the
hospital when she has not been on a scheduled break or lunch time. There is no evidence,
however, that any supervisor was aware of Jones engaging in such conduct
On June 30, 2013, Amy DiPasquale, the director of environmental services at Shadyside 35
Hospital, met with Jones and gave him a letter indicating that the written warning he received on
March 2, 2013, for taking an unauthorized break on February 27, 2013, would be expunged from
his personnel file and not used against him in any way (GC Exh. 156.) DiPasquale testified that
she was instructed to give Jones the letter rescinding his written warning from the human
resources department. DiPasquale further testified that prior to giving Jones rescission letter, she 40
spoke to Richard Hrivnak, the Respondent’s then director of human resources, and informed him
that she disagreed with the decision of the human resources department to rescind the written
warning because she believed that the warning was consistent with the disciplinary policy.
45
JD–62–14
55
Analysis
As noted above, prior to receiving his written warning on March 2, 2013, Jones had
openly demonstrated support for the Union by wearing his union pin at work. The Respondent
was clearly aware of his support for the Union since his supervisor, Stoichkov, unlawfully 5
instructed him to remove his union pin on February 19 and 21 and on February 21 further
threatened him with discipline if he continued to wear it. As I noted earlier, the record establishes
that the Respondent possesses animus toward the Union’s efforts to organize its nonclinical
support employees. Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has established a prima facie
case under Wright Line and the burden shifts to the Respondent to establish that it would have10
taken the same action against Jones in the absence of his of his union activity.
DiPasquale testified that the environmental services department at Shadyside hospital
operates three shifts and each employee is assigned a 45-minute lunch and a 15-minute break. An
employee’s lunch and break time is set forth on the schedule each day. If an employee cannot 15
take a break at the scheduled time the employee must notify his or her supervisor and secure
permission for another time. Environmental services employees are permitted to take breaks in
the environmental services locker room and lounge located in the basement of the hospital, the
cafeteria and the West Wing Café. Employees can leave the building for lunch and break but
must first notify their supervisor and punch out; employees cannot leave their assigned work 20
areas other than when they are on lunch break. Employees are not permitted to take breaks in
patient waiting rooms.27 DiPasquale defined an unauthorized break as leaving an assigned work
area and going to another area when not on an authorized break or taking a break at a time when
an employee is not authorized to do so.
25
DiPasquale testified that the Respondent’s corrective action policy was applied in the
following fashion in the environmental services department: a verbal warning was given for the
initial violation of the Respondents corrective action policy, a written warning was given for a
second offense, a written warning in lieu of a 3-day suspension was given for a third offense and
finally termination for fourth offense.30
On Jones schedule for February 27, 2013, his arrival time listed as 6:30 a.m. and he left at
3 p.m.. His break time was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. and his lunchtime was scheduled for 11:30
a.m. (R. Exh. 364.) Thus, it is clear that Jones was taking a break at 2:45 p.m. was at an
unauthorized time. Consistent with the Respondents corrective action policy, Jones was given a 35
written warning because he had previously been given a verbal warning for violating the
Respondent’s no smoking rule. The Respondent introduced records establishing that it imposed
the appropriate level discipline on the following environmental services employees on the
following dates for taking an unauthorized break or an extended lunch in 2012 and 2013: Jamiya
Gamble, September 24, 2012 (R. Exh. 544.); Gary Jackson, February 7, 2013 (R. Exh. 546); 40
Tracy Butler, March 4, 2013 (R. Exh. 543); James McCoy, March 4, 2013 (R. Exh. 549); Gary
Jackson, March 13, 2013 (R. Exh. 547); Treay McClendon, May 14, 2013 (R. Exh. 548); Rony

27 The Respondents environmental services housekeeping policy and procedure dated
October 6, 2000, a copy of which Jones signed when he was hired in August 2010, indicates in
paragraph I (i) "DO NOT take break time in a public lounge, public lobby, or public waiting
room. (Emphasis in the original) (R. Exh. 386.)
JD–62–14
56
Aristil, September 24, 2013 (R. Exh. 542) ; Francis Togbah, September 24, 2013 ( R. Exh. 553);
Tony Upshaw, September 25, 2013 (Part. Exh. 554 ); Damar Read, October 4, 2013 (R Perry
Exh. 551.); William Northington, November 17, 2013 (R. Exh 550); Wayne Smith, November
12,, 2013 (R. Exh. 552). The discipline imposed on Gamble and Jackson occurred prior to the
incident involving Jones and thus demonstrates that the Respondent’s policy was applied5
consistently with respect to Jones.
The other incidents occurred after the discipline imposed on Jones. While such evidence
is relevant, I assign less weight to it because, in my view, after an employee is disciplined and an
unfair labor practice charge is filed, disciplinary action taken by a respondent could be 10
influenced by the desire to show a consistent pattern of discipline for that offense, in order to
defend against the unfair labor practice charge. In this circumstance, however, I find that these
warnings constitute further evidence of a consistent practice regarding imposing discipline on
employees for taking unauthorized breaks in the environmental services department.
15
With regard to actions of Lisa Jones in going to a vending machine or the Starbucks
located in the hospital while not on a scheduled break and lunch, there is no evidence that any
supervisor was aware of this conduct. Thus there is no evidence of disparate treatment.
In Septix Waste, Inc., 346 NLRB 494 (2006), the Board indicated that in order to 20
establish a valid Wright Line defense, an employer must establish that it is applied its
disciplinary rules regarding the conduct at issue consistently and evenly. I find that the
Respondent has met this burden with respect to the application of its disciplinary rules regarding
Jones’ conduct in taking an unauthorized break. Under the shifting burden analysis of Wright
Line, the General Counsel must establish an unfair labor practice by a preponderance of the 25
evidence, Wright Line, supra at 1088 fn. 11. I find this burden has not been met with respect to
the written warning given to Jones on March 2, 2013. Accordingly, I conclude that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) with respect to the discipline imposed on
Jones on that date and I shall dismiss that allegation in the complaint.
30
The February 28, 2013 Suspension and March 11, 2013 Final Written Warning
Issued to Leslie Poston and Related 8(a)(1) Allegations
Paragraph 28 of the complaint alleges that about February 28, 2013, the Respondent, by
Gina Barry, disparately enforced its solicitation rule with respect to Poston in violation of 35
Section 8(a)(1).
Poston, a current employee of the Respondent, started working at Presbyterian Hospital
on October 13, 2003. At the time of the hearing she was a health unit coordinator (HUC) and had
been in that position for approximately 9 years. In this position she is responsible for answering 40
telephones, making appointments for patients and placing current information regarding the
nurse and nurse’s aide assigned to a patient in patient rooms. At the time of the hearing, she was
regularly assigned to unit 9D and her supervisor was Gina Barry.
JD–62–14
57
Poston is an open supporter of the union. In this regard, she began to wear the Union’s
“Make It Our UPMC” pin in January 2013. 28 Poston had been wearing a Pittsburgh Steelers pin
before she began wearing the union pin and wore both of them for a period of about 2 weeks. In
early February, 2013, Berry asked her to remove her pins and Poston asked Barry the reason for
her request. Barry replied it was not part of her uniform. Poston complied with Barry’s request 5
and removed both of her pins. During the period of time that Poston was wearing her union pin
she observed employees wearing pins and lanyards that were not issued by the Respondent,
including those identifying the Pittsburgh Penguins and the Cleveland Browns. She also saw
employees wearing pictures of their children on pins or on their lanyards. After being asked to
remove her buttons, Poston continued to observe employees wearing buttons and lanyards that 10
were not related to the hospital such as those described above in patient care areas. Although
Barry was called as a witness by the Respondent, she was not asked any questions regarding this
incident and thus Poston’s testimony is uncontradicted and I credit it.
Poston was working in a patient care area when Berry requested her to take off both her 15
Pittsburgh Steeler and union pins. Poston’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that after Barry
instructed her to remove her buttons, other employees, working same patient care area as Poston,
continued to wear insignia identifying sports teams and pictures of their children. For the reasons
I have expressed in detail above in this section of this decision title “The Alleged Disparate
Enforcement of the Solicitation Policy Regarding Union Insignia” since the Respondent allowed 20
other types of insignia to be worn in immediate patient care areas, it cannot rely on the presumed
validity of a ban against wearing all nonofficial insignia in patient care areas in order to justify
instructing Poston to remove the union button she was wearing in February 2013. In addition, the
Respondent has produced no evidence to establish that an instruction to Poston to remove her
union pin was justified by any special circumstances. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent 25
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it required Poston to remove her union pin in February
2013.
Poston’s Suspension and Warning
30
Facts
Paragraphs 38(a) and (b), 48 and 53 of the complaint allege that the Respondent
suspended Poston on February 28, 2013, and issued her a final written warning on March 11,
2013, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.35
On February 27, 2013, the Respondent issued a revised solicitation policy that provides
in relevant part:
C. No staff member may distribute any form of literature that is not related 40
to UPMC business or staff duties at any time in any work, patient care or

28 In addition to openly displaying support for the Union by wearing union insignia at
work, as noted above, on February 21, 2013, Poston was among the group of employees that
Fishbein and Stenman met with in the cafeteria before the union representatives were required to
leave.
JD–62–14
58
treatment areas. Additionally staff members may not use UPMC electronic
messaging systems to engage in solicitation (see also Policy HS-IS0147
Electronic Mail and Messaging ). (GC Exh. 162, p. 2.)
5
This particular provision was unchanged from the previous solicitation policy dated
October 10, 2012. (GC Exh. 163, p. 2.)
On February 27, 2013 the Respondent issued an electronic mail and messaging policy
that provides, in relevant part:10
1. UPMC Electronic Messaging Systems are provided to facilitate UPMC
business, education & research and/or patient care.
Also on February 27, 2013, the Respondent issued an “Acceptable Use of Information 15
Technology Resources” that provides in relevant part:
1. UPMC workforce members shall only use UPMC information
technology resources for authorized activities. Authorized activities are
related to assigned job responsibilities and approved by the appropriate 20
UPMC management. To the extent that a UPMC information technology
resource is assigned to an employee, the employee is permitted de minimis
personal use of the UPMC information technology resource.
On February 28, 2013, Poston was assigned to work as a “sitter” rather than performing 25
her regular duties.29 Poston was scheduled to begin work at 7 a.m. on that date but arrived at
work early. When Poston arrived she checked her computer in unit 9D and saw that she had
received an email from Fishbein containing a letter regarding the recent reinstatement of Ron
Oakes and Frank Lavelle. Fishbein had asked Poston to email this letter to coworkers. Poston
sent an email dated February 28, 2013, at 6:04 a.m. (GC Exh. 175 and R. Exhs. 24 and 335), that 30
stated:
Hi, everyone.
I wanted to pass along this letter from our coworkers Frank Lavelle and 35
Ronald Oakes.
Were Back at Work and the Union is Here to Stay!
A letter from Frank Lavelle and Ronald Oakes40
Wow.

29 A sitter is an employee who is assigned to observe patients who are deemed to require
close scrutiny. Poston testified that she would volunteer to work as a sitter in order to obtain
additional hours.
JD–62–14
59
In all our years at UPMC, nothing can compare to what happened on
Monday. Nearly 200 people came out to support us on our first day at
work after winning our jobs back as part of the historic settlement of
workers’ rights charges against UPMC.
5
It feels great knowing we’re here because we stood up with our co-
workers to protect our rights. We want to thank our co-workers and the
community for being there for us. Together, we prove that it is possible for
workers to stand up to UPMC and win.
10
Now we’re back, and we’re going to keep working to form our union, so
that we can win the good wages, affordable health benefits and respect
that we deserve.
We are sharing the news of our victory so that everyone at UPMC knows 15
that we have the right to talk about the union and the improvements we
want to make at work. We won’t let management stop us from exercising
our rights.
Nothing can stop us now.20
Sincerely,
Frank Lavelle, Housekeeping, Presbyterian Hospital
Ron Oakes, Transport, Presbyterian Hospital 25
Poston sent the email to everyone on the mailing list marked “NU ALL.” Poston testified
that she knew when she sent the email that there were a substantial number of employees on that
mailing list but she did not know how many. The record establishes that the email was sent to
approximately 2176 individuals, including employees and supervisors, in 45 patient care units. 30
After sending the email, Poston punched in at the appropriate time and started her shift as a sitter
in unit 10d.30
Poston testified that later that morning, Linda Haas, the clinical director of Presbyterian
Hospital, came into the patient’s room where Poston was located and asked her to step into the 35
hallway. When Poston came into the hallway, two security guards asked her to go across the Hall
into an office. Poston entered the office with Haas, and saw that Barry and Jaclyn Loveridge, a
human resources representative, were already in the office. The security guards remained in a
hallway. After Poston and Haas entered the office, Haas informed Poston she was suspended.
When Poston asked what for, Haas replied because of the email that Poston had sent out that 40
morning. Poston stated that she sent out a lot of emails, why did this particular one result in a
suspension. Haas did not specifically respond to Poston’s question but asked Poston if she had

30 On February 27, 2013, at 6:51 p.m. an employee sent an email containing the identical
letter regarding the reinstatement of Oakes and Lavalle to 34 nonsupervisory personnel
employed at the Respondent. (R Exh. 24; Tr. 288-289.) The parties agreed to redact the names of
the sender and the recipients of this email and stipulated that Poston was not the sender
JD–62–14
60
any personal items in the hospital. Poston replied that her purse was in the patient’s room where
she had been working and her coat was located on unit 9d.
Haas left to retrieve Poston’s personal items and Barry then read Poston the suspension
notice (GC Exh. 151) and gave her a copy. The suspension was for an indefinite period pending 5
completion of the Respondent’s investigation. After Barry read the suspension notice, Loveridge
asked Poston to write a statement regarding what computer Poston had used to send the email
and where that computer was located. Poston then wrote a brief statement indicating the location
of the computer that she had used and gave the statement to Loveridge. (GC Exh. 176) When
Haas returned with Poston’s coat and purse, Poston asked “How does the shuttle run to get me 10
back to my car.” Haas replied that that the security guards would take Poston to her car. The
security guards then accompanied Poston from the office and gave her a ride to her car.
On March 8, 2014, Berry called Poston and informed her that she could return to work on
Monday, March at 11 a.m. and to see her when she arrived. Poston met with Barry on March 11 15
and was given several documents. Berry gave Poston a “Corrective Action/Discipline
Authorization Form.” (GC Exh. 149.) On the first page under “Recommended Corrective
Action” a check was placed next to “Final Written Warning (Unpaid Suspension 2/28/13-
3/10/2013). The second page of this document indicated:
20
On February 28, 2013, Ms Poston sent an email using a hospital computer
located on patient Unit 9D in Presbyterian. The email was addressed to Nu all
which is an address listing for 2176 Presbyterian patient care employees on 45
patient care units. This email contained a letter allegedly written by two other
employees concerning their return to work after being discharged from their 25
employment. The letter expressed intent by the two employees to continue to
work for the union.
Ms. Poston’s use of the email system is a violation of policy HS-ISO 147,
Electronic Mail and Messaging since the message did not facilitate UOMC 30
business, education & research and/or patient care. Ms. Poston’s use of the email
system also violated Policy HS-HR 0704, Corrective Action and Discharge.
Barry also gave Poston a final written warning indicating, in part:
35
On February 28, 2013, you sent an email to all nursing associates at UPMC
Presbyterian. This email contained a letter written by two UPMC Presbyterian
associates recently reinstated to their positions. In this letter, the Associates
discussed their reinstatement to work and support of the union. This is in violation
of UPMC ISO 147, Electronic Mail and Messaging.40
Poston was also given a copy of the “Corrective Action and Discharge” portion of the
UPMC policy and procedural manual and the “Electronic Mail and Messaging” portion of that
manual.
45
Loveridge testified that the morning of February 28, Lou Goodman, a vice president of
human resources, forwarded Poston’s email to her between 8 and 9 a.m. After receiving the
JD–62–14
61
email, Loveridge was instructed by Hrivnak and Goodman to obtain a statement from Poston.
Loveridge contacted Barry by phone and was informed by Barry that Poston was not on the
schedule that day. Loveridge was working in conjunction with Hrivnak on this matter and they
contacted the Respondent’s IT Department to determine if the email had been sent from a
computer in the hospital since Poston was not scheduled in a regular unit that day. IT informed 5
Hrivnak and Loveridge that the email had been sent from a computer on unit 9D. Loveridge and
Hrivnak then contacted the security department and security personnel and IT personnel
confiscated the computer that Poston had used to send email. The human resources department
also determined that Poston was working in another unit, 10D, that day.
10
According to Loveridge, Hrivnak made the decision to suspend Poston and Loveridge
conveyed this decision to Barry. Loveridge testified the reason for the suspension was that if the
Respondent allowed Poston to continue to work, it could interfere with the investigation, because
if Poston was on the site she would have access to the email system.
15
Loveridge testified that at the meeting with Poston, Barry informed Poston that it had
been brought to their attention that Poston had sent an email that morning on the UPMC system
that was not work related and that Poston was being suspended pending the outcome of the
investigation. (Tr. 2177.)
20
Barry testified that she was contacted on the morning of February 28, 2013, as she was on
her way to work by Linda Haas who informed her that Poston had sent an email to “NU ALL”.
Barry asked Haas what the email was about and Haas read to Barry the part of Poston’s email
regarding the reinstatement of Oakes. When she arrived at work, Barry and Haas spoke to
Loveridge by phone. Loveridge informed Barry did Poston had violated the email policy by 25
sending an email to over 2000 employees and that Loveridge would get back to her regarding the
discipline to be imposed. Loveridge called Barry at approximately 9 a.m. and informed her that
Poston would be suspended pending investigation.
Barry testified that she was “a little nervous” as to how Poston would react because of 30
Poston’s behavior during a previous conversation she had had with her. Haas call security to
meet with her and Barry on 10D where Poston was working. When Poston arrived Barry told her
that she was suspended for sending an email to “NUAll. Barry then asked Poston to write a
statement regarding the computer that she used to send the email.31
35
The General Counsel introduced a substantial amount of evidence establishing that the
Respondent permitted a variety of non-work-related emails without imposing any discipline on
employees for doing so. In this regard, in December 2012, Poston sent the message to all of the
individuals employed in unit 9D, including Barry, wishing everyone a Merry Christmas. (GC
Exh. 179.) The mailing list for unit 9D is composed of 89 employees. (GC Exh. 2; Tr. 1417-40
1418.) On March 18, 2013, Barry sent an email to all of the employees in unit 9D regarding the
death of the spouse of an employee. (GC Exh. 178.) On March 3, 2013, an employee sent an

31 As noted above, Poston testified that Loveridge asked her to write a statement regarding
what computer she had used. I credit Poston's testimony as she appeared to have a vivid
recollection of the events occurring at this meeting.
JD–62–14
62
email message concerning the sale of T-shirts to 7 separate nursing units, which included a total
of 328 individuals, including supervisors and managers. (GC Exh. 180; GC Exh 61; Tr. 427.)
The General Counsel introduced three emails that was sent by employees to “NU ALL”
as was Poston’s. On November 7, 2012, an employee sent such an email seeking the donation of 5
toys to the “Brashear Association” for distribution to those in need (GC Exh. 79). On November
29, 2012, an employee sent such an email with a spiritual message (GC Exh. 80). On December
4, 2012, an employee sent such an email seeking the identity of the purchaser of a winning ticket
for a gift basket raffle (GC Exh. 73).
10
On December 13, 2012, an email asking employees to join in a celebration of some sort
was sent to 43 nursing units. (GC Exh. 81) While there is no specific evidence regarding the
number of employees that this email was sent to, since Poston’s email was sent to 2176
individuals in 45 units, I draw the inference that this email was sent to approximately 2000
individuals.15
The email list for the NU 12 S nursing includes approximately 100 individuals, including
supervisors. The record contains several examples of nonwork-related emails that were sent to
everyone on the NU12S email less during the months of September and October 2012. These
emails include recipes, information about an international food festival and various jokes. (GC 20
Exh. 74-78.)
Analysis
The Respondent contends that under the Board’s decision in Register Guard I, 25
supra, it had a right to discipline of Poston for her use of its email system because employees do
not have a statutory right to use its email system for Section 7 purposes. The Respondent further
contends that the evidence regarding the other nonwork-related emails that were sent by
employees and did not result in discipline shows, “at most that there was imperfect enforcement
of the policy, not intentional discrimination.” Finally, the Respondent contends that because a 30
union organizer requested Poston to send the email her conduct was unprotected because the
Union’s motive was to generate meritless unfair labor practice proceedings. (R. brief, at 195.)
In Register Guard I the Board noted that the Wright Line analysis is not appropriate when
an employee is admittedly disciplined for union or other protected activity. Register Guard, 35135
NLRB, at 1120, citing St. John’s Hospital, 337 NLRB 94, 95 (2001). In the instant case, the final
written warning that Poston received on March 8 clearly indicates that both the final written
warning and her suspension was for sending an email discussing the reinstatement of Lavelle and
Oakes and their continued support for the Union. Thus, the warning itself makes it clear that the
Respondent disciplined Poston for sending a union related email. Register Guard I indicates40
“although there is no Section 7 right to use an employer’s email system, there is a Section 7 right
to be free from discriminatory treatment.” Register Guard I supra, 1120.
In analyzing the final written warning and suspension given to Poston, I find that her
February 28 email was not a solicitation. In Wal-Mart Stores, 340 NLRB 637, 639 (2003) the 45
Board held: “As defined, solicitation activity prompts an immediate response from the individual
or individuals being solicited and therefore presents a greater potential for interference with
JD–62–14
63
employee productivity if the individuals involved were supposed to be working.” The email sent
by Poston did not call for any immediate action by employees, rather it simply informed them of
the rally that was held and the continued support of the Union by Lavelle and Oakes. In this
regard, it is very similar to the email in Register Guard I that was found not to be a solicitation
because it merely clarified the facts surrounding a union rally held the day before the email. 5
Register Guard I, 351 NLRB at 1119. As set forth above, the Respondent has permitted a variety
of nonwork-related emails including several that were sent to the “NU ALL” mailing list and
thus reached the same number of individuals as the email sent by Poston. The only difference
appears to be that Poston’s February 28 email was union-related. Thus, the Respondent’s
enforcement of its email and solicitation policy with respect to Poston’s February 28, 2013,10
email discriminated along Section 7 lines. Accordingly, by suspending Poston in issuing her a
final written warning for sending her February 28, 2013 email, the Respondent violated Section 8
(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Register Guard I, 351 NLRB at 1119-1120; California Institute of
Technology Jet Proportion Laboratory, 360 NLRB No. 63, JD slip op. at 13-14.
15
In making this finding, I do not agree with the Respondent’s argument that the nonwork-
related emails that were introduced into evidence did not establish disparate treatment with
respect to Poston’s February 28, 2013 email. The dissemination of three emails hospitalwide,
which included a substantial number of supervisors and managers, establishes that the
Respondent had knowingly tolerated the use of the email system for nonwork related matters in 20
the past. I note, moreover, that there is a substantial amount of other evidence reflecting that
nonwork-related emails were sent to a substantial number of employees, but not hospitalwide,
with supervisory knowledge.
The Respondent additionally claims that the union related content of Poston’s February 25
28 email was not the basis for discipline because the same email was sent on February 27 by
another employee to a far lesser number of employees, without disciplined being imposed. It is
clear, however, that this email was sent only to statutory employees and not supervisors and
therefore there is no basis for me to find that the Respondent had knowledge of this email at the
time it imposed discipline on Poston.30
I also find no merit Respondent’s novel argument that because Poston sent the email
pursuant to the request of a union organizer, her conduct was unprotected because the Union’s
motive was to generate meritless unfair labor practices. There is simply no evidence to suggest
that the Union’s interest in having Poston sent the email was anything other than to inform 35
employees of the rally welcoming Oakes and Lavalle back to work after their reinstatement.
Merely because the Union requested Poston to send the email does not serve as a basis to find
Poston’s conduct unprotected. It is the conduct itself that determines whether it is protected or
unprotected, regardless of whether it is done on the employee’s own initiative or at the request of
a union. 40
Paragraph 16 of the complaint alleges that about February 28, 2013, the Respondent by
Jaclyn Loveridge and/or Linda Haas, violated Section 8(a)(1) by asking Poston to write a
statement about her union activity.
45
As noted above after sending her email regarding the reinstatement of Lavelle and Oakes
on the morning of February 28, Poston met with Haas, Barry and Loveridge and Haas informed
JD–62–14
64
Poston that she was suspending pending investigation of the email that he she had sent that
morning. Loveridge then asked Poston to write a statement regarding what computer Poston had
used to send the email. Poston then wrote a brief statement indicating the location of the
computer that she had used to send the email.
5
As noted above, I have concluded that the suspension and final written warning issued to
Poston for sending her February 28 email are unlawful. Prior to meeting with Poston, the
Respondent’s IT Department had already determined that the email had been sent from a
computer located in Unit 9D. In its brief, the Respondent does not assert why it was necessary to
have Poston write a statement regarding this matter but merely claims that the question was 10
noncoercive. (R. brief at p. 199.) I conclude that under the circumstances present in this case,
requiring Poston to write a statement about which computer she used to send the email regarding
the reinstatement of Oakes and Lavalle, when the Respondent already knew the answer to that
question, establishes that the question was coercive and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
15
In reaching his conclusion, I have applied the factors I have noted above in the Board’s
decisions in Scheid Electric, Intertape Polymer and Rossmore House. In this connection, I find
that there is a history of employer hostility to the union and protected activity; the information
sought by the Respondent from Poston was information that it already possessed; the question
was asked by Loveridge, a human resources representative, who was accompanied by two other 20
supervisors; and the question was asked in a private office with two security guards posted
outside the door. Notwithstanding the coercive nature of this interrogation, Poston answered the
questions truthfully, consistent with the information the Respondent already had obtained from
its IT Department. In finding the questioning of Poston to be unlawful, I specifically rely on the
fact that the Respondent was attempting to elicit information from Poston that its IT department 25
had already given to them. Thus, it appears that there was no legitimate investigatory reason to
require Poston to write a statement regarding what computer she had sent the email from.
The March 20, 2013 Discharge of Ronald Oakes and Related 8(a)(1) Allegations
30
Paragraph 15 of the complaint alleges that about February 25, 2013, The Respondent, by
Denise Touray and/or Jacqlyn Loveridge in Touray’s office, interrogated employees about their
union membership and activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Oakes began working at Presbyterian Hospital as a transporter in April 2011 and was 35
discharged in July 2012. As noted above, he was reinstated pursuant to the settlement agreement
in Case 06–CA–081896, that was approved by the Regional Director on February 7, 2013. On
February 15, 2013, Denise Touray, the Respondent’s director of transportation and linen, sent a
letter to Oakes indicating that the Respondent was offering him reinstatement to his former
position effective Monday, February 25, 2013. The letter also indicated that any reference to his 40
discharge for excessive absenteeism would be removed from his personnel file but that he would
be returned to the third step, the “final written warning” stage of the discipline policy, because of
other violations of the Respondent’s corrective action policy. Oakes returned to work on
February 25, 2013. At the end of Oakes’ shift at 3 p.m., the Union staged a rally in support of
the reinstatement of Oakes and Lavalle across the street from the emergency room entrance to 45
Presbyterian Hospital that was attended by approximately 200 employees. Oakes left work,
JD–62–14
65
accompanied by employees Finley Littlejohn and Chaney Lewis to attend the rally. Oakes spoke
at the rally, thanking the employees who had attended for their support.
Oakes testified that during the first week after his reinstatement, he had a meeting with
Touray and Loveridge in Touray’s office. They showed Oakes a copy of the letter that Poston5
had sent out by email to employees at the hospital regarding the rally that was held after his
reinstatement. Touray asked Oakes if he knew about the letter and he responded that he did.
Touray then asked Oakes how he felt about the letter being sent out with his name on it and he
replied that he did not care.
10
Touray testified that she was asked by Human Resources Director Richard Hrivnak to
meet with Oakes and ask him if he was aware that the email had been sent out on his behalf and
whether he was comfortable with the email. Pursuant to this instruction, Touray and human
resources consultant Loveridge met with Oakes on March 4, 2013, in Touray’s office. Touray
admitted asking Oakes the questions that Hrivnak had instructed her to ask. Touray testified that 15
Oakes responded that he did not mind that the letter was sent out on his behalf.
On March 4, Touray sent the following email (GC Exh. 32) to Hrivnak stating, in
relevant part:
Jaki and I met with Ron Oakes this morning. I asked Ron if he was aware of the 20
email that was sent out on his behalf. He said he helped draft a letter but he was
not aware that it was sent out by email. I showed him the message that was
included in the email and pointed out that was signed with his name. I asked him
if he requested anyone to send this email on his behalf and he said did not. When
asked if he was comfortable with someone signing his name for him on an email 25
he did not send, he said he did not have a problem with this.
I find that Touray’s March 4 email, which is corroborated by the testimony of both
Touray and Oakes, actually sets forth the conversation between Touray and Oakes on that date.
30
Applying the factors set forth above in Scheid Electric and Intertape Polymer Co., supra,
I find that the Respondent’s interrogation of Oakes on March 4 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. In making this finding I rely on the fact that while Oakes was an open union supporter, he
was called into his immediate supervisor’s office and questioned about his role in an email sent
by another employee involving the reinstatement of Oakes. There was no legitimate purpose in 35
asking Oakes about his role in the preparation of the email since Poston had already admitted to
sending it. After considering all the circumstances, I find that Touray’s questioning of Oakes
regarding this matter was coercive.
The March 20, 2014, Termination of Oakes40
Facts
Background
45
After his reinstatement on February 25, 2013, Oakes worked on the 7a.m.to 3 p.m. shift.
His regular supervisor was on vacation when he reported back to work and he was assigned to
JD–62–14
66
Supervisor Carolina Clark. Clark informed him that Touray had ordered that he goes through a
week of training. Oakes was assigned to work with transporter Claude Smith for this training
As noted above, on about March 5, Oakes was unlawfully interrogated by Touray and
Loveridge regarding the email that Poston sent to employees regarding the reinstatement of 5
Oakes and Lavalle.
The Respondent’s transportation and services department includes approximately 110
individuals including supervisors. There are approximately 90 transporters that move patients to
designated locations in both Presbyterian and Shadyside hospitals. There are five dispatchers and 10
four supervisors who oversee the operations of the transport system and report to Touray.32
Approximately 30 of the transporters are transport monitor technician that have been trained to
transport patients who are on heart monitors
Transporters are dispatched to jobs transporting patients by the Respondent’s15
Teletracking system which uses software that allows departments in the hospital to enter a
request that patients be transferred from one location to another. The request is placed in a
“queue” of jobs that are awaiting assignment to transporters. The Teletracking software finds the
closest transporter to the patient and also prioritizes how long that job has been waiting and
where it is coming from in order to determine how quickly the job gets dispatched to a 20
transporter. All departments that need to request transport, transporters, dispatchers, supervisors,
and Touray have access to the Teletracking system.
A transporter receives assignments through a Spectralink wireless phone which operates
only in the hospital. These phones are also referred to as “pickle” phones. A pickle phone is 25
assigned to a transporter each day when a transporter reports to work. The pickle phone is used
by transporters to log into the Teletracking system. Transporters also log into the Teletracking
system when they arrive at a patient, when they start moving the patient, and when they deliver
the patient to the designated destination. The transporters also carry pagers which are
permanently assigned to them. As noted above, when a transporter is available for an 30
assignment, Teletracking will assess which transporter is available for a transport assignment and
automatically page that transporter. The pager will alert the transporter that there is a pending job
so that the transporter knows to call in and accept the job. After receiving notification of an
available assignment through the pager, a transporter will use the pickle phone to call into the
Teletracking system and log with his or her identification code. The transporter will then hear a 35
recorded message about the assignment such as the originating location and destination. The
transporter will then use the pickle phone to accept the job assignment by entering a code that
indicates the transporter is accepting the job. Another code is entered if the job is rejected.
After a transporter accepts the job he or she uses the pickle phone to update the Tele-40
tracking system about the status of the job. For example, when a transporter has reached the
patient and the transporters underway, the transporter enters a code into the system to indicate
that the job is “in progress.” When the patient is delivered to the destination, the transporter will
enter a different code into the system to indicate that the transporter has been completed. The

32 The parties agree, and the record establishes, that dispatchers are not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
JD–62–14
67
Teletracking system will then automatically place a transporter into “idle” status and the process
will begin again, with the transporter awaiting the next assignment. The fact that a transporter is
in “idle” status does not mean that the employee is not actively working. At times, transporters
are given assignments directly by a supervisor or dispatcher, for example, collecting wheelchairs,
operating an elevator or, at times, delivering food trays for patients beyond normal hours. During 5
these periods of such direct assignments a transporter will be registered as “idle” in the
Teletracking system.
Touray testified that there are two Teletracking records that she normally reviews
regarding the activity of transporters. The log viewer file records the activity of each employee 10
daily, including when an employee calls in to check for jobs, when an employee is dispatched for
jobs and when a job is completed. (R. Exhs. 135, 517.) The pager history is a record of the pages
sent by Teletracking to each employee on a daily basis. Each employee is identified by a specific
pager identification number. (R. Exhs. 134, 516.) The pager history is routinely written over by
the computer so that the pager history of an employee on a given day is no longer available after 15
a couple of days.
The dispatcher’s role in the Teletracking system is to monitor a computer screen that
shows the status of all jobs that have been entered into the system as well as the status of all
transporters on duty. The dispatchers’ has responsibility to ensure that the transport system is 20
functioning efficiently. Dispatchers also answer phone calls from individuals requesting a
transport and from those who have questions about a transport assignment that is already in the
system. Normally, a dispatcher does not directly assign a job to a transporter and does so only
when there is an unusual circumstance.
25
The Transportation Department maintains a department handbook. (GC Exh. 9.) This
handbook indicates the following regarding employee breaks: “Employees have one 35 minute
lunch break. This is assigned by the dispatcher.” The handbook also contains the following
procedures:
30
Transporters must view their pager and respond appropriately when receiving a
page. (GC Exh. 9, p.17.)
Transporters who are idle must call into the system a minimum of once every five 35
minutes to check for pending jobs even if they are not paged. (GC Exh. 9, p.
18.)
Transporters are permitted to reject a job only when starting their lunch/break or
at the end of their work shift. (GC Exh. 9, p.18.)40
Transporters who log into the Transport Tracking System within two minutes of
their scheduled starting time must accept jobs from the Transport Tracking system
to maximum of 5 minutes before the end of the shift. (GC Exh. 9, p. 19.)
45
JD–62–14
68
Oakes’ Discharge
Oakes testified that on March 10, near the end of his shift he arrived back at the
transporter office at approximately 2:50 p.m. When he arrived, he observed some employees
getting ready to swipe at the end of the shift at 3 p.m. Some employees already had their coats 5
on. According to Oakes, he had completed transporting a patient and that there were no jobs that
he had been assigned in the Respondent’s Teletracking system. Oakes further testified that since
it was a Sunday, work had been slow and he decided to return to the office area in order to swipe
out at 3 p.m..
10
When Oakes returned to the office area, he sat down outside the dispatcher’s office and
began to speak to another employee. Dispatcher Jayme McGough came out of the office and in a
loud voice told Oakes that he was going to take another job. Oakes thought that McGough’s
assignment was unusual since other employees were already outside the dispatcher’s office
waiting to swipe out when he had arrived. Oakes went into the office of his supervisor, Grinage, 15
and asked him why McGough was taking a job out of the Teletracking system and assigning it to
him. He also complained to Grinnage about the tone in McGough’s voice when she made the
assignment. Grinage told Oakes “we’re having problems with her.” Greenwich then asked Oakes
to a transport at Presbyterian Hospital which Oakes completed and then swiped out.
20
When Oakes returned to work on March 13, Grinage gave him a piece of paper (GC Exh.
70.) that contained the following information:
1) Idle from 1:41 pm-2:03pm. Received 7 pages. Did not respond to pages, did
not call into Teletracking every 5 minutes to check for jobs.25
2) Idle from 2:26 pm-2:50 p.m. Received 5 pages and 3 calls from dispatcher.
Did not respond to pages, did not answer the calls from dispatcher, and did not
call into Teletracking every 5 minutes to check for jobs.
30
When Grinage gave Oakes the information, he told him that it had come from Touray and
was from the Teletracking system. Oakes told Grinage “This is going to get blown out of
proportion.” Grinage responded by telling Oakes not to worry about it. Grinage also told Oakes
to write out a statement regarding the times mentioned on the paper. 33Oakes then wrote the
following statement (GC Exh. 35) and gave it to Grinage:35
Calls on Sunday 3/10-2:26 patient Mrs. Smith 10 E/W-From Presby to 10 E/W- any time
in between did call in “no jobs.” Dispatcher never called me.
At the trial, Oakes testified did not recall receiving any direct phone calls from McGough 40
on his pickle phone on March 10. Oakes specifically denied hanging up on McGough on March
10 regarding a job assignment. In addition, Oakes did not recall being paged by the Teletracking
system on that date and failing to respond to the pages.

33 Oakes testimony on this point is uncontradicted as Grinage did not testify at the hearing.
JD–62–14
69
On March 20, Oakes was working when he received a call from Grinage to report to
Touray’s office. When he arrived at Touray’s office, Touray and Grinage were present. Touray
told him that he was terminated and handed him a letter dated March 20, 2013, (GC Exh. 33.)
which states in relevant part:
5
On March 10, 2013 you took two unauthorized breaks while working. Your first
unauthorized break occurred from 1:41 pm until 2:03 pm. You were paged seven
(7) times and did not respond to these pages. Your second unauthorized break
occurred from 2:26 pm until 2:50 pm. You were paged five (5) times and did not
respond to these pages. You were called three (3) times by the dispatcher and did 10
not answer your phone. You also did not call into Tele-tracking every five (5)
minutes as is required for the Transport Tracking Procedures. These are
considered unauthorized breaks.
Your corrective action history is as follows:15
1/23/2012 Final Written Warning in Lieu of a 3-Day Suspension
Unauthorized Break
11/20/2011 Written Warning Unauthorized Absence20
As a result of your actions, your employment with UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside
is terminated effective immediately.
Jayme McGough was called as a witness by the Respondent. McGough testified 25
that she has been a dispatcher in the transportation office for approximately 2 years. McGough
further testified that on March 11, she sent an email to Touray because Oakes’ had been on an
unauthorized break on March 10. McGough also testified that she was not aware that Oakes was
a union supporter when she sent the email. McGough’s email to Touray (GC Exh. 34.) states, in
relevant part:30
Sunday 3/10 I had a small incident with Ron. He was being paged multiple times
by the system, I paged him and I called him 3 times. The first time I called he
hung up on me, the other two he ignored. After I couldn’t reach him he came into
the office and sat down at a table so I called him into transport tracking myself35
since he clearly wasn’t doing anything. I let him know that I called him in and
explained to him that he was paged by the system, myself, and called more than
once so I assigned him to a job since he wasn’t calling in. He said he was not
going to do it because he didn’t pick that job up and I let him know that I picked
up the job for him. He still was saying he wasn’t going to do it so he went over to 40
Darnell. He did end up doing the job I called him in for but I wasn’t sure if I
should still write you an email about it or not with the whole union situation, or if
how it was handled was fine.
McGough did not testify regarding the incidents referred to in her March 11 email.45
JD–62–14
70
Touray testified that she became aware that Oakes took an unauthorized break from the
email that McGough sent her on March 11. After Touray received this email, she retrieved data
from the Teletracking system (R. Exh. 135.) to determine if Oakes had been idle when McGough
claimed that he was. When Touray reviewed the Teletracking records she found a period from
2:26 p.m. to 2:50 p,m. when Oakes was not involved in a transport and was therefore idle. While 5
Touray was reviewing this document she also noticed that Oakes was also idle from 1:41 p.m. to
2:03 p.m. Touray also reviewed the pager history records which indicated the times when Oakes
was paged on March 10. These records reveal that 7 pages were sent to Oakes’ pager number,
2750, between 1:41 p.m.and 2:01 p.m. and that 5 pages were sent to Oakes pager between 2:33
p.m. and 2:47 p.m. (R. Exh. 134A and B.)10
Pursuant to the Touray’s request, on March 12, Grinage sent the following email to her
(R. Exh. 133.):
On Sunday 3/10/13 Ron Oaks (sic) came to me asking what’s wrong with my 15
dispatcher. He was speaking of Jayme McGough, and I asked him what did he
mean. He explained that he came in the office and Jayme told him that he was on
a transport job but he actually didn’t call in and pick one up. He said Jayme
called into the tracking system with his number and assigned him a job. I spoke
with Jayme and she said that she tried to call and page Ron multiple times with no 20
response. She wanted him to take a job before ending his shift to which he still
had 15 minutes left on at the time. I told him that as a dispatcher she is able to call
in so he can be assigned jobs and he will have to take the job he has been
assigned to. He still had 10 minutes left on his shift at that time and he went and
did his job.25
On March 12, Touray sent the following email to Loveridge and Hrivnak (R. Exh. 512.):
On Sunday, 3/10/2013, Ron Oakes took 2 unauthorized breaks. The first was from
13: 41-14: 03, the second was from 14:26-14:50. I was notified of the 14:26 break 30
by an email I received on 3/11/2013 from dispatcher Jayme McGough. While
investigating this unauthorized break, I uncovered the 13:41 unauthorized break
as well.
13:41-14:03-Paged 7 times from 13:41-14:03. Did not respond to pages. Did not 35
call in to check for jobs every 5 minutes as is expected of all transporters. Was not
dispatched on job until 14:03.
14:26-14:50-Paged 5 times, called 3 times by dispatcher Jayme McGough. Did
not answer calls, did not respond to pages. When he came into transport break40
area during this unauthorized idle time, Jayme told him he was expected to take
jobs and respond to pages. She then informed him that she would be calling into
Teletracking on his behalf and dispatching him to his next job assignment since
he would not call in himself. He then went to supervisor Darnell Grinage to
complain that this step was taken by the dispatcher. Darnell explained to Ron that45
he is expected to work until the end of his shift and that Jayme (and all
dispatchers) have the ability to dispatch transporters to jobs themselves if
JD–62–14
71
transporters fail to call in to Teletracking to accept jobs. Darnell informed Brown
that he would need to complete the job he was dispatched to by Jayme. Ron
completed his job at 15:09 and logged out of Teletracking at 15:09.
Attached are supporting documents. The first document is a history of Ron’s5
activity on 3/10/13 in Teletracking. The next two documents are a history of
pages Ron received on his pager on 3/10/13. His pager number is 2750.
The last two documents are statements from dispatcher Jayme McGough and
supervisor Darnell Grinage.
10
Ron is aware that he must accept jobs until 5 minutes before the end of his shift as
he has received corrective action in the past for violating this policy on 1/23/12
for rejecting a job at 2:48 pm on 1/5/2012. His shift on this day ended at 3:00
pm. He is also aware of this policy as it was included in the Transport
Department Handbook that was reviewed with him and provided to him on his15
first day back to work after his reinstatement, 2/25/2013.
Ron Oakes is not here today, but is scheduled to work tomorrow, 3/12/13 from
7a-3p. Please let me know if we should obtain a statement regarding these two
unauthorized breaks.20
Touray testified that she sent her March 12 email to human resources because any time
there is the potential that discipline may be issued, she discusses it with human resources before
issuing it. After the human resources department advised Touray to take a statement from Oakes,
she had Grinage obtain the statement from Oakes that is noted above. Loveridge and Touray then 25
discussed Oakes and agreed that Oakes had taken an unauthorized break on March 10 and should
be disciplined.
Thereafter, the human resources department prepared a “Corrective Action/discipline
Authorization Form.” This document noted that on November 20, 2011, Oakes had received a 30
written warning for an unauthorized absence and on January 23, 2012 had received the final
written warning in lieu of a three day suspension for taking an unauthorized break. Under the
caption “Description of Specific Event” the document indicated:
On March 10, 2013, Ron took two unauthorized breaks while working. His first 35
unauthorized break occurred from 1:41 pm until 2:03 pm. Ron was paged
seven (7) times and did not respond to these pages. Ron second unauthorized
break occurred from to 2:26 pm until 2:50 pm. He was paged five (5) times and
did not respond to these pages is well. Ron was called three times by the
dispatcher and did not answer his phone. These are considered unauthorized 40
breaks.
In addition, Ron did not call into Teletracking every five minutes during this time
as is expected of all Transporters for the Transport Tracking Procedures.
45
This document was signed by the Loveridge, Touray, human resources manager Kathy
Grills and Touray’s manager, Laurie Rack.
JD–62–14
72
Touray testified that after the requisite signatures were obtained on this document a
termination letter was prepared because Oakes was already at the final written warning stage of
the corrective action policy. Touray and Grinage met with Oakes and presented him with the
termination letter on March 20.5
With regard to Oakes conduct on March 10, 2013, the Respondent’s Teletracking record
(R. Exh. 135) shows that Oakes completed a job at 14:2634 and immediately thereafter called in
to check for jobs but did not receive an assignment. Between 2:33 p.m. and 2:48 p.m. Oakes
received 5 pages but did not call into Teletracking during that period. (R. Exh.134A and B.) The 10
Teletracking record also shows that at 13:41 Oakes called in to Teletracking to check for a job
(R. Exh. 135). Between 1:41 p.m. and 1:59 p.m. Oakes was sent 7 pages. (R Exh. 134 A-B).
Oakes called in to accept an assignment at 2:03 PM (R. Exh. 135).
Oakes testified that he did not recall failing to respond to pages from the Teletracking 15
system on March 10. However, with regard to the time period close to the end of Oakes’ shift at
3 p.m., which that was the subject of McGough’s email to Touray, the objective pager history
records shows that Oakes received 5 pages between 2:33 p.m. and 2:50 p.m. before he
responded. The investigation of Oakes’ Teletracking records and pager history that Touray
undertook on her own initiative established that Oakes received 7 pages between 1:41 p.m. and 20
1:58 p.m. before he accepted an assignment at 2:03 p.m.
As noted above, McGough testified only that she sent her email March 11 to Touray and
that she was not aware that Oakes was a union supporter at the time that she sent her email.
McGough did not testify regarding her alleged attempts to reach Oakes by phone on March 10 or 25
any interaction that she had with him when he returned to the dispatch office new the end of his
shift.
I do not find McGough to be a credible witness and I do not credit her testimony that she
did not know Oakes was a union supporter when she sent her email to Touray. The email 30
indicates that while Oakes ended up performing the assignment in question that he had not
originally accepted, McGough “was not sure if I should write you or email about it or not with
the whole union situation.” The only possible explanation regarding the reference to “the whole
union situation” is that McGough was aware that Oakes was a union supporter when she sent the
email to Touray.35
Oakes also testified that he did not recall receiving any direct phone calls from McGough
on March 10. Since McGough did not testify at the trial regarding any attempts that she made to
reach Oakes by phone on March 10, I am unwilling to rely on the claim in her March 11 email
that she attempted to reach him three times by phone as I find such hearsay evidence is 40
insufficient to establish that as a fact. Accordingly, I credit Oakes testimony that he did not
receive any direct phone calls from McGough, and that he did not hang up on one of her calls
While the objective evidence establishes that Oakes failed to respond to pages during the
time periods noted above on March 10, the uncontradicted testimony of General Counsel witness45

34 This document records time in military time.
JD–62–14
73
Gregory Bodeck is instructive on this point. Bodeck worked as both a transporter and a
dispatcher at Presbyterian hospital from March 2010 until November 1, 2013. According to
Bodeck, transporters would often wait for a second or third page before accessing the
Teletracking system. Bodeck indicated that an acceptable reason for such conduct would be if
the transporter was in the restroom. Bodeck also testified, however, that transporters would, at 5
times, not respond to a page immediately because they were waiting to see whether the
assignment would be picked up by another employee. Bodeck credibly testified that he was
never instructed that he had to call into the Teletracking system every 5 minutes when he had his
pager available and that his practice was not to do so. Bodeck also testified that when he had left
his pager home he was instructed that he would have to call in every 5 minutes to ensure that he 10
would receive a job since he was not able to receive pages. In this connection, Touray testified
that the Respondent did not issue discipline to transporters solely on the basis of violating the 5-
minute rule and that it was used only in conjunction with “other behavior.” (Tr. 1505.)
Analysis15
In applying the Wright Line analysis to the allegation that Oakes was discharged in
violation of Section 8(a)(4),(3) and (1) of the Act, it is clear that Oakes was an active supporter
of the Union and that he had participated in proceedings before the Board prior to his March 20,
2014 termination.35 Oakes was named in a prior unfair labor practice charge and was named as a 20
discriminatee in the complaint that issued against the Respondent in the previous Case, 6-CA-
081896 et al. Oakes was reinstated on February 25, 2013 pursuant to a settlement agreement
entered into between the Respondent, the Union and the General Counsel in that case. On
February 25, Oakes attended and spoke at the Union rally held across the street from
Presbyterian Hospital celebrating his reinstatement along with that of employee Frank Lavelle.25
During his interrogation by Touray on March 4, Oakes admitted that he had been involved in
drafting the email that Poston sent to employees regarding his reinstatement and that it was
acceptable to him that his name was used in the email.
Touray’s March 4 interrogation of Oakes establishes that the Respondent knew of his 30
continuing support for the Union after his reinstatement. In addition, the Respondent does not
deny having knowledge of Oakes’ support for the Union and his involvement with NLRB
processes prior to his March 20, 2014 termination.
I also find that the Respondent harbored animus toward the union activities of its non-35
clinical support employees primarily based on the unfair labor practices that I find it committed
herein. With regard to the evidence of motivation regarding the 8(a)(4) allegation, I note that
Touray admitted that she did not agree with the decision to reinstate Oakes pursuant to the
settlement agreement, as she believed his first discharge was appropriate. I also find that the
timing of Oakes’ discharge, coming shortly after his reinstatement pursuant to the NLRB 40
settlement and after Oakes admitted to Touray his continued support for the Union is also
persuasive evidence that the Respondent’s motive in discharging Oakes for the second time was
his union activity and his participation in NLRB proceedings. DHL Express, Inc., 360 NLRB No.

35 The Board applies Wright Line in deciding cases involving allegations of discrimination
arising under Section 8(a)(4). Grand Rapids Die Casting Corp., 279 NLRB 662, 668 fn. 24
(1986).
JD–62–14
74
87, JD slip op. at 7 (2014); Toll Mfg. Co., 341 NLRB 832, 833 (2004). On the basis of the
foregoing, I find that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case under Wright Line,
and the burden shifts to the Respondent to establish it would have taken the same action against
Oakes in the absence of his union activities and involvement in proceedings before the Board.
5
Turning to the Respondent’s defense under Wright Line, the Respondent contends that
Oakes took two unauthorized breaks on March 10, 2013, and that such conduct constituted a
legitimate basis for disciplinary action. The Respondent further contends that since Oakes was at
the last step of progressive disciplinary policy such conduct warranted termination. The
Respondent further contends it has disciplined other employees for conduct similar to that of 10
Oakes.
As noted above, the Respondent contends that Oakes was at the last step of its
progressive disciplinary policy before engaging in the alleged conduct of taking an unauthorized
break on March 10, 2013. In fact, Touray specifically testified that Oakes was terminated for his 15
conduct on March 10 because he was already at the final written warning stage of the
Respondent’s corrective action policy because of his prior conduct. (Tr. 1543-1544).36 In this
connection, the discharge notice that Oakes received on March 20, 2013 (GC Exh. 33)
specifically refers to him as receiving a “Final Written Warning in Lieu of a 3-Day Suspension”
on January 23, 2012, for taking an “unauthorized break.”20
In fact, however, the warning that Oakes was given on January 23, 2012, clearly reflects
on its face that it is a “Written Warning in Lieu of a Three (3) Day Suspension.” for his refusal to
do a transport assignment at 2:48 p.m. prior to the end of the shift at 3 p.m. (R. Exh. 119). The
“Corrective action/Discipline Authorization Form” that preceded this warning also clearly states 25
on its face that it is for a “Written Warning in lieu of a Three (3)-Day Suspension” (GC Exh.
207). The corrective action and discipline authorization form was signed by a human resources
consultant, a human resources manager, a department head and the vice president on dates from
January 17, 2012 to January 20, 2012. There is some ambiguity created by the corrective action
and discipline authorization form, however, because in the second page of that document the 30
following statement appears: “Due to his actions and previous disciplines, Ronald is receiving a
FWW in lieu of a 3 day Suspension.” There is no record evidence explaining the apparent
discrepancy between the second page of the corrective action and authorization form, which
appears from its reference to a “FWW” to mean a final written warning and the first signed page
which reflects only a written warning. Given the fact that the corrective action and discipline 35
authorization form reflecting that Oakes was being given a final warning was reviewed and
signed by four different managers above the supervisory level, I find that the Respondent
intended to give Oakes only a written warning. It is eminently clear that the actual warning given
to Oakes and signed by a management official on January 23, 2012, reflects that it is a written
warning and not a final written warning (R. Exh. 119.)40

36The Respondents corrective action policy (GC Exh. 161, pp. 2-3) specifically provides for
the following steps: verbal warning; written warning; suspension/final written warning; and
discharge/suspension pending investigation. The suspension/final written warning stage provides
that suspension without pay of up to 5 days or a final written warning is used to address
continuing problems were previous action has been effective.
JD–62–14
75
Thus, it appears from the Respondent’s own documents that Oakes was not, in fact, at the
final written warning stage of its progressive disciplinary policy when he was discharged on
March 20, 2013. The Respondent’s action in discharging Oakes when, in fact, he was not at the
final written warning stage of the progressive disciplinary policy supports an inference of
unlawful motivation as it is a deviation from its past practice. Embassy Vacation Resorts, 340 5
NLRB 846, 848 (2003).
As noted above, based only on McGough’s email and without any report of any alleged
misconduct on Oakes’s behalf by Supervisor Grinage, Touray reviewed in detail the
Respondent’s Teletracking and pager history records for Oakes on March 10. Touray did not, 10
however, review the Teletracking or pager history records of other transporters on duty on March
10 in order to compare Oakes activity to other transporters. The General Counsel and the Union
argue that Touray did not conduct a meaningful investigation prior to concluding that Oakes had
taken an unauthorized break that warranted discipline. I note that the Board has found that the
failure to conduct a meaningful investigation has been found to be an important factor in 15
determining whether there is discriminatory intent. K & M Electronics, Inc., 283 NLRB 279,
291, fn. 45 (1987). In support of their contention, the General Counsel and the Union rely on a
log viewer Teletracking record for March 10, 2013, that is kept in military time. (GC Exh. 205)
This document indicates the activity of all of the transporters on that date, using initials to
identify them. For example, Ronald Oakes is identified as “ROAK.” GC Exh. 205 indicates the 20
following activity of other transporters on March 10, 2013:
Transporter CWER checked into the system at 13:17 and was not dispatched until
13:56.CWER also checked in at 14: 32 and did not check him again until 14:53 (GC Exh. 205,
pp.14-18). Transporter ESTA checked into the system at 10:12 and did not check in again until 25
10:45 and was not dispatched until 10:59 (GC Exh. 205, pp. 7-8). TEDM checked in at 14:19
and was not dispatched until 14:36 (GC Exh. 205 pp. 17-18). NPAS checked in at 2:03 and was
not dispatched until 14:41 (GC Exh. 205 pp. 16-17). ADRE logged out of the system at 12:23
and did not log in again until 14:18 and then immediately logged out again (GC Exh. 205, pp. 12,
17). ADRE next checked in at 14:54 (GC Exh. 205 p. 18). Finally, MMCC completed an 30
assignment at 13: 58 and rejected jobs at 13:58, 14:10 and 14:17 before being dispatched at
14:18 to another assignment (GC Exh. 205 pp. 16-17).
The fact that these employees were not shown to have been actively working under the
Teletracking system does not necessarily mean they were not performing work as the Tele-35
tracking system does not account for certain tasks, but the lack of activity during these periods
would appear to have required investigation, in order to determine if Oakes activity on that day
was out of the ordinary.
As noted above, the pager history of employees is automatically written over the 40
computer in a matter of days. The “screen shot” of Oakes’ pager history for March 10 that
Touray took as part of her investigation does show that the transporter assigned to pager 1699
received nine pages between 12:58 p.m.and 1:29 p.m., four of which occurred between 12:58
p.m and 1:08p.m. In addition, the transporter assigned pager 2513 received seven pages between
2:06 p.m.and 2:40 p.m.(R. Exh. 134.) Again, there was no investigation as to why these 45
employees were sent numerous pages without responding.
JD–62–14
76
The record does contain evidence establishing that the Respondent has disciplined other
transporters for taking an unauthorized break. In this regard, a corrective action/disciplinary
authorization form signed by Respondent managers on April 25 and April 26,2011, reflects that
Mariah Jackson was given a written warning in lieu of a 5-day suspension on April 26, 2011, for
taking an unauthorized break. Prior to this incident, Jackson was already at the final written 5
warning stage of the Respondent’s progressive disciplinary procedure, as she had been given a
final written warning on December 20, 2010 for transferring a patient to a wrong location.
Jackson’s corrective action/discipline authorization form indicates that on April 13, 2011, she
finished a patient transport assignment at 9:31 p.m. and became idle. She did not call back into
the transport tracking system to check for pending assignments until 10:10 p.m. During this 10
period there were several attempts to contact her on both her phone and pager to inform her that
there were patients waiting to be transferred. (R Exh, 525, pp. 8-9 )
On August 16, 2011, Joshua Young was given a written warning for taking an
unauthorized break on August 2, 2011, and incorrectly transporting a patient on August 3, 2011. 15
With regard to his unauthorized break, Young was dispatched to assist a coworker in
transporting a deceased patient to the morgue at 1:08 p.m. At approximately 1:20 p.m. his
supervisor noticed that it was taking longer than normal to complete the assignment and both
Young and his coworker were paged. After the supervisor did not receive a call back from either
employee, he proceeded to the morgue and noticed that both transport stretchers were empty and 20
sitting outside of the morgue. After checking with the dispatcher to see if the assignment had
been completed and being informed that it had not, the supervisor returned to the morgue area.
At that point he found Young talking with his coworker while Young’s assignment was still
showing “ in progress” in the Teletracking system. For both the unauthorized break and the
improper transport of a patient, Young was given one written warning. (R. Exh. 525, pp. 10-11.)25
On November 14, 2012, Olivia Horton was given a final written warning in her
orientation period (CP Exh. 18.) The warning indicates “On 11/13/12, at 2:47 pm, you were
instructed by your dispatcher to call into Teletracking and accept a job assignment. You refused
to accept a job assignment and used inappropriate and unprofessional language towards the 30
dispatchers. This does not reflect the values of dignity and respect expected by all UPMC
employees. Additionally, all transporters are expected to except job assignments until 5 minutes
before the end of their shift.”
On January 3, 2013, Bridgette Fields was given a written warning taking an unauthorized 35
break on December 16, 2012. Fields was idle for 139.59 minutes and during this period of time
was paged six times, rejected the work she was assigned in Teletracking and refused to complete
the job assigned to her by the dispatcher. (R. Exh. 525, p. 3)
On January 7, 2013, Jayme McGough was given a written warning in lieu of a 3-day 40
suspension for an unauthorized break. McGough had previously been given a written warning
under the Respondent’s progressive disciplinary policy. Her warning indicated that on December
19, 2012, McGough was idle for 82 minutes. During this time she had been paged twice by tele-
tracking and did not respond. While McGough claimed that she was taking jobs outside of the
system and that a coworker could affirm that, the statement of the coworker indicated he did not 45
recall the jobs that McGough mentioned being completed with him. (R. Exh 528.)
JD–62–14
77
On January 10, 2013, India Johnson was discharged for an unauthorized break during her
orientation period. Johnson had previously received a final written warning during her
orientation period. The January 10, 2013 warning reflects that on December 16, 2012, Johnson
was idle for 78.95 minutes. During this period she was paged three times and was assigned a job
when she called into the Teletracking system but rejected the job. Due to her actions, patients 5
were waiting for transport for an extended period of time. Johnson admitted not accepting the
last call because she would have been late for her bus if she had accepted it. (R. Exh. 525, pp. 1-
2.)
On January 16, 2013, Phillip Johnson was given a final written warning for taking an 10
unauthorized break. Prior to this incident, Johnson was at the written warning stage of the
Respondent’s progressive disciplinary system. Johnson’s warning indicates that on January 8 he
was idle for 51 minutes. During this period of time he was paged 12 times but did not respond.
(R. Exh. 527.)
15
On March 14, 2013, Olivia Horton was given a final written warning for taking an
unauthorized break. Horton had previously received the final written warning during her
orientation period. Horton’s warning indicates that on March 6, 2013, she was at lunch from 9:15
p.m. until 10:45 p.m, and that her lunch should have concluded at 9:50 p.m.. During this period,
Horton was paged multiple times by the dispatcher but failed to respond and did not request 20
permission to extend her lunch by approximately 55 minutes. Horton admitted that she extended
her lunch but claimed that it was due to her losing her debit card and going to look for it (R. Exh.
525, pp. 5-6.)
The above noted warnings establish the Respondent’s disciplinary record regarding 25
unauthorized breaks before it discharged Oakes for an unauthorized break on March 20, 2013.
The Respondent also introduced evidence regarding employees disciplined for taking
unauthorized breaks after March 20, 2013. As I noted in assessing whether the warning given to
Jones was unlawful, such evidence, while relevant, is entitled to less weight in my opinion.
30
The evidence of discipline administered to employees for taking an unauthorized break
after Oakes’ March 20, 2013 discharge consists of the following:
On April 19, 2013, Donald Luffley was given a written warning for taking an
unauthorized break. Luffley’s warning indicates that on April 12, 2013, he was dispatched on a 35
call that took 31 minutes. The warning indicates that taking 31 minutes to travel between the two
units involved “is excessive and is considered an unauthorized break.” (R. Exh. 525, p. 7.)
On October 18, 2013, Ashley McGhee was discharged for taking an unauthorized break.
McGee had previously received a final written warning during her orientation period on July 11, 40
2013. McGhee’s October 18, 2013 warning indicates that on September 21, 2013, she was idle in
Teletracking from 1:49 p.m. until 2:51 p.m. and that this was considered an unauthorized break.
(R. Exh. 525, p. 4.)
Finally, Barry Johnson received a verbal warning on December 20, 2013. Johnson’s
warning indicates: “On December 17, 2013 you completed the transport assignment at 7:25 PM. 45
You then remained idle until your assigned lunch break at 9:04 PM- a total of 1 hour and 35
JD–62–14
78
minutes. During this one hour and 39 minutes period, you were paged 15 times to call into
teletracking and accept a job assignment. You did not respond to these pages. You also did not
call in to check for jobs assignments every 5 minutes. All transporters are expected to
immediately respond to pages in to check Teletracking for job assignments every 5 minutes. This
is considered an unauthorized break.” Johnson received a verbal warning because he had no prior 5
discipline. (R. Exh. 525, p. 14 .)
In assessing the Respondent’s defense, I note that in order to meet the Wright Line burden
of establishing that it would have taken the same action against Oakes in the absence of his union
activity, the Respondent must establish that it has consistently and evenly applied its disciplinary 10
rules. Septix Waste, Inc. 346 NLRB 494, 495-496 (2006). In this regard, as I have previously
noted, an employer simply cannot present a legitimate reason for its action but must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same action in the absence
of the protected activity. W.F. Bolin, Co., supra. While the Respondent has produced evidence
that it has disciplined employees for taking unauthorized breaks, I must consider this evidence in 15
the context of the Respondent mischaracterizing the correct status of Oakes’ position in the
Respondents progressive disciplinary system when it discharged him on March 20, 2013, for
allegedly taking an unauthorized break. As I have noted above, prior to March 20, 2013, Oakes
had received a written warning but had not received a final written warning. I also must consider
the evidence set forth above establishing that Touray focused only on the conduct of Oakes on 20
March 10, 2013, without regard to the manner in which other employees were effectuating their
transporter duties on that day.
In assessing the Respondent’s evidence regarding other employees disciplined for taking
an unauthorized break, I note that the only employee discharged for such an offense prior to 25
Oakes was India Johnson. As noted above, this occurred during her orientation period after she
had received a final written warning. In addition, Johnson had been idle for approximately 80
minutes.
The other employee discharged for taking an unauthorized break was Ashley McGhee. In 30
the first instance, she was discharged on October 18, 2013, after Oakes was discharged and
therefore this evidence is entitled to less weight. While I cannot determine from her termination
letter whether she was still in her orientation period when she was discharged, it is clear that
McGhee did receive a final written warning during her orientation period on July 11, 2013. I also
note that her unauthorized break lasted over an hour.35
Jackson, Fields, McGough, India Johnson, Philip Johnson, Horton, and Barry Johnson
had all been in in “idle” status for longer periods than Oakes. The Respondent’s investigation
clearly established that Young and McGough were not engaged in their duties while India
Johnson and Horton admitted that they had not been working during the period that was 40
considered an unauthorized break. Fields, India Johnson, Horton, and Luffley had either
affirmatively rejected or refused work during the period that they were considered “idle.” Young,
Fields, McGough, and Philip Johnson had all caused delays in patient care.
I find particularly important that Jackson was given a second final written warning for 45
taking an unauthorized break when she was already at the final written warning stage of the
Respondent’s progressive disciplinary procedure. McGough was given a second written warning
JD–62–14
79
for taking an unauthorized break when she was already at the written warning stage of the
disciplinary procedure. Horton was also given a second final written warning for taking an
unauthorized break after she had previously received a final written warning. All these
employees could have received greater discipline under the Respondents progressive disciplinary
policy. 5
Oakes, however, was discharged for his alleged unauthorized break when in actuality he
was at the written warning stage of the progressive disciplinary policy. There is no evidence of
another employee who was beyond the orientation period, who was at the written warning level
of discipline, but was discharged for an unauthorized break rather than receiving a final written10
warning. I also note that it was not affirmatively established that Oakes was not actively working
during the period of his alleged unauthorized break and he did not refuse or reject work. Finally,
there is no evidence to show that he caused any delay in patient care on March 10, 2013.
After considering all of the circumstances, I conclude that the Respondent has not 15
presented sufficient evidence to establish that it has consistently and evenly applied its
unauthorized break policy to Oakes as it is required to do so under Septix Waste, supra. I
therefore find that the Respondent has not produced sufficient evidence under Wright Line that it
would have discharged Oakes for his conduct on March 10, 2013, even if he had not engaged in
union activity or testified before the Board. Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has 20
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Oakes’ discharge violates Section 8(a)(4),
(3) and (1) of the Act.
The March 9, 2013 Discharge of Finley Littlejohn
25
The complaint alleges that Littlejohn was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
Facts
30
Littlejohn began working for the Respondent as a transporter on April 22, 2012. After
approximately 6 months Littlejohn became certified as a monitor technician. Littlejohn worked
on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift and his supervisor was Hank Rankin. According to the credited
testimony of Fishbein, Littlejohn was a member of the committee of employees who were
supporting the Union’s organizing campaign.35
As noted above, Littlejohn left Presbyterian Hospital on the afternoon of February 25,
2013, together with Oakes and Chaney Lewis to attend the rally the Union had scheduled across
the street from the Presbyterian Hospital emergency room. Littlejohn was wearing a
transportation department uniform and his ID badge. (GC Exh. 198.) Several of the Respondent’s 40
security guards, including Donald Charley, the Respondent’s vice president of parking and
security, were standing outside the emergency room entrance to the hospital as the three
employees exited the building and walked across the street to attend the union rally. The
Respondent’s security personnel engaged in surveillance of the rally and reported on it to certain
Respondent administrators. In this connection, an email sent by a security officer to the 45
Respondent’s security administration on February 25, 2013, at 2:45 p.m., indicated that Union
was holding a rally for the employees that had been discharged. The security officer reported that
JD–62–14
80
the employees were at that time walking to Presbyterian Hospital and further reported “Them
being there is a disruption.” On February 25 at 4:38 p.m., Charley sent an email to several of the
Respondent’s administrators, including Hrivnak and Goodman in human resources, that the rally
had been “orderly but loud” and an ended at approximately 3:15 p.m.. (GC Exh. 164.) These
emails did not contain the names of any employees who attended the rally.5
The Respondent’s Teletracking record establishes that Littlejohn began work on February
22, 2013 at 15:02 (3:02 p.m.) (R. Exh. 517.) Littlejohn testified that he had finished transporting
a patient to the Montefiore building at approximately 10:40 p.m. After Littlejohn had delivered
the patient to the designated location, the Teletracking record establishes that Littlejohn logged 10
in to indicate that he had completed that assignment at 22:41:21. The Teletracking record also
establishes that Littlejohn rejected an assignment at 22:41:39. (R. Exh. 517.) Littlejohn testified
that immediately after completing his previous assignment he had a need to use a stall in a
restroom and that he entered the restroom at approximately 10:45 p.m. Littlejohn experienced
some difficulty in the restroom and it took him some time to eliminate the waste from his system. 15
During the period of time that he was in the restroom stall, the Teletracking system paged him at
10:47p.m., 10:50 p.m., 10:57 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. Littlejohn did not immediately answer the
pages because he felt it was “disgusting and unsanitary to answer a page and call on the pickle
phone” while he was in the restroom stall. Littlejohn testified that after washing his hands, but
while still in the restroom, he attempted to call into the Teletracking system but the battery fell 20
out of his pickle phone. (Tr. 1039-1040.) After Littlejohn placed the battery back into the phone,
he received a call from dispatcher Jason Spirk, who asked Littlejohn “what was going on.”37
Littlejohn replied that he had been using the restroom. Spirk told Littlejohn there was a job in the
system and asked Littlejohn if he could handle it. Littlejohn accepted the assignment, which
involved the transport of an emergency room patient to the Montefiore building.38 The 25
assignment took approximately 20 minutes to complete because after Littlejohn arrived at the
emergency room and attached a heart monitor to the patient he had to wait for the doctors and
nurses to finish their notes and release the patient to be transported.
I credit the testimony of Littlejohn that he was in the restroom from approximately 10:45 30
p.m until approximately 11:10 p.m. His testimony in this regard was detailed and plausible and
entirely uncontradicted. I find, however, based on the objective Teletracking report, that he
rejected the assignment to transport a patient from the PACU Center at 22:41:39 (10:41:39 p.m.).
While Littlejohn may have had cause to reject the assignment at that time given the fact that he
was about to enter the restroom, he did not testify that this was the reason. In fact, he did not 35
testify at all regarding the Teletracking record establishing the fact that he called in to reject the
assignment at 22:41:39. I find that the Teletracking system’s record that this assignment was
rejected at 22:41:39 did not occur as a result of the batteries following out of Littlejohn’s pickle
phone. Littlejohn’s testimony clearly establishes that the batteries fell out of his phone while he
was in the restroom and that he entered the restroom at approximately 10:45 p.m. He did not 40
testify that the batteries fell out of the pickle phone in the 17 seconds that elapsed between his

37 The record establishes that the batteries frequently fall out of the pickle phones but can be
reinserted in a matter of seconds.
38 Littlejohn testified he did not recall logging out of the Teletracking system that evening.
The tele-tracking record establishes, however, that he logged out at 23:02:22. ( 11:02:p.m.) This
fact clearly establishes that at 11:02 p.m., Littlejohn's pickle phone was in operation.
JD–62–14
81
entry into the Teletracking system that he had completed his previous assignment and the
assignment to transport a patient from the PACU.
After Littlejohn had taken the patient to the designated location in the Montefiore
building, he returned to the transportation office in Presbyterian Hospital. As Littlejohn arrived 5
at the transportation office, he saw Spirk and apologized for how long the assignment had taken
but that he had to wait for the patient to be released to transport. Spirk said that was “okay” and
that he was going to send Touray an email so that they “will be on the same page” and there
should not be a problem with it. Littlejohn then swiped out at approximately 11:27 p.m. and left
the hospital.10
That evening at 11:44 p.m., Spirk sent an email to Touray regarding Littlejohn. This
email (R. Exh. 70) states in relevant part:
I took over dispatch at 11:00 pm and Pacu central called asking why a monitor 15
tech hasn’t been dispatched to their job which was put in at 10:41 pm. Finley was
the monitor tech and he was idle since 10:41 pm also. They said they were super
busy and demanded a monitor tech, and so I tried to call Finley but no answer. He
picked up around 11: 10 or so and I asked him if he could do the Pacu monitor
patient and he agreed to. So him and Matt Recker took the patient over in their 20
bed. So Finley clocked out at 11:27 approximately. I tried to ask Janelle why
he was idle, and didn’t get the Pacu job? She didn’t know why and said she
missed it.
On Monday, February 25, at 6:48 p.m., Touray replied by email to Spirk’s email and 25
asked him what time he began calling Littlejohn. Touray added: “I will research in Teletracking
on Tuesday-I was out on sick on Monday.”
On Wednesday, February 27, at 3:20 a.m. Spirk responded to Touray by an email stating
in relevant part: “Probably no later than 11:05. I tried and he didn’t pick up until maybe 11:10 or 30
so?”
On February 27, Rankin asked Littlejohn to write a statement about the events of
February 22.39 According to Littlejohn’s uncontradicted testimony, Rankin asked him to write a
statement regarding what happened. When Littlejohn asked “why,” Rankin responded there was 35
nothing to worry about but that Rankin had to give Touray a statement from Littlejohn. 40
Littlejohn’s written statement (GC Exh. 42) is dated February 27, 2013, and states in relevant
part:

39 Littlejohn testified at the hearing that Rankin asked Littlejohn to give him a statement on
February 23, the day following the events at issue. The record clearly establishes, however, that
Touray was not aware of the February 22 incident involving Littlejohn until Monday, February
25. Thus, I find that Littlejohn was incorrect when he testified he was asked to give a statement
by Rankin on February 23 as Touray’s investigation into this conduct had clearly not begun on
that date. I find, based on the record as a whole that Littlejohn gave his statement on the date
indicated on the statement, February 27, 2013.
40 The Respondent did not call Rankin as a witness.
JD–62–14
82
In regards to not answering my pager (4) times & rejecting the call, was that
during the time my pager was going off I was in the bathroom. During the time I
was in the bathroom I dropped the phone while I was about to accept the job. At
no time whatsoever was Finley Littlejohn attempting to defer his duties. Instead 5
Jason called me to complete it around 11:00 PM and since it was over in
[Montefiore] it took 10 min. to do.
On March 9, Littlejohn was called into the transportation office by supervisor Ed Keller.
Keller handed Littlejohn a letter and said that he had to let him go. When Littlejohn asked what 10
for, Keller replied that it was for failing to accept a page. The termination letter that Keller gave
Littlejohn (GC Exh. 39) states, in relevant part:
During your shift on February 22, 2013, you failed to respond to multiple pages
and even rejected it at one point. During the time that you failed to respond and/or 15
rejected the job, you were not on an authorized break. Your actions were
inappropriate and you are considered to have been on an unauthorized break.
The letter further indicated that Littlejohn had received a final written warning in lieu of a
3-day suspension for excessive tardiness on January 2, 2013. The letter also indicated that he had 20
received a final written warning in his orientation period on September 11, 2012, and a verbal
warning on August 1, 2012, for excessive tardiness. The letter advised Littlejohn that he was
terminated effective immediately.
After his discharge Littlejohn filed a grievance with the Respondent regarding his
discharge under the Respondent’s internal grievance procedure. In support of his grievance, 25
Littlejohn submitted a statement denying that he was on an unauthorized break on February 22.
In his statement he indicated that he received the call in question but when he answered the call
the battery in his pickle phone fell out of the phone. He denied that he rejected the call and noted
that he ultimately completed the assignment (R. Exh. 75.)
30
In a letter dated April 1, the Respondent’s then director of human resources, Richard
Hrivnak, denied Littlejohn’s grievance and upheld his termination.
Current employee Jason Spirk testified that he has been a dispatcher in the transportation
Department for approximately 5 ½ years. On February 22, 2013, his shift began at 11p.m. Spirk 35
was replacing dispatcher Janelle Hinds whose shift ended at 11p.m. Spirks asked why the
Teletracking system showed a patient had been assigned to Littlejohn but had not been
transported. Hinds replied that she had missed the job and did not say whether she had tried to
reach Littlejohn. Spirk called Littlejohn but did not reach him. At approximately 11:10 p.m.,
Littlejohn called Spirk and Spirk asked Littlejohn to transport the patient because they were 40
getting complaints from the unit that had requested the transport. Littlejohn accepted the
assignment and, in fact, transported the patient.
Spirks testified that he sent his email to Touray on February 22 because Spirk had asked
Littlejohn to work beyond his scheduled shift and Spirk did not want Littlejohn to be charged 45
JD–62–14
83
with an” unauthorized swipe.” 41 Spirk testified that as of February 22, he was not aware of any
union activity engaged in by Littlejohn nor was he aware of where Littlejohn stood on the
Respondent’s progressive disciplinary policy. Spirk was not interviewed by Touray or any other
management representatives prior to Littlejohn’s discharge.
5
Touray testified that she was not aware that Littlejohn was a supporter of the Union prior
to his discharge. In this connection, Touray indicated that she had never discussed the Union
with Littlejohn nor had she observed him display any support for the Union. With respect to
Littlejohn accompanying Oakes to the union rally on February 25, Touray testified that she was
not at work that day but was rather at home sick. While Touray testified she knew the Union had 10
planned to have a rally on that date she had not seen any pictures of Littlejohn going to the rally
or attending the rally prior to his discharge.
According to Touray, she did not see Spirk’s February 22 email until Monday, February
25, as she does not work on the weekends and she was home sick on February 25. As noted 15
above, Touray replied to Spirk’s email on February 25 at 6:48 p.m. In her email, Touray asked
Spirk when he began calling Littlejohn and informed Spirk she would research Teletracking
information regarding Littlejohn on Tuesday, February 26. In this connection, Touray reviewed
“log time” information from Teletracking regarding Littlejohn’s activities on February 22 (R
Exh. 517.) According to Touray, the log viewer confirmed that Littlejohn had completed the 20
transport of a patient at 22:42:21 (10:42:21 p.m.) and rejected another assignment at 22:42:39
(10:42:39 p.m.). Touray also reviewed the pager history for Littlejohn on that date. (R. Exh.
516.) This document reflects that pages were sent to Littlejohn’s pager ID (0296) at the
following times: 10: 47:17 p.m.; 10:50:52 p.m.; 10:57:29 p.m.; and 11: 00:57 p.m.
25
Touray testified that she submitted the log file viewer, the pager history, Spirk’s email
and Littlejohn’s statement to Loveridge in human resources. A series of emails indicates that
Littlejohn’s statement was the last information that was submitted to Loveridge (R. Exh. 519).
On February 28 at 12 a.m., Rankin sent Littlejohn’s statement to Loveridge and Touray by email.
On February 28 at 11:01 a.m Touray sent an email to Rankin asking “Can you please ask Finley 30
why, if he dropped his phone and this made him reject the job, he didn’t just called back in and
immediately accept the job?” On February 28 at 10:29 p.m. Rankin replied to Touray in an email
indicating “His response was that the battery fell out the phone and he could not reach it and by
the time he was out of the bathroom, Jason called him at around 10:55 p.m. to ask him to
complete the job.”35
On March 1, 2013, at 10:03 a.m., Touray sent an email to Marina Goodman, a human
resources consultant who was filling in for Loveridge, indicating the following: “Marina-See
follow-up below regarding Finley Littlejohn’s potential unauthorized break. “What do you think,
I’m leaning towards still considering this an unauthorized break.” On March 1 at 10:19 a.m. 40
Goodman replied:” I have to agree with you since 14 minutes passed prior to responding to the
call. I will prepare the paperwork for Jaki so, it is ready for Monday. Is that okay?”

41 The record establishes that if an employee swipes in more than 5 minutes before or 5
minutes after a scheduled shift, the employee may be charged with an “unauthorized swipe”
which is considered an occurrence under the Respondents attendance policy.
JD–62–14
84
Touray testified that she spoke to both Goodman and Loveridge regarding Littlejohn and
that a decision was made that he was on an unauthorized break and that the Respondent would
proceed with discipline, which in Littlejohn’s case would be termination based on his previous
discipline record. Loveridge then drafted a corrective action/discipline authorization form (GC
Exh. 41) that listed Littlejohn’s previous discipline record and indicated that the recommended 5
corrective action was discharge. The second page of the document indicating “description of
specific event” states:
February 22, 2013 at 10:41 PM, PACU placed a request for a Transport Monitor
job. Finley was paged to pick up the job; however, he was paged 4x prior to 10
responding to the job.
Below are the following times he was paged:
1st page: 10:47 pm15
2nd page: 10:50 pm
3rd page: 10:57 pm
4th page: 11:00 pm
Finley rejected the job during the page process. In his statement, he states he was 20
in the restroom and dropped the phone and the battery on the phone came off and
was unable to pick up the battery and reconnect it to the phone. Finley finally
responded to the page at 11:00 p.m. and finished the shift at 11:27 p.m.
This document contains Loveridge’s typed name with the date of March 5, 2013. On 25
March 8 it was signed by Human Resources Manager Laura Zaspal; Touray; Lori Rack, who is
Touray’s supervisor; and vice president, Holly Lorenz. There is also the signature of a human
resources representative that Touray could not identify
On cross-examination by the Charging Party, Touray could not recall whether she told 30
Loveridge prior to her preparation of this document that transporters are not required to respond
to pages that come to them immediately prior to the end of their shift. 42 At the trial, Touray
conceded that Littlejohn was not required to respond to the pages at 10:57 p.m. and 11 p.m. that
were listed on the corrective action form that resulted in Littlejohn’s discharge as his shift was
scheduled to end at 11 pm.35
After the corrective action form was returned to the human resources department,
Loveridge drafted the discharge letter that was signed by Supervisor Edward Keller on March 9,
2013 and given to Littlejohn by him on that date.
40

42 As noted above, the UPMC Presbyterian transportation department handbook, paragraph
18, states: "Transporters who log into the Transport Tracking system within 2 minutes of their
scheduled starting time must accept jobs from the Transport Tracking system to a maximum of 5
minutes before the end of the shift (GC Exh. 9, p. 19).
JD–62–14
85
Analysis
In applying the Wright Line factors to Littlejohn’s discharge, it is clear that he was a
supporter of the Union. He was a member of the Union’s employee committee and, on February
25, 2013, openly displayed his support for the Union by walking out of the Respondent’s facility 5
with Oakes and Lewis and attending the union rally held across the street from the emergency
room entrance to Presbyterian Hospital.
The Respondent denies, however, that Touray and Loveridge, the individuals primarily
involved in the decision to discharge Littlejohn, had any knowledge of Littlejohn’s support for 10
the Union at the time he was discharged. In this connection, at the trial, both Touray and
Loveridge denied that they had knowledge of Littlejohns’ support for the Union. There is no
direct evidence that either Touray or Loveridge either directly observed or was informed of
Littlejohn’s union activity before his discharge.
15
The Board has held, however, that knowledge of an alleged discriminatee’s union activity
may rest on circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference may be drawn.
Montgomery Ward & Co., 316 NLRB 1248, 1253-1254 (1995), enfd. 97 F.3d 1448 (4th Cir.
1996). In Montgomery Ward, the Board noted that it has inferred knowledge of union activity
based on circumstantial evidence such as the timing of the alleged discriminatory action; a 20
respondent’s general knowledge of union activity; the respondent’s animus toward union
activity; and the weakness of a respondent’s reasons for the adverse personnel action. Id. at 1253.
Applying the factors noted above, I find that compelling circumstantial evidence supports
a finding that the Respondent, specifically Touray and Loveridge, had knowledge of Littlejohn’s 25
overt support for the Union that he demonstrated on February 25 by walking out of Presbyterian
Hospital with Oakes and Lewis and attending the union rally held across the street. There is
substantial evidence that the Respondent, and specifically Touray and Loveridge, were generally
aware of the Union’s organizing efforts. In this regard, both Oakes and Lewis, prominent and
open supporters of the Union, worked in the transportation department, which was managed by 30
Touray. Loveridge was the human resources representative assigned to work with Touray
regarding labor relations issues in that department. As noted above, the Respondent’s security
personnel engaged in surveillance of the union rally on February 25 and a report regarding this
rally was submitted to Hrivnak and Goodman in the human relations department. Since Oakes
was one of the principal speakers at the rally and was accompanied from the hospital to the rally 35
by Lewis and Littlejohn, I find it reasonable to infer that Touray and Loveridge were informed of
Littlejohn’s open support for Oakes and the Union shortly after it occurred.
As I have noted earlier in this decision, the Respondent’s animus toward the Union’s
attempt to organize its nonclinical support employees is clearly demonstrated by the unfair labor 40
practices I find that it committed. This animosity toward union activities also supports an
inference that Littlejohn’s department manager and the human resources representative assigned
to that department were made aware of the overt union activity he engaged in on February 25.
The timing of Littlejohn’s discharge further supports an inference that his termination 45
was unlawfully motivated. While Littlejohn was not discharged until March 9, Touray began an
investigation into Littlejohn’s actions on February 22, on February 26, after receiving Spirk’s
JD–62–14
86
email informing her that Littlejohn had to stay beyond his scheduled shift to complete an
assignment. Thus, shortly after Littlejohn’s overt union activity on February 25, Touray began to
investigate his conduct on February 22 even though neither Spirk nor Supervisor Rankin had
requested her to do so. Finally, as I will discuss further below, the Respondent’s asserted reasons
for discharging Littlejohn are not convincing.5
Based on the circumstantial evidence as set forth above, I find that the Respondent, and
specifically Touray and Loveridge, had knowledge of Littlejohn’s demonstrated support for the
Union that he exhibited on February 25. In so finding, I do not credit the testimony of Touray
and Loveridge that they had no such knowledge. Based on the circumstantial evidence set forth 10
above, I find such testimony to be implausible based on the record as a whole. In addition, I
found that neither Touray nor Loveridge was impressive as a witness. Both witnesses were
somewhat evasive on cross-examination. In addition, they both testified, at times, in a way that
appeared to be designed to support the Respondent’s defense.
15
Based on the above, I find that the General Counsel has presented a prima facie case
under Wright Line that the Respondent has discharged Littlejohn for discriminatory reasons.
In its defense, the Respondent contends that the evidence establishes that Littlejohn took an
unauthorized break on the evening of February 22, 2013. The Respondent further argues that
during this unauthorized break Littlejohn rejected a job and then failed to respond to four pages20
until he finally accepted a call from his dispatcher and transported the patient before he left
work. The Respondent further contends that Littlejohn’s actions caused a delay of approximately
30 minutes in moving the patient. The Respondent relies on the instances of discipline
administered to transporters discussed above in the section of this decision regarding Oakes’
discharge, in contending that it is consistently disciplined transporters for taking unauthorized 25
breaks.
As noted above, I find that Littlejohn was in the restroom experiencing difficulty from
approximately 10:45 p.m.to 11:10 p.m. on the evening of February 22, 2013. While the
transportation department handbook indicates that a transporter is allowed to be logged out for
lunch for 35 minutes, not surprisingly, there are no specific rules regarding the length of time an 30
employee can spend in the restroom. The practice is the transporters go to the restroom during
the workday as necessary. As noted above, former dispatcher Bodeck credibly testified that
being in the restroom is an acceptable reason for a transporter to fail to immediately respond to a
page.
35
The transportation department handbook also recognizes that transporters have the right
to reject an assignment under limited circumstances. The handbook recognizes that transporters
have the right to reject the last job before their lunchbreak, but then must log out immediately for
lunch after doing so. (GC Exh. 9, p. 15) Obviously, if an employee did not have the right to
reject assignments immediately before lunch, on busy days it would be difficult to have a lunch 40
break.In Littlejohn’s case, while he rejected an assignment, he did so immediately before
entering the restroom, where he remained for approximately 20 to 25 minutes because of the
difficulty he was experiencing.
On February 27, Littlejohn’s immediate supervisor, Rankin asked him to write a 45
statement about the events of February 22. When Littlejohn asked why he had to write a
statement, Rankin responded that there was nothing to worry about but that Touray wanted to get
JD–62–14
87
a statement from him. In Littlejohn’s written statement he indicated that he was in the bathroom
during the time his pager was going off. On February 28, Touray did ask Rankin to find out some
additional information from Littlejohn about why he rejected the job initially and Rankin
furnished some brief information from Littlejohn regarding the battery falling out of his pickle
and and not being able to reach it. Despite being aware that Littlejohn stated that he was in the 5
restroom during the period that he was being paged and the reasons as to why he rejected the job
being unclear, Touray did not personally speak to Littlejohn to find out more about the
circumstances of his restroom stay. As noted above, I find, based on Littlejohn’s trial testimony,
that the batteries fell out of his phone while he was in the restroom. I therefore find that
Littlejohn’s initial rejection of the assignment was not based on the batteries following out of the 10
phone. I find his trial testimony to be more reliable evidence than Littlejohn’s brief statement
submitted to Rankin regarding the reasons for his initial rejection of the assignment. Given that
Littlejohn indicated in his brief statements during the Respondent’s investigation that his
restroom stay was the primary reason he failed to respond to the transport assignment in a more
timely manner, I find that the Respondent’s investigation was somewhat cursory in that it failed15
to clarify the circumstances surrounding his stay in the restroom. I note that the Board has found
an employer’s failure to conduct a fair and full investigation and to give employees the
opportunity to explain their actions before imposing discipline is a significant factor in finding
discriminatory motivation. Publishers Printing Co., Inc., 317 NLRB 933, 938 (1995) enfd.
106F.3d 41 (6th Cir. 1996).20
As noted above, in the discipline authorization form given to Littlejohn regarding his
alleged unauthorized break on February 22, 2013, specifically refers to the fact that he was paged
four times, and that the last two pages occurred at 10:57 p.m.and 11 p.m. It is undisputed that
Littlejohn’s shift was scheduled to end at 11:02 p.m.(since he since he clocked in at 3:02 p.m.). 25
The record clearly establishes that transporters are not obligated to answer pages that they
receive within 5 minutes of the end of their shift. In fact, Loveridge admitted at the hearing that
under the established policy Littlejohn was not required to accept pages within the last 5 minutes
of his shift (Tr. 2217). Loveridge claimed, however, that Littlejohn’s failure to respond to the
first two pages was a sufficient basis for discipline. The fact remains, however, that the 30
Respondent’s official document advising Littlejohn of his corrective action and discharge
specifically refers to the 10:57 p.m.and 11p.m. pages that under the Respondent’s established
policy would not result in any discipline. As noted above, a deviation from past practice when
administering discipline supports an inference of unlawful motivation. Embassy Vacation
Resorts, 340 NLRB 846, 848 (2003).35
With regard to the Respondent’s contention that Littlejohn’s actions caused the delay in
the transport of a patient for approximately a half hour, it appears, that there was, in fact, no
delay in transporting the patient because Littlejohn’s uncontradicted testimony establishes that
when he arrived to transport the patient at sometime after 11:10 p.m., he had to wait while 40
doctors and nurses finished their chart notes regarding the patient before he could transport the
patient.
I find that Littlejohn’s willingness to transport the patient when requested by Spirk, even
though Littlejohn had already logged out of the Teletracking system, is supportive of the fact that 45
he was not taking an unauthorized break in order to avoid his assigned duties, but rather was
justifiably delayed by his necessity to go to the restroom. If Littlejohn was really attempting to
JD–62–14
88
avoid work, he could have claimed at that point that he worked 8 hours and had logged out of the
system. Instead, Littlejohn completed the assignment Spirk asked him to do and did not request
that he be paid overtime for doing so.
The examples of the discipline given to other employees for taking unauthorized breaks 5
does not support the Respondent’s discipline of Littlejohn was based on legitimate business
considerations for the simple reason that none of them involved employees being disciplined
for an unauthorized break while in the restroom. Thus, I find that there is no evidence that the
Respondent has disciplined an employee under circumstances similar to those involving
Littlejohn.10
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Respondent has not established that it has
consistently and evenly applied its unauthorized break policy to Littlejohn as is required to do so
under Septix Waste, supra. I therefore find that the Respondent has not produced sufficient
evidence under Wright Line that it would have discharged Littlejohn for his conduct on February 15
22, 2013, absent his union activity. Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has established
by a preponderance of the evidence that Littlejohn’s discharge violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
The March 28, 2013 Final Written Warning Issued to Chaney Lewis20
The complaint alleges that the Respondent issued a final written warning to Chaney
Lewis on March 28, 2013, in violation of Section 8(a)(4), (3) and (1) of the Act.
The complaint also contains 8(a)(1) allegations related to the alleged discriminatory 25
warning given to Lewis on March 28. Paragraph 19 of the complaint alleges that the Respondent,
by Ed Keller, interrogated employees by asking him to write a statement about their union
membership, activities and sympathies. Paragraph 29 of the complaint of the complaint alleges
that on March 28, 2013, the Respondent, by Touray, disparately enforced its policy regarding
employee use of bulletin boards by prohibiting employees from posting items in support of the 30
Union.
Facts
The credited testimony of human resources consultant Marina Goodman establishes that 35
on March 20, 2013, she observed Chaney Lewis post what appeared to be a newspaper article on
a bulletin board located near a timeclock at the bottom of an escalator in Presbyterian Hospital
that was adjacent to the Falk building.43 Apparently, this article referred to the Union as Lewis
was later disciplined for posting “union related materials” on the bulletin board.
40

43 At the trial, Lewis did not specifically deny posting a union literature on the bulletin board
in question. Rather, he appeared to question the quality of the evidence against him by referring
to previous situations when he posted union literature at the hospital and the Respondent’s
security force clearly identified him as the individual who posted the literature. Goodman's
testimony regarding her observation of Lewis on March 21 posting material on the bulletin board
was consistent on both direct and cross-examination and I credit her testimony in this regard.
JD–62–14
89
Lewis testified that at sometime in March 2013, he was approached by his supervisor, Ed
Keller, who told him that he had been instructed by Touray to obtain a statement from Lewis
because he had been observed posting literature on the bulletin board on the ground floor of
Presbyterian Hospital near the walkway to the Falk clinic. When Lewis replied he did not recall
doing that, Keller said that it had occurred on the prior Wednesday at 2 p.m. Lewis wrote a 5
statement indicating that he did not recall the incident and gave it to Keller.
On March 26, 2013, a “Corrective Action/Discipline Authorization Form” was prepared
by the Respondent indicating that the recommended corrective action for Lewis was a final
written warning in lieu of a 3-day suspension. Loveridge’s name is typed on the document as the10
human resources consultant and several management officials, including Touray, signed the
document on that date. With respect to the description of the events leading to the discipline, the
document states: “On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Chaney was observed posting union-related
materials on the business unit bulletin board at the bottom of the escalators going from PUH to
Falk.” (GC Exh. 49.)15
On March 28, 2013, Supervisor Carolina Clark called Lewis into the transportation
department supervisor’s office and gave him a final written warning. (GC Exh. 31.) This
document states in relevant part: “On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 you were observed posting
unauthorized material on a business unit bulletin Board. This is not appropriate and a violation of 20
UPMC Policy HS-HR 0704, Corrective Action and Discharge.”
On April 5, 2013, Lewis filed a grievance regarding his final written warning pursuant to
the Respondent’s internal grievance procedure. In preparation for his grievance meeting, on
April 26, 2013, Lewis took a photograph of a bulletin board in the GI breakroom which clearly 25
reflects that non-UPMC materials were posted on it. The postings include restaurant menus,
Pittsburgh Steeler tickets for sale, a flyer for a uniform store, and an invitation to a bowling
party. (GC Exh. 47.) Lewis credibly testified, without contradiction, that in his movements
through the hospital as a transporter he observed many bulletin boards with non-UPMC materials
of a similar nature posted on them. He specifically testified that on the bulletin board adjacent to 30
the Falk building he observed signs indicating cars and motorcycles for sale and restaurant
menus.
On April 26, 2013, Lewis met with HR representative, Judy Molli, regarding his
grievance. Lewis told Mollie that he thought it was unfair that he was being given a write up 35
without the incident being captured on a surveillance camera or having a security officer check
his badge to establish a positive identification. Lewis also showed Molli the photograph of the
bulletin board in the GI breakroom that he had taken and told her that there were other bulletin
boards in the hospital with non-UPMC materials posted on them and that no action had been
taken regarding the posting of those materials. Lewis stated that the Respondent only enforced 40
the rule prohibiting the posting of literature on bulletin boards with respect to the union
literature. Molli said she would look into the situation.
In a letter dated May 6, Molli denied Lewis’ internal grievance regarding his final written
warning. However, on May 15, 2013, Lewis received the following letter signed by Touray:45
JD–62–14
90
On March 28, 2013 you were issued a Final Written Warning in Lieu of a Three-
Day Suspension. This notice is to advise you that effective May 15, 2013, the
Final Written Warning in Lieu of a Three-Day Suspension has been expunged
from your personnel file and that such Final Written Warning in Lieu of a Three
Day Suspension will not be used against you and any future personnel actions.5
Analysis
As noted above, on March 26, 2013, Lewis was given a final written warning in lieu of a
3-day suspension. The warning indicates that the basis for it was that Lewis was observed 10
“posting union-related materials” on a bulletin board on March 20, 2013. While Lewis did not
testify that he in fact posted union literature on the bulletin board on the date in question, the
Respondent clearly believed that he had and disciplined him for doing so. The Board has
consistently held that if an employer suspects that an employee has engaged in union activity,
even if the employee has not, in fact, done so, the requirement of establishing an employer’s 15
knowledge of an employee’s union activity is established. Trader Horn of New Jersey, Inc. 316
NLRB 194, 198 (1995); Respond First Aid, 299 NLRB 167, 169 fn. 13 (1990).
As I previously noted in this decision, Register Guard I, 351 NLRB at 1120, makes it
clear that when an employee is admittedly disciplined for using an employer’s equipment, such 20
as a bulletin board, a Wright Line analysis is not appropriate. In the instant case, the warning
clearly indicates that the Respondent disciplined Lewis from posting what it believed to be was
union related materials on a bulletin board. As I have indicated earlier in this decision entitled
“The Alleged Disparate Application of the Respondents Policy Regarding Bulletin Boards,”
Register Guard I sets forth the Board’s current analysis regarding allegations of disparate 25
treatment with respect to the posting of union materials on an employer’s bulletin board.
As noted in that section of the decision, the Respondent permitted the ESS employee
council free use of its bulletin boards at the same time it disciplined Lewis for posting what it
believed to be materials supportive of the Union. Under these circumstances, pursuant to the 30
principles set forth in Register Guard I, the Respondent has discriminatorily applied its bulletin
board policy to employees posting union related materials and has thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. By issuing a final written warning to Lewis based upon its disparate
application of its bulletin board policy, the Respondent has additionally violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. In finding that the Respondent’s conduct also violates Section 8(a)(4) of the 35
Act, I note that the Respondent was aware of the fact that Lewis had participated in proceedings
before the NLRB because he was a specifically named in the settlement agreement that resolved
the first case between the parties. In this regard, on March 4, Touray and Loveridge met with
Lewis to discuss the settlement agreement and the Respondent’s new solicitation policy and how
it applied to him. At this meeting Touray told Lewis that he could not post any material that was 40
not related to UPMC on any bulletin boards in the facility. By disparately applying its bulletin
Board policy to discipline Lewis shortly after this meeting supports a finding that the Respondent
was motivated to retaliate against Lewis because of his prior involvement in NLRB processes.
With regard to the complaint allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by 45
requiring Lewis on March 22 to write a statement about posting literature on the bulletin board,
the Respondent contends that it has the right to investigate the circumstances involving potential
JD–62–14
91
employee misconduct. The cases relied on by the Respondent, Manville Forest Products, 269
NLRB 390 (1984) and Service Technology Corp., 196 NLRB 845 (1972), support the
proposition that an employer may compel its employees to submit to questioning concerning
employee misconduct when the employer’s inquiry is still in the investigative stage and a final
disciplinary action has not been taken. In those cases, the questions were directed to employees 5
in order to determine whether other employees had engaged in misconduct in violation of plant
rules. Here, the Respondent disciplined Lewis admittedly for engaging in union activities under
circumstances that I find violative of the Act and the question went directly to the nature of the
union activity that the Respondent believed he had engaged in. Thus, I find the instant case
presents circumstances that are distinguishable from those present in the cases relied on by the 10
Respondent. Accordingly I find that requiring Lewis to write a statement regarding the union
activity that the Respondent believed he engaged in, and then disciplining him for the same
conduct constitutes an unlawful interrogation and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The April 23, 2013 Final Written Warning Issued to Albert Turner, Turner’s June 18, 2013 15
Discharge and Related 8(a)(1) Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Respondent issued Turner a final written warning on April
23, 2013, and discharged him on June, 18 2013 in violation of Section (8)(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.20
The complaint also alleges the Respondent committed following violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act for which Turner is the principal witness: about April 15, 2013 Carlton Clark
interrogated employees (paragraph 22); on April 15,Tim Nedley demanded to take a photograph
of an employee’s union button (paragraph 23(a)); in April 2013, Tim Nedley required employees 25
to remove pro union insignia (paragraph 34(d)); and on April 16, 2013, Carlton Clark required
employees to remove pro union insignia (paragraph 34(f)).
The 8(a)(1) Allegations Involving Turner
30
Facts
As noted earlier in this decision, Turner began working for the Respondent when it took
over the employee shuttle service in 2010. Turner worked on a split-shift schedule. He would
swipe in at 5:40 a.m. and swipe out at 9 a.m. He would then return to work from approximately 35
1:15 p.m. until 8 p.m. After the Respondent assumed responsibility for the transit department,
Turner’s immediate supervisors were Carlton Clark and Ted Hill. Bart Wyss was then the
Respondent’s operations manager for employee transit. Wyss reported directly to Tim Nedley
the Respondent’s ‘senior director of materials management. The human resources consultant
assigned to the employee transit department was Shannon Corcoran40
Turner testified that after he became involved in the Union’s campaign in 2012 he wore
the union pin that stated “Make It Our UPMC.” He also wore a lanyard with the Union’s logo
that also stated “Make it our UPMC.” In 2013, he also put the same union pin and the union
sticker indicating “We’re With Ron” on his lunch bag that he took to work daily. Turner placed 45
the lunch bag on the console next to his driver’s seat in the shuttle bus where it could be viewed
by passengers coming onto the bus. Since Turner began working for the Respondent in 2012 he
JD–62–14
92
observed other employees wear pins on their uniforms that were not provided by the Respondent.
In this connection, Turner recalled one driver who wore a four leaf clover pin around St.
Patrick’s Day. Turner wore a Pittsburgh Steelers pin during the football season in the presence of
Supervisors Bert Wyss, Ted Hill, and Carlton Clark. No supervisor ever told him he could not
wear his Pittsburgh Steelers pin.5
In the beginning of 2013, Turner also posted flyers in support of the Union on the bulletin
board in the trailer where the drivers swiped in and out of work and placed flyers on the table
located in the trailer. The union flyers would be taken down from the bulletin board and removed
from the table within a day or 2 but Turner never observed who removed them. 44 Turner 10
observed nonhospital materials posted on this bulletin board. He recalled that in the fall of 2012
and employee post information on the bulletin board regarding a trip to the garment district in
New York City. That notice was posted for about 2 weeks but management then asked the
employee to take it down. Turner posted on that bulletin board a flyer he was given by the Union
regarding a 5K race to see how long it would stay up. The poster stayed up for about 2 weeks 15
before it was taken down. On cross-examination, Turner admitted there was, in fact, no 5K race.
Turner also recalled information being posted on the bulletin board regarding the funeral
arrangements for the wife of one of the drivers.
In February 2013, Turner also placed some union flyers on his shuttle bus. Turner 20
testified that he did so after observing that the Respondent had posted a flyer on the bus
indicating opposition to the Union (GC Exh. 10). He also observed another shuttle bus driver
had posted a Philadelphia Eagles’ flyer on his shuttle bus.
Clark testified that in February 2013, he told Turner that Turner should not be wearing 25
his union pin and that the only pins that were permitted were “recognition” pins regarding
service provided to the Respondent. Clark made a note of his conversation with Turner which
establishes the date of the conversation was February 11, 2013 (CP Exh. 33). Clark’s note
regarding February 11, reflects the following: “I had a conversation with Al instructing him that
he was not to distribute the union flyers, and the only pins allowed were for recognition of 30
accomplishments.” Clark’s note also indicates the following with respect to a conversation he
had with Turner on February 12: “Ted Hill and I talked to Albert Turner at approximately 4:00
PM and instructed him that he was not to post or distribute any non-UPMC information
including Union articles on UPMC property, including the bus. I informed him that any further
postings or distribution of union information on company time would be considered 35

44 Keith Lewis, a former supervisor in the Respondent's transit department, testified on behalf
of the General Counsel pursuant to a subpoena. Lewis credibly testified that during he removed
the flyers from the trailer pursuant to instructions from Wyss. Lewis also testified that Wyss told
him that that Turner, “the ringleader” of organizing, had placed the flyers in the trailer. ( Tr.
1130-1131.) While Lewis testified that he recalls this occurring in March through April 2012, the
record as a whole convinces me that he was mistaken as to the date and that Lewis removed the
union literature from the trailer in March or April 2013.
JD–62–14
93
insubordination.”45
Although instructed not to do so by Clark in February 2013, Turner continued to wear his
union pin. On April 11, Lisa Stanicar, one of the Respondent’s managers, sent an email to
Hrivnak, the human resources director, reporting that she had seen union flyers on the bus that 5
Turner was driving. She also reported seeing Turner wearing a union pin on his ID badge and
the “We’re with Ron” sticker on a bag sitting beside the driver’s seat. That same day, Hrivnak
forwarded Stanicar’s email to Wyss. After receiving this report, Wyss obtained permission from
Nedley to have transportation department employee Gary Sargent ride Turner’s shuttle bus in
order to investigate the matter.10
On April 15, 2013, Turner was wearing his ID badge with his “Make It Our UPMC” pin
right above it. Sargent rode Turner’s bus as a passenger to verify that he was wearing his union
pin. After exiting Turner’s bus, Sargent approached Turner while he was stopped and picking up
passengers and asked to take a picture of his name tag. Turner initially refused but when Sargent 15
told him that he worked for Bart Wyss, Turner consented to have his picture taken. Sargent then
photographed Turner wearing his union pin.
After receiving Sargent’s report that Turner was wearing his union pin, that same day
Wyss directed Clark to obtain statements from Turner as to why he was continuing to wear his 20
union pin. Clark and Sargent waited in a car for Turner’s bus to arrive at the Respondent’s
parking lot on Swineburn Street. There were no passengers on Turner’s bus as he drove up the
ramp and entered the parking lot. As he was entering the lot, Turner’s cell phone rang and he
answered the phone. Clark and Sargent observed Turner using his cell phone. After Turner
parked his bus, Clark and Sargent approached Turner’s bus. Clark entered Turner’s bus and 25
asked Turner to provide a statement as to why he continued to wear his union pin. After initially
refusing, Turner wrote a statement that indicated, “I wear the button because I like UPMC.” (GC
Exh. 172.) According to Turner’s credited testimony, after Clark had obtained the statement from
Turner, Clark told him, “You’re not allowed to talk on your cell phone while driving.” (Tr. 962.)
Clark forwarded Turner’s statement to Wyss by email. Clark also submitted to Wyss three 30
reports he prepared regarding this incident (GC Exhs. 19, 21 and CP Exh. 31.)
At 10 a.m. on the morning of April 15, Clark received a voice mail message from Turner
asking him to return Turner’s call. When Clark returned the call, Turner asked Clark if he was

45 There are no complaint allegations regarding Turner's distribution from posting of union
flyers on his shuttle bus and accordingly I make no findings regarding that issue. While the
General Counsel acknowledges that there are no specific complaint allegations regarding Clark's
directive to Turner on February 11 and 12 regarding the distribution of literature and the wearing
of union insignia, in his brief the General Counsel claims that Clark’s statements constitute
violations of Section 8(a)(1). As I noted earlier in this decision, I will not make any findings of
unfair labor practices with regard to matters that that were not specifically alleged as complaint
allegations prior to the General Counsel closing of his case in chief. I note, moreover, that
additional findings regarding these matters would be cumulative as I find in this decision that the
Respondent has committed other unfair labor practices regarding those issues. I have, however,
considered this evidence as background to the specific unfair labor practices involving Turner
alleged in the complaint.
JD–62–14
94
going to be written up for wearing his union pin on his ID badge. Clark informed him that the
matter was being investigated and he could not be sure what would happen. Turner told Clark he
would no longer wear his union pin.
Turner testified that on the morning of April 16, he pulled his bus up to the shelter in the 5
south parking lot and Tim Nedley entered the bus and said, “Let me get a picture of that button.”
Turner then looked out and saw a “Make It Our UPMC” pin on his vest. Turner testified that he
had forgotten the pin was on the vest when he put it on that morning. After Nedley’s statement,
Turner took the union pin off and told Nedley that he had called Clark the day before and told
him he would take all the union pins off but he had forgotten that one. Nedley said, “okay” and 10
left the bus without taking a picture of Turner.
Later that morning, another driver, Williams, told Turner that Clark wanted Turner to go
with him somewhere so that Williams was going to run Turner’s route. Clark drove Turner to
one of the Respondent’s offices located nearby. When Turner arrived in the office, Nedley was 15
present and handed Turner a note pad and instructed him to write a statement as to why he was
still wearing his union pin. Turner dutifully wrote the statement that indicated: “I had forgotten I
had a pin on my vest when I put it on this morning,” (GC Exh. 171) and gave the statement to
Nedley. Turner testified that during this meeting he was also wearing a union lanyard that had
the legend “Make It Our UPMC” on it. Nedley told Clark to get Turner a UPMC lanyard but that 20
Clark did not do so.
Clark’s testimony confirms that of Turner in material respects with respect to this
incident. Clark testified that on April 16, 2013, Turner was at the Respondent’s south side
distribution center when Tim Nedley asked Clark to bring Turner to meet with him. Nedley had 25
been meeting with busdrivers at the facility and had observed Turner wearing his union pin and
informed Clark that he wanted to meet with Turner about wearing his union pin. Clark then
brought Turner to meet with Nedley.
Analysis 30
With respect to the complaint allegation that on April 15, the Respondent demanded to
take a photograph of an employee’s union button in violation of Section 8(a)(1), Sargent first
demanded that Turner consent to have his photograph taken and then in fact photographed
Turner wearing his union pin. The Board has long held that the photographing of employees 35
engaged in protected concerted activities, absent proper justification, has a tendency to intimidate
employees and thus violates the Act. F. W. Woolworth Co., 310 NLRB 1197 (1993); Waco, Inc.,
273 NLRB 746, 747 (1984). In the instant case, Turner was engaging in his protected right to
wear union insignia while driving his bus. It is undisputed that Turner’s work as a busdriver
never requires him to enter into a patient care areas and the Respondent has produced absolutely 40
no evidence that there are “special circumstances” that would privilege it to restrict Turner’s
right to wear his union insignia at work. Accordingly, there is no evidence that the Respondent
had any legitimate justification for photographing Turner while he was wearing his union
insignia. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
demanding that Turner consent to have his photograph taken and by photographing him wearing 45
his union insignia.
JD–62–14
95
As noted above, on April 15, Wyss directed Clark to obtain a statement from Turner as to
why he was continuing to wear his union pin. Pursuant to these instructions Clark asked Turner
to provide a statement as to why he continued to wear his union pin. Applying the factors set
forth in Rossmore House, Scheid Electric, and Intertape Polymer, supra, I find that Clark’s
interrogation as to the subjective reasons as to why Turner continued to wear his union pin 5
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1). In so finding, I rely particularly on the history of
employer hostility to the union activities of its nonclinical support staff employees and
specifically the hostility demonstrated to the union activities of Turner. In addition, I can see no
legitimate basis for the Respondent to inquire as to the subjective reasons that Turner continued
to wear his union pin.10
As described in detail above, the complaint also alleges that on two occasions on or about
April 16, 2013, the Respondent required employees to remove pro union insignia. In the first
incident, on April 15, after Turner was unlawfully photographed while wearing his union pin and
interrogated as to the reasons he was continuing to wear it, Turner called Clark and asked him if 15
he was going to be written up for wearing his union pin. Clark informed him that the matter was
being investigated and that he could not be sure what would happen. Turner then told Clark he
would no longer wear his union pin. Occurring in the context of the unlawful photographing and
interrogation, Clark’s response to Turner’s question can only be construed as an implicit demand
to take the pin off. 20
The next day, April 16, when Nedley observed Turner wearing his union pin, Nedley said
he wanted to get a picture of that button. Turner immediately took the pin off and told Nedley
that he had called Clark the day before and told him that he would not wear any more union pins,
but he had forgotten that one. Wanting to drive home the point that the Respondent would not 25
tolerate Turner wearing any union insignia, Nedley instructed Clark to bring Turner to his office.
Once again, the Respondent, this time by Nedley, directed Turner to write a statement about why
he was continuing to wear his union insignia. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the
Respondent’s actions, through Clark and Nedley, constituted an implicit demand that Turner was
to remove his union insignia and not wear it again. Accordingly, I find that on April 15 and 16, 30
the Respondent compelled Turner to remove his union insignia and that such conduct violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Turner’s Final Warning and Discharge
35
Facts
On April 23, 2013, Clark and Hill approached Turner’s bus as he was completing a route.
Turner testified that Clark and Hill came onto the bus and that Clark gave him a final written
warning (GC Exh. 24) which indicated in relevant part:40
You are receiving a final written warning for safety violation.
On September 28, 2012, you received a written warning for safety violation.
45
On April 15, 2013, you were witnessed with your cell phone to your ear
operating a shuttle bus. On December 27, 2011 you signed the cell phone and
JD–62–14
96
electronic devices policy which outlines the U.S. Department of Transportation’s
rule prohibiting commercial drivers from using a hand-held mobile telephone
while operating a commercial bus or truck. This is also an Employee
Transportation department policy.
5
After Turner read the final written warning, he asked Clark whether he should have
received a verbal warning but Clark replied that an employee did not get a verbal warning for
safety violation.
As noted above, on April 15, when Clark was securing a statement from Turner about 10
why he was continuing to wear his union button, Clark told him that operating a company
vehicle while using the cell phone was a violation of company policy. Turner credibly testified
that from April 15 until he was given his final written warning on April 23, no one in
management had spoken to him about his use of his cell phone on that date.
15
On June 18, 2013, Hill told Turner that Clark wanted to see him in Clark’s office. Hill
drove Turner over to meet with Clark in a commercial passenger that Hill normally used in the
performance of his duties. When Turner arrived at Clark’s office, Clark presented Turner with a
termination notice. (GC Exh. 25.) The termination notice states, in relevant part:
20
On April 23, 2013, you received the final written warning for a safety violation.
To date, you have obtained 7 tardiness occurrences for the departments (sic) SCM
Distribution and Materials Management tardiness policy. Per this policy, you
moved to the next step in the corrective action process.25
The termination notice then listed 7 occurrence dates from December 10, 2012 through
June 7, 2013 when Turner had missed a punch.
According to Turner’s credited testimony, he told Clark this occurred because he 30
supported the Union and Clark not respond. After the discharge meeting was over, Hill drove
Turnerback to where Turner’s car was located. Hill was driving the commercial passenger van
that he normally used in his duties. According to Turner’s credited testimony, Hill stated “I do
not believe it” and added “they should tell me when they are going to fire somebody.” At that
point, Hill’s cell phone rang and he answered it. While Turner could not hear the other speaker,35
he heard Hill speaking to the caller about a about a bus route. (Tr. 979.)
The UPMC Supply Chain Management-Distribution and Materials Management
Tardiness Policy (the tardiness policy) applies to employees in the Respondent’s transit
department. (R. Exh. 17.) According to the tardiness policy the definition of “occurrence” is as 40
follows:
1. A missed punch in Kronos (any occasion when there is no confirmed time
Swipe in Kronos)
2. Swiping in late (tardiness).45
3 Swiping in early without prior supervisory approval.
4. Swiping in early or late without prior supervisory approval.
JD–62–14
97
According to the progressive discipline provision of the policy, employees are disciplined
for accrued occurrences accumulating within a rolling12-month period as follows: For the first
four occurrences, there is no disciplinary action. For the fifth occurrence a verbal warning is
given. For the sixth occurrence there is no disciplinary action. For the seventh occurrence a 5
written warning is given. For the eighth occurrence a final written warning in lieu of suspension
is given. For the ninth occurrence an employee is discharged.
The uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent’s human relations director, Sheila
Heckla, establishes that although the tardiness policy provides that an employee that with nine 10
occurrences will be discharged, the level of discipline may be accelerated if the employee has
received other discipline under the Respondent’s Corrective Action and Discharge Policy. (GC
Exh. 161.) Thus, if an employee has reached the final written warning level of discipline, a
single, subsequent violation of any Respondent policy, including the tardiness policy, may result
in termination. The final written warning given to Turner (GC Exh. 24) indicates that “a 15
violation of any UPMC or department policy shall result in further corrective action, up to and
including termination of employment.”
Analysis
20
Initially, I note that the complaint alleges that the final written warning issued to Turner
and his discharge are discriminatorily motivated, but there are no other complaint allegations
regarding other discipline issued to Turner.
In analyzing the circumstances of Turner’s final written warning and discharge under 25
Wright Line is clear that Turner was openly active on behalf of the Union and that all of the
Respondent’s supervisors in the transit department were aware of his support for the Union. In
fact, the credited testimony of former Supervisor Keith Lewis establishes that Wyss referred to
Turner as a Union “ringleader.” As I have noted previously in this decision, the Respondent has
exhibited substantial animosity toward the Union’s attempt to organize its nonclinical support 30
employees through its commission of multiple unfair labor practices. In addition, however, the
Respondent exhibited substantial animus toward the union activities of Turner. After Turner
refused to acquiesce in Clark’s February 2013 directive to not wear any union insignia at work,
in April 2013, the transit department supervisors launched a campaign against Turner to ensure
that he complied with their demand that he stop wearing union insignia. In this regard, in April 35
2013, Turner was unlawfully photographed while wearing his insignia, unlawfully interrogated
as to why he continued to wear it, and was subject to implicit demands on two occasions that he
remove his union insignia. Faced with this onslaught of unlawful activity, Turner finally stopped
wearing his union pin on April 16. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the General Counsel
has established under Wright Line, supra, that Turner’s union activity was a motivating factor in 40
the employer’s decision to give him a final warning and discharge him. Accordingly, the burden
shifts to the Respondent to show that it would have taken the same action against Turner in the
absence of his union activities.
As I noted previously in this decision, in order to meet its Wright Line burden, the 45
Respondent must establish that it has applied its disciplinary rules consistently and evenly. DHL
Express, 360 NLRB No. 87, JD slip. op. at 7 (2014). In support of its defense with respect to
JD–62–14
98
Turner’s alleged discriminatory final warning for using his cell phone while driving his shuttle
bus, the Respondent notes that on March 27, 2013, employee Janell Saban received a written
warning for using her cell phone while driving her shuttle bus. (GC Exh. 30.) The warning
indicates that Saban admitted to answering her phone while her bus was in operation and
passengers were on board. The warning does not indicate that Sabin had received any prior 5
discipline. The Respondent contends that Saban was given a written warning because that is the
appropriate first step of discipline for safety violation. The Respondent’s corrective action policy
indicates that the violation of a safety rule, depending on the circumstances, may be appropriate
for written warning without prior counseling. (GC Exh. 161, p. 2.)
10
After Turner was issued his final written warning for using his cell phone while driving
his bus, the Respondent issued two other written warnings to employees for cell phone usage
while driving. While this evidence is relevant, since it occurred after the discipline issued to
Turner, I assign it less weight than the evidence regarding the Respondent’s practice with respect
to this issue prior to the discipline issued to Turner. On October 14, 2013, the Respondent issued 15
a written warning to David Byers. (R. Exh. 322.) Byers’ warning reflects that he was observed
by his supervisor using his cell phone while operating a shuttle bus and that he admitted to using
the phone while the bus was in operation. Finally, on November 21, Richard Tyree was issued a
written warning for using his cell phone while operating his shuttle bus. Tyree admitted using the
phone while his bus was in operation. (R. Exh. 323.) Clark testified that both Byers and Tyree 20
were driving on public roads when they were observed using their cell phones.
The General Counsel and the Union contend that the Respondent has disparately applied
its policy regarding the issuance of warnings to employees for cell phone usage. In this
connection, Clark testified that he had received a report from a dispatcher Nancy McCracken that 25
employee Marilyn Showater used her cell phone while operating a shuttle bus. Clark further
testified that he spoke to Showater and that while she did not admit to using her cell phone, he
told her she should not be using her cell phone while driving a bus. (Tr. 2602-2603.) Showater
was not issued any discipline for this incident. I also credit Keith Lewis’s testimony that he
observed Showater’s cell phone use while driving and reported it to both Hill and Clark. (Tr. 30
1135-1136.) According to the portion of Lewis’ pretrial affidavit that was read into the record by
Respondent’s counsel, Showater was driving through the parking lot near the garage when she
was observed on her cell phone. (Tr. 1138)
The General Counsel and the Union also contend that the Respondent has not applied to 35
supervisors its policy of issuing discipline to individuals who use cell phones while driving. On
its face, the UPMC cell phone and electronic devices policy (R. Exh. 12) applies to all of the
individuals employed in the Respondent’s employee transit department. In fact, Wyss
specifically admitted that it applied to both supervisors and employees (Tr. 2536). I find, based
on Turner’s credited testimony, that he observed Supervisor Hill frequently using the cell phone 40
while Hill was driving the commercial van he utilized in the performance of his duties (Tr. 973.)
As I have noted above, former Supervisor Keith Lewis testified on behalf of the General
JD–62–14
99
Counsel.46 Lewis testified regarding a specific incident when he spoke to Wyss while Lewis was
on his cell phone driving one of the Respondent’s trucks. Lewis and Clark were driving to an
accident scene when Wyss called Lewis on his cell phone. When Lewis answered, Wyss asked
him why he was answering the phone while he was in his truck, as he was not allowed to do so.
Lewis responded, “I only answer this phone for two people. My bosses, one is you and one is my 5
wife.” Wyss then asked Lewis where he was going and details of the accident he was
investigating (Tr. 1126-1128.) Lewis testified he received no discipline for this incident. Lewis
also testified that he observed Hill his cell phone while driving one of the Respondent’s vehicles
approximately three times a week. Lewis testified that, while he could not recall specific dates,
he mentioned to Wyss on several occasions that he observed Hill using his cell phone while 10
driving (Tr. 1134.)
Wyss denied talking with Lewis on his cell phone while Lewis was driving (Tr. 2134)
Wyss recalled an incident when he spoke on the phone with Lewis and asked him if he was
driving but Lewis answered that he was not. Wyss further testified that all individuals who were 15
observed using the cell phone while driving had been counseled or disciplined.
I credit Lewis with respect to the conflict in the testimony between Lewis and Wyss.
Lewis’ testimony was detailed and his demeanor reflected that he distinctly recalled the events
that he testified about. I do not think the fact that Lewis had been discharged by the Respondent 20
motivated him to give false testimony. I could detect no animosity toward the Respondent with
regard to the manner in which Lewis answered questions on both direct and cross-examination.
On the other hand, Wyss testified regarding these issues in a somewhat perfunctory manner and
without much detail. On balance, I find that the testimony of Lewis is the more reliable version.
25
In further assessing the Respondent’s defense, I also note that the Respondent conducted
no investigation into the circumstances surrounding Turner receiving a cell phone call as he
entered the parking lot from the entrance ramp. Despite the Respondent’s marked propensity to
obtain a written statement from an employee under investigation for possible discipline, Turner
was never asked to provide a written statement to explain why he had answered his cell phone. 30
This failure to give Turner any opportunity to explain his conduct before issuing a final warning
is in marked contrast to the extensive investigation that was directed toward Turner’s union
activity during the period surrounding April 15. On April 15, when Clark and Sargent observed
Turner on his cell phone, they were at the parking lot to secure a statement from him about why
he continued to wear his union pin. When Turner called Clark to ask whether he would be 35
written up for wearing his union pin, Clark informed him that there was an investigation pending
and he was not sure what would happen. The next day, after Nedley observed Turner still
wearing his union button, Nedley compelled Turner to come to his office and Turner was
required to give another written statement explaining why he was still wearing union insignia.
During this entire period of investigating Turner’s union activity, there was no mention made of 40
his cell phone use. Under the circumstances, I find that the Respondent’s lack of investigation

46 Lewis was employed by the Respondent as the fleet supervisor. He supervised the six
mechanics that were responsible for maintaining the vehicles used in the Respondent's transit
department. Lewis was employed from September 6, 2011, to July 10, 2013, when he was
discharged for directing an employee to operate a vehicle within inspired inspection sticker.
JD–62–14
100
into the circumstances surrounding Turner’s cell phone usage is indicative of a discriminatory
motive with respect to the written warning he was given. Publishers Printing Co., supra.
After considering all the foregoing, I have concluded that the Respondent has not met its
burden under Wright Line of establishing that it would have given Turner a final written warning 5
for his cell phone usage, absent his union activity. While the Respondent has issued a written
warnings to three employees for engaging in cell phone usage, only one of those employees,
Saban, was disciplined prior to the final written warning given to Turner. In addition, Saban was
talking on her cell phone while passengers were on her bus. The written warnings issued to
employees Byers and Tyree both occurred several months after the final written warning issued 10
to Turner. I also note in both instances, these employees were driving their bus on a public road
when they were observed on their cell phone.
As noted above, employee Marilyn Showater was merely given a verbal counseling when
it was reported by both a dispatcher and supervisor Lewis that she was observed on her cell 15
phone while in a parking lot near the garage. While the testimony did not establish the date of
this occurrence, since Lewis testified he observed it, it occurred prior to July 2013, when Lewis
was discharged. Since there is no evidence that Showater had any employees on her bus and was
observed on her cell phone while in a parking lot, I find that the situation regarding her cell
phone use while driving is comparable to that of Turner.20
I also find Turner’s credited testimony establishes that he observed Hill talking on his cell
phone while driving on numerous occasions. The credited testimony of Keith Lewis establishes
that while Lewis was driving one of the Respondent’s trucks, he had a cell phone conversation
with Wyss, under circumstances which establish that Wyss knew that Lewis was driving. In 25
addition, Clark was present with Lewis when this conversation occurred. I also find that that
Lewis informed Wyss on several occasions that he observed Hill using his cell phone while
driving a company vehicle. There is no evidence that Lewis or Hill were ever disciplined for
their cell phone usage while driving. I note that the Board has held that failing to discipline a
supervisor for engaging in similar conduct for which an employee is disciplined, is evidence of 30
disparate treatment. Manimark Corp., 307 NLRB 1059 (1992), enf. denied 7 F.3d 547 (6th Cir.
1993).
After considering all the foregoing, I find that the Respondent has not met its burden of
showing that it has consistently and evenly applied its policy regarding the discipline 35
administered to employees for the use of a cell phone while driving. Accordingly, I find that the
Respondent has not met its burden under Wright Line to establish that it would have given
Turner a final written warning absent his union activity. Accordingly, I find that Turner’s final
written warning violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Because Turner’s final written
warning was unlawful I find that the Respondent was not privileged to rely on it to accelerate 40
Turner’s discipline to the discharge level under its progressive disciplinary policy. As noted
above, Turner had received seven occurrences under the tardiness policy and it requires nine
occurrences for an employee to reach the discharge level under that policy. By relying on the
discriminatorily motivated final warning to accelerate Turner to the discharge level under its
progressive discipline policy, the Respondent’s discharge of Turner also violates Section 8(a)(3) 45
and (1) of the Act.
JD–62–14
101
The Allegations Regarding James Staus
James Staus was the principal General Counsel witness in support of the following
complaint allegations alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Paragraph
9 of the complaint alleges that in February 2013, the Respondent, by Ryan Beaver impliedly 5
threatened its employees because of their union activities. Paragraph 21 of the complaint alleges
that on April 3, 2013, the Respondent, by Beaver, interrogated its employees about their union
membership. Paragraph 31 of the complaint alleges that the Respondent, by Ryan Beaver and
Paul Ondo, disparately applied the Respondent’s solicitation policy to employees who supported
the Union. Finally, paragraph 25 alleges that on April 26, the Respondent, by Paul Ondo, 10
interrogated employees about their union membership.
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent issued verbal warnings to James Staus on
April 4 and April 26, 2013, placed Staus on a performance improvement plan (PIP) on May 14,
2013 and discharged him on July 1, 2013, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.15
Background
The Respondent has a department known as supply chain, which includes various
divisions such as employee transit, contracting, moving and storage, and central supply and 20
distribution. Central supply and distribution involves the moving and maintenance of medical
supplies. The supply chain department is responsible for the supply rooms, which are also
referred to as PAR locations that are located within clinical areas of the hospital. PAR stands for
“preferred amount of reorder.” A PAR level is a threshold amount of a given product that is
determined by a computer. A minimum par is 6 days worth of product. PAR levels are 25
reevaluated every 3 months to 6 months. This is referred to as a PAR reset. The supply rooms are
maintained by supply specialists. Each supply specialist is assigned to specific supply rooms.
Supply specialist have the following primary duties: ordering products, stocking products,
rotating supplies, and maintaining the cleanliness of supply rooms.47 Supply specialists at
Presbyterian Hospital work from approximately 5a.m. until 1:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.30
In early 2013, Ryan Beaver, a senior materials manager, and Paul Ondo, a supervisor,
were assigned to supervise the supply specialists at Presbyterian Hospital. 48 There were 12
supply specialists at Presbyterian Hospital who reported to Ondo and Beaver and these
employees supplied 87 supply rooms. The supply specialists who supplied the operating room 35
supply rooms reported to another manager.
In January 2013, Beaver and Ondo began rearranging the 87 supply rooms they were
responsible for in a process referred to as “PAR rebuilds.” A PAR rebuild involves rearranging
the manner in which materials are stored in a way that is deemed to be more efficient. This 40

47 The Respondent is monitored by various regulatory agencies including the Department of
Health which monitor standards governing supply operations. These standards include that
products must be stored 6 inches above the ground and 18 inches away from the ceiling, and may
not be expired.
48 Beaver also had supervisory responsibility for approximately 11 facilities affiliated with
UPMC and supervised altogether approximately 120 employees.
JD–62–14
102
process ended in approximately the middle of March 2013. After the PAR rebuilds were
complete, Beaver and Ondo changed the department’s ordering system. Prior to this time the
supply chain department in Presbyterian Hospital used a same day ordering system in which
products arrived the day after it was ordered. Presbyterian Hospital was the only hospital in the
UPMC system using the same day method of ordering. Beaver and Ondo instituted a next day 5
ordering system in which products are received 2 days after they are ordered. However, some
units, such as intensive care units and emergency rooms continued to be ordered on an everyday
basis.
Clinical employees constantly go into supply rooms throughout the day to obtain needed 10
supplies. At times, employees from one unit will go to the supply room in another unit to obtain
supplies if the supply room in their unit does not have what is needed. As noted above, supply
specialists are finished with their work at approximately 1 p.m. and consequently do not see their
assigned supply rooms until the next morning.
15
The February 2013 8(a)(1) Allegation
James Staus began to work as a supply specialist for the Respondent in 2006 at
Presbyterian Shadyside hospital. In 2012 Staus began to openly support the Union. In this
connection, he wore a pin indicating “Make It Our UPMC” and placed union literature in the 20
loading dock area of the hospital and in the supply specialist locker room.
From the time he was hired in 2006 until he went on medical leave in December 2012,
for knee surgery, Staus did not have permanent assignment regarding the supply closets he was
responsible for. Rather, he was a “floater” and filled in for supply specialists that were absent or 25
on vacation. From the time he began working for the Respondent until 2013, Staus had not been
disciplined or counseled for his job performance. His evaluations for the period from 2006
through 2008 indicate generally that he met or exceeded the requirements of his position (GC
Exhs. 104, 105, and 106). His evaluations for the period from July 2010 to July 2011 (GC Exh.
183) and July 2011 to July 2012 (GC Exh. 184) indicate indicates that overall he was rated as a 30
“Solid, Strong, Good Performer.”
When Staus returned from his medical leave on February 13, 2013, he was assigned for
the first time the task of attending to specific supply closets. Staus was assigned nine supply
rooms, a number consistent with those serviced by the other supply specialists. At this time Staus 35
was the only one of the 12 supply specialist to openly support the Union.
According to Staus’s uncontradicted testimony, shortly after his return to work in
February 2013, he attended a meeting with the other supply specialists and Beaver and Ondo.
Staus was wearing his union button that indicated “Make It Our UPMC.” Beaver asked Staus 40
whether he was “going to continue to put up the union stuff.” (Tr. 1231.) Staus replied, “Yes. It’s
my right.” Beaver then indicated that Staus did not need a union as it “takes all your money in
union dues and people hate it.” Beaver added that a person he knows who is in a union received
only a 3 percent raise last year. Staus replied that he had received only a 2 percent raise.
Although Beaver and Ondo testified at the hearing, they did not testify regarding this 45
conversation.
JD–62–14
103
I find that Beaver’s statement to Staus in the presence of other employees that he did not
need a union, as a union takes all your money in union dues and people hate it, is not an implied
threat that violates Section 8(a)(1). Beaver’s statement regarding the payment of dues reflects the
economic reality that unions collect dues from employees they represent. The statement does not
convey any implicit threat of reprisal against employees for selecting a union. Office Depot, 330 5
NLRB 640, 642 (2000). The portion of the statement indicating that Staus did not need a union
and that “people” hate having dues deducted is not a threat but merely an expression of opinion
that is protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I shall dismiss this allegation in the
complaint.
10
The 8(a)(3) Allegations and the April 2013 8(a)(1) Allegations Regarding Staus
Facts
On April 3, 2013, Staus was wearing on his uniform a “We’re with Ron” sticker that he 15
had been given by the Union. Beaver saw the sticker and asked Staus if he was “coming out.”
Staus replied “no”, it’s for Ron Oakes who had been fired twice. Beaver asked him if it was a
union thing and Staus replied that it’s a grass roots union effort to get Oakes’ job back because
he was fired under a policy that nobody has followed before or since and that his firing was
illegal in the view of union supporters. Later that same day, Staus saw Beaver again and told him 20
that Staus did not appreciate that Beaver had called his sexuality into question. Beaver asked
Staus what he was talking about as Beaver did not understand what Staus meant. Staus stated
that Beaver said that he was “coming out.” Beaver said that if he had offended Staus, he was
sorry.
25
On April 4, Ondo paged Staus to meet him on the loading dock. When Staus arrived both
Beaver and Ondo were present. Beaver told Staus that he had to write him up because Beaver
had talked to HR earlier that day and that he had to verbally warn him about his “We’re With
Ron” sticker and his “Make It Our UPMC” button. Beaver handed Staus a verbal warning dated
April 4, 2013 and signed by Beaver(GC Exh. 185), which stated the following:30
James Staus received a verbal warning from Ryan Beaver, Senior Manager,
Materials Management, due to wearing the stickers and buttons on his uniform
that were not approved under UPMC policy.
They were:35
A sticker that said “We’re with Ron” and “Make it our UPMC”
Management expects James Staus to take advantage of this verbal warning. He
was informed that any further violations of hospital/department policy will result
in a next step in the corrective action process.
40
Staus credibly testified that from his return to work in February 2013 through April 2013
he observed employees working in the same areas as he did wearing lanyards and buttons that
were not related to the Respondent. In this connection, Staus regularly observed employees
wearing lanyards and pins displaying support for the Pittsburgh Steelers, Penguins and Pirates.
Staus had a Pittsburgh Penguin’s lanyard that hung out of his pocket and was attached to his 45
work keys. Staus also saw an employee with a lanyard that indicated “Zoo Med” although he
testified he did not know what that referred to.
JD–62–14
104
In June 2013, Ondo approached Staus at work and told him that the verbal warning he
received on April 4 was being rescinded. When Staus asked why Ondo merely walked away
without answering him. In this regard, the Respondent’s human resources department issued a
memorandum to Staus, dated June 21, 2013, and signed by both Staus and Ondo which indicates5
that the verbal warning that Staus received on April 4, 2013, for wearing union buttons and
stickers on his uniform was rescinded from his file. (GC Exh. 186.)
For the reasons expressed above in section of this decision entitled “The Alleged
Disparate Enforcement of the Solicitation Policy Regarding Union Insignia” I find that 10
Respondent applied its solicitation policy in a disparate manner by barring employees from
wearing union insignia at work while permitting employees to wear other nonofficial insignia.
Accordingly, I find that the verbal warning given to Staus on April 4, 2013, violates Section 8
(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I also find that by asking Staus if he was “coming out” after observing
him wearing his union sticker and pin, Beaver unlawfully interrogated Staus under the standards 15
set forth in Rossmore House, Scheid Electric and Intertape Polymer Corp., supra. While by that
point, Staus was an open and known union adherent, the answer to the question that Beaver
asked Staus about his union sticker and pin was used by the Respondent to give Staus a
discriminatory warning. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by unlawfully interrogating Staus regarding his union activity.20
According to the testimony of Staus, in April 2013 he placed union literature in the
employee break room and on a table in the dock area where supply specialists swiped in for their
shift. Ondo testified that in April 2013 he observed union materials placed on the table in the
employee break room. Ondo also testified that he observed union materials posted in a bulletin 25
board in the dock area where employees swiped in and also on the refrigerator in the break room.
The testimony of both Staus and Ondo regarding this issue was brief. During his testimony,
Staus did not deny posting union materials on the bulletin board and on the refrigeration. While I
did not find Ondo to generally be a credible witness, I credit his testimony on this issue as it is
corroborated by the language of the warning given to Staus on April 3.. I also note that Staus did 30
not specifically denied posting union materials on the bulletin board in the dock area and on the
refrigerator. Accordingly, I find that Staus placed union literature on tables in both the employee
break room and in the dock area where employees swiped in. I also find that he posted union
material in the bulletin board in the dock area and on the refrigerator in the break room.
35
On April 26, Ondo asked Staus if he had distributed union literature. Staus indicated that
he had and stated that it was his right to do so. Ondo told him that it was against company policy
and that he would have to write him up for it. Staus testified that he did not receive anything in
writing regarding this incident. A document subpoenaed by the General Counsel and introduced
into evidence further establishes that on April 26, 2013,Staus received a verbal warning from 40
Ondo “due to posting union materials in the employee break room and on the dock at
Presbyterian Hospital that were not approved under UPMC policy.” (GC Exh. 110.)
Staus’ testimony establishes that he placed union literature in nonworking areas and
Ondo specifically admitted that he observed union materials placed on the table in the employee 45
break room. There is no evidence that Staus distributed union materials during working hours.
The Board has long held that employees have a Section 7 right to distribute union literature
JD–62–14
105
during nonworking time in nonworking areas of an employer’s premises. Stoddard -Quirk Mfg.
Co. 138 NLRB 615, 621 (1962); St. John’s Hospital, 222 NLRB 1150 (1976,) enfd. in part 557
F.2d 1368 (10th Cir. 1977); Hale Nani Rehabilitation, 326 NLRB 335 (1998). While the
warning given to Staus on April 26, 2013, indicates that it was given to him because he had
“posted” union materials in the employee break room, Ondo’s testimony establishes that the 5
Respondent was also aware that union material was distributed in the employee break room.
Since the employee break room is clearly a nonworking area, the warning given to Staus is
discriminatory and violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.49 The fact that Staus also posted
union literature on the bulletin board in the dock area and on the refrigerator in the break room
does not privilege the Respondent to issue him a warning for that conduct. As I have noted above 10
in the section of this decision entitled “Alleged Disparate Application of the Respondent’s Policy
Regarding Bulletin Boards,” the Respondent has maintained a discriminatory policy with regard
to the posting of union materials on bulletin boards. Accordingly, the warning given to Staus on
April 26, 2013, is also violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) on that basis.
15
The Placement of Staus on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) and his Discharge
On May 14, 2013, Staus was called to Beaver’s office, where Ondo and human resources
representative Shannon Corcoran were also present. At this meeting, Beaver gave Staus a
“Performance Improvement Plan Document” (PIP). (GC Exh. 187.) Beaver read the document 20
aloud to Staus and told him that they were trying to help him. The PIP listed Staus’ alleged
performance deficiencies, which included products missing from his supply rooms, products
stored in an incorrect manner,and the unit directors and clinicians in some departments not
knowing Staus’ name and not having his pager number. The PIP also noted that Staus had been
observed taking excessive breaks. With respect to the goals and objectives of the PIP, the 25
document indicated that Beaver and Ondo were to monitor Staus’ units “looking for outages”
and that they would review issues on a daily basis with Staus as they occur. It also indicated that
Beaver and Ondo would determine if all of the regulatory protocols for storage were met and, if
not, photographs would be shown to Staus. It further indicated that Staus was to meet with the
directors of each unit and share his pager number with the clinical staff. It also instructed Staus 30
to complete computer courses involving “Time Management” and “Basics of Effective
Communication” and return the completed certificate for these courses to Beaver or Ondo by
May 27, 2013. The PIP document also indicated that Beaver, Ondo, and Staus were to have a
weekly meeting to discuss performance improvement and deficiencies. Finally, the PIP indicated
that Staus’ performance would be formally reviewed on the plan ending date, June 28, 2013, and 35
that if Staus’ performance improvement was not satisfactory, further action would be taken, up
to and including termination.
Staus testified that he was not asked to explain anything about his job performance at this
meeting and that he had not seen this action coming. Both Beaver and Ondo testified that at the 40
end of the meeting, Staus testified that he understood and that he was going to “go putz around in
his supply room.” I do not credit the testimony of Beaver and Ondo on this point, as it appeared
that they were attempting to portray Staus as indifferent to this action. I find this testimony to be
implausible. Staus, an employee who had a good work record up until this point, had been given

49 Since the complaint does not allege that Respondent’s solicitation and distribution policy is
facially unlawful, I make no findings regarding the rule itself.
JD–62–14
106
a document alleging that he had serious performance deficiencies that, if not corrected, could
result in his termination. Staus’ demeanor did not suggest to me that he would react to this
situation in the flippant manner described by Beaver and Ondo.
Beaver and Ondo testified that prior to giving the PIP to Staus they had received 5
numerous phone call complaints about his performance from unit directors, clinicians, and
nurses. Beaver and Ondo also testified that in April 2013 they began to counsel Staus . Ondo
testified that he worked with Staus in his supply rooms to show him what he was doing wrong.
According to Beaver, when the efforts to counsel Staus were unsuccessful, Beaver contacted
Corcoran to discuss the next step. According to Beaver, Corcoran advised him to provide 10
corrective coaching. Thereafter, Beaver and Ondo continued to counsel Staus about his
deficiencies in maintaining his supply rooms.
Staus testified that he was not notified of any of complaints set forth in the PIP before it
was given to him and that neither Beaver nor Ondo had expressed concerns to him about his job 15
performance.
The testimony of Beaver and Ondo that they extensively counseled Staus prior to giving
him the PIP is not corroborated by any documentary evidence. In this connection, there are no
emails predating the PIP reflecting complaints regarding the job performance of Staus. In 20
addition, there are no notes of any counseling sessions that either Beaver or Ondo had with Staus
prior to giving him the PIP. At the hearing, Ondo conceded that putting an employee on a PIP is
a “last resort.” (Tr. 2276.) Thus, it would appear, before proceeding to the PIP stage, there would
be some documentary evidence reflecting complaints regarding Staus and what steps were taken
to correct any performance deficiencies. The lack of evidence corroborating the testimony of 25
Beaver and Ondo in this regard convinces me that it is another attempt by them to overstate the
performance deficiencies of Staus. Accordingly, I credit Staus’ testimony that he was not advised
of the alleged deficiencies in his performance and counseled regarding how to correct them
before he was given the PIP.
30
Pursuant to the PIP, either Beaver or Ondo performed daily audits of Staus’ supply rooms
to determine whether the supply rooms for properly stocked and maintained in the appropriate
fashion. (R. Exhs. 149-152, 154-156, 158-160, 162-165, 168-177). The daily audits were
conducted in the afternoon after Staus had completed his work day. The daily audit report was
dated on the date it was performed and listed the stock numbers used to order a product if the 35
supply room was out of such a product. The daily audit reports contained in the record reflect
that often Staus’ supply rooms would be out of a number of items. For example, the daily audit
for May 23, 2013 (R. Exh. 154), reflects that the supply rooms serviced by Staus were out of a
total of 31 items. On May 28, Staus’ supply rooms were out of 55 items, (R. Exh. 155); on May
31, 31 items were missing (R. Exh. 158); and on June 3, 63 items were missing (R. Exh. 159). 40
Other daily audits reflected, however that between 10 to 20 items were missing and at least one
day, May 29 (R. Exh. 156) no items were reported as missing. The morning after an audit either
Beaver or Ondo would give Staus the daily audit report.
Also pursuant to the terms of the PIP, Staus met weekly with Ondo to discuss the issues 45
set forth in the PIP. Beaver attended many these meetings but not all. These meetings lasted
JD–62–14
107
approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Before the meeting, Beaver or Ondo would give Staus an
agenda of the items to be discussed regarding the manner in which Staus was performing his job
and what steps should be taken to improve. (GC Exhs. 107-109, 189-192.)
The weekly agenda minute for June 5, 2013, contains a handwritten notation reflecting 5
“retraining 6/5/13” after the printed question “What can we do to help improve?” Staus credibly
testified that when he was asked if there was anything that Ondo or Beaver could do to help
improve his performance Staus replied that he would take any training they had as he wanted to
improve. Shortly thereafter, he worked with Ondo on two occasions. On the first occasion, Staus
would prepare the order for one supply room and Ondo would prepare the order for another 10
supply room and they then compared notes to see what, if anything, Staus was doing wrong.
Staus testified that Ondo could not point out to him any problem with what Staus had done. On
another day Ondo worked with Staus while he stocked his supply rooms. According to Staus,
Ondo did not inform him of anything he was doing wrong and he did not observe Ondo perform
the job in a different manner than he did.15
Several of the weekly agendas contain references to “email from units.” Staus was
generally not provided information regarding these emails. At one meeting, however, Staus was
provided with copies of emails that Gina Barry, the supervisor in unit 9D, had sent to Ondo and
Beaver, indicating that her unit was getting low on supplies and, in some instances, had run out 20
for an item. Staus testified that he discussed with Ondo how Barry had a tendency to exaggerate
the status of her supplies, and that Ondo had agreed with him. Ondo did not refute this testimony
and I credit Stuas’ uncontradicted testimony on this point.
Staus credibly testified that because he had difficulty accessing the online courses on the 25
hospital’s computer, he was given additional time to complete the online courses by Ondo.
Staus’ testimony is corroborated by the agenda for the June 26, 2013 weekly meeting, signed by
Ondo, which reflects that Staus had completed the courses by that date. (GC Exh. 192.) I do not
credit the testimony of Beaver and Ondo that Staus was not given additional time to complete the
online courses as the comments in the June 26, 2013 weekly agenda merely reflects that the 30
courses were completed, not that they were completed late.
While there are some references to photographs in the weekly agendas, the only
photographs that Staus was given during the period of the PIP were photocopies of four
photographs provided to him at the June 12 meeting. (GC Exhs. 193a-d.) I find that Staus 35
testified credibly regarding the photographs that were shown to him. With respect to GC Exh.
193a, at the hearing Staus identified it as a picture of a pallet on the loading dock that was not
stacked properly Staus testified Ondo and Beaver told him that it was his pallet and should not
be stacked like that, but that Staus had responded to them that because of the poor quality of the
photograph he could not be certain it was his. There are no identifying marks on the photograph 40
to clearly establish that the pallet was in fact stacked by Staus. Even if it was, however, it is only
one photograph of a an allegedly improperly stacked pallet
GC Exh. 193b is a photograph of a cabinet in unit 9D, which Staus was responsible for.
Staus acknowledged that the blood tubes pictured in the photograph were not stacked properly 45
and told Beaver and Ondo that he would not have left them in that condition. According to Staus,
they told him that it did not matter who did it but that he should just clean it up. With respect to
JD–62–14
108
GC Exh. 193b, the photograph was marked “6G,” which is a unit that Staus is responsible for.
Staus was told the photograph shows that there was an overstock of syringes. Staus reminded
Ondo that he had spoken to him and asked him if he could leave the syringes there and at the
time Ondo had replied that it was fine. According to Staus, Ondo replied that he thought that
they were all going to be used that day5
With respect to the photograph depicted in GC Exh. 193d, Staus acknowledged that it
showed an overstock of blood tubes. Staus testified that 6G is an ICU unit and the clinical
personnel in that unit went through a lot of this item and that he would tend to overstock them on
purpose because of that. Staus testified that he and other supply specialists would at times 10
overstock items that they knew a unit would use a lot of, rather than not having enough. Strauss
acknowledged, however, that the rule was that items should not be overstocked above the PAR.
On July 1, 2013, the Respondent terminated Staus in a meeting he attended with Beaver
and Ondo. Staus was given a PIP conclusion document (GC Exh. 195) that states that there had 15
been no improvements in keeping his supply rooms clean. The document also indicates “Paul
Ondo and Ryan Beaver have taken many pictures of product residing in the wrong spot, bins
being unkempt,” and regulatory policies being ignored. With regard to communication, the PIP
conclusion document states that while Staus met with unit directors, he had not communicated
back to them “when they call for missing items.” With respect to the ordering of items, the 20
document indicated there had been no improvement and further states that Staus averaged at least
30 missing items at the end of each day and there had been days when he had been out of 60
items. The document also indicates that while Staus completed the “time management” computer
course but there was no record of him completing the “Basics of Effective Communication.”
25
According to Staus’ credited testimony, there was no discussion about the PIP conclusion
document when he was terminated and he was not given an opportunity to respond to the
conclusion set forth in the document. After the document had been given to him and read by
Beaver he was escorted from the facility by security. I do not credit the testimony of Beaver and
Ondo that Staus laughed during this meeting. I find that, as with other parts of their testimony, 30
this was an effort to support the Respondent’s position that Staus was indifferent to his job at the
hospital. I saw nothing in Staus’ demeanor at the trial that would indicate that he saw any humor
in being discharged from a job that he had held for 7 years.
Analysis35
In applying the Wright Line analysis to the allegation that Staus was placed on a PIP and
discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it is clear that Staus was an active
and known union supporter. In this regard Staus wore union insignia that was observed by his
direct supervisor. Staus had also distributed literature on behalf of the union at the facility and 40
posted literature on a bulletin board. When questioned about whether he had distributed union
material at the facility by Ondo, Staus readily admitted that he had done so.
I also find that the Respondent harbored animus toward the union activities of its
nonclinical support employees based on the unfair labor practices that I find it committed. In 45
addition, the Respondent harbored specific animus toward the union activities of Staus, the only
open union supporter among the supply specialists. The Respondent demonstrated this animus by
JD–62–14
109
virtue of the unfair labor practices discussed above specifically directed to Staus’ conduct in
wearing union insignia and distributing and posting union material at the facility.
As noted above, on April 26, Ondo asked Staus if he had distributed union literature at
the facility. Staus admitted that he had done so and resolutely told Ondo that it was his right to 5
do so. Ondo told Strauss that it was against company policy to distribute union literature in the
facility and that he would have to write him up for doing so. Ondo then prepared a verbal
warning dated April 26, 2013, because of Staus’ conduct in posting union materials in the break
room and in the dock area. On May 14, 2013, Staus was placed on a PIP, approximately 3 weeks
after he was unlawfully disciplined for distributing union literature on April 26, 2013. The timing 10
of the placement of Staus on a PIP, shortly after Staus asserted his right to distribute union
literature at the facility, is persuasive evidence that the Respondent’s motive in placing Staus on
a PIP was his union activity. DHL Express, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 87, JD slip op. at 7 (2014); Toll
Mfg. Co., 341 NLRB 832, 833 (2004). Based on the credited testimony of Staus, I find that he
was not given any prior warning by either Ondo for Beaver that his work performance was 15
considered to be deficient. Despite this lack of any prior warning, Staus was placed on a PIP
which the Respondent views as a last resort in correcting employee deficiencies. This lack of any
prior warning prior to being placed on a PIP is a further indication of a discriminatory motive.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the General Counsel has established a prima facie case 20
under Wright Line that Staus’ placement on a PIP and his discharge pursuant to the PIP was
discriminatorily motivated and the burden shifts to the Respondent to establish that would have
taken the same action against Staus in the absence of his union activities.
The Respondent contends that Staus was placed on a PIP and ultimately terminated 25
because the new management team of Beaver and Ondo concluded that he did not meet the
requirements of his position. In assessing the Respondent’s defense, I found particularly
probative the credible testimony of Sean Matulevic, who was called as a witness by the General
Counsel. At the time of the hearing, Matulevic was employed as a supply specialist at
Presbyterian Hospital and had worked there since May 2011. Matulevic worked with Staus and 30
was supervised by Ondo and Beaver. While Staus was off from work because his knee surgery
from December 2012 to February 2013, Matulevic supplied the supply rooms in units 6F and 6G
that were assigned to Staus upon his return to work. Matulevic testified that 6F and 6G are ICU
units and would go through a lot of items. He testified that both units had two supply rooms
supply rooms and that made ordering supplies somewhat more difficult because of the lack of 35
space in each one. Matulevic testified that when he supplied unit 9D, another unit normally
serviced by Staus, Matulevic noted that the clinical personnel in that unit went through a high
volume of supplies. He also noted that the clinical personnel who used that supply room would
often leave it in somewhat more disarray than supply rooms in other units. Matulevic also
testified that when Ondo and Beaver instituted the new ordering system in March 2013, while he 40
did not have a problem adjusting to it, some of the other supply specialists did. Specifically with
respect to Staus, Matulevic testified that Staus did not keep his supply rooms as orderly as most
of the supply specialists but that he was not the worst in that regard.
Gina Barry, the unit director of unit 9D, testified that Staus did not keep the supply room 45
stocked during the period of time that he serviced her unit and that she had to constantly call for
more supplies. Barry further testified that Staus’ performance never improved during the time
JD–62–14
110
that he was the supply specialist assigned to her unit. While Barry’s testimony regarding her
request for more supplies is corroborated by emails that she sent to Ondo and Beaver, I have
credited Staus’ testimony that Ondo agreed with him that Barry would exaggerate the lack of
supplies in her unit. Consequently, I do not assign much weight to this aspect of her testimony
With regard to the portion of her testimony indicating that Staus’ performance never improved, I 5
find it to be conclusionary and I give it little weight.
.
Leslie Poston, the health unit coordinator in unit 9D, testified that when Staus finished
stocking supply room in unit 9D it was clean, but within hours after being used by the unit
personnel, it would be in disarray. She also testified that employees from other units would also 10
asked to take supplies from unit 9D when they had run out. Poston testified that during the time
that Staus supplied the unit 9 supply room, no one had complained to her about a lack of
necessary supplies. Poston’s testimony regarding the fact that the supply room in unit 9D would
often become somewhat messy throughout the afternoon is corroborated by Matulevic’s
testimony. The fact is, however, that it is the responsibility of a supply specialist to maintain a 15
degree of order in the manner in which materials are stored. While no one may have complained
to Poston about the lack of necessary supplies while Staus serviced the supply room in unit 9D,
her supervisor Barry, did in fact make some complaints in this regard. Accordingly, I find
Poston’s testimony regarding Staus’ job performance to have limited probative value.
20
In support of its position that it relied on nondiscriminatory considerations in placing
Staus on a PIP and ultimately discharging him, the Respondent relies on the fact that it placed
supply specialist Matthew Schmidt on a PIP on October 14, 2013. Schmidt’s PIP indicates that
his performance deficiencies involved a significant amount of missing product. In this regard, the
PIP noted that after the Respondent began to audit Schmidt’s supply rooms on September 11, he 25
was out of 48 items in 10 locations. The PIP also noted that Schmidt stored products in a manner
that was not in accordance with the regulatory guidelines. Beaver testified that Schmidt was
terminated during the PIP because of an attendance infraction which automatically results in the
termination of an employee on a PIP. While the placement of Schmidt on a PIP for issues similar
to that involving Staus is supportive of the Respondent’s defense, the fact that it occurred 30
approximately six months after Staus was placed on a PIP, and an unfair labor practice charge
was filed, lessens its evidentiary value. In addition, the fact that Schmidt was ultimately
terminated for attendance rather than his performance is also a distinguishing factor from Staus’
situation.
35
The Respondent also relies on the fact that Theresa Thompson, a supply specialist at
UPMC Hamot in Erie, Pennsylvania, was placed on a PIP in February 2013. (R. Exh. 411.) I
note that in the instant proceeding, the Respondent denies that it is a single employer with
UPMC, but nonetheless contends that the placement of Thompson on a PIP in another hospital
affiliated with UPMC supports its position that the action taken against Staus was 40
nondiscriminatory. While Beaver did not directly supervise Thompson he had some involvement
with the “documentation” of the PIP (Tr. 1948.) Thompson’s PIP reveals that her performance
deficiencies involved incorrectly storing products. The PIP also notes that because Thompson
did not follow the established guidelines for scanning the items in the supply closets, and this led
to items being out of stock in multiple “par locations.” Finally, the PIP reflects that Thompson 45
failed to follow directions given by management and relied on previous practices that were
contrary to current policies. Prior to the completion of her PIP, Thompson was discharged
JD–62–14
111
because of an attendance violation. Since Thompson did not work at Presbyterian Hospital, I find
that her placement on a PIP has limited value in assessing the placement of Staus on a PIP and
his ultimate discharge. For example, there is no record evidence indicating that at the UPMC
Hamot facility the placement of an employee on a PIP is considered to be a last resort as it is at
Presbyterian Hospital.5
The Respondent also relies on the fact that Mary Fisher, who was employed as a supply
team lead in the UPMC Hamot facility in Erie, Pennsylvania, was placed on a PIP on May 7,
2012, and terminated at the conclusion of that plan on June 25, 2012. The PIP conclusion
document reflects that Fisher was unable to demonstrate leadership qualities to the staff that she 10
was responsible for. The document also notes that Fisher did not improve in providing accurate
information to other hospital employees and she did not utilize the standard inventory practices,
but rather created her own procedure that was proven to be ineffective in managing the
inventory. As with Thompson, the fact that Fisher did not work at Presbyterian Hospital, but at
another facility related to UPMC, lessens the value of this evidence. In addition, Fisher held a 15
different position, team leader, from that of Staus and was terminated because of an inability to
communicate and implement the facility’s procedures. Thus, I find Fisher’s placement on a PIP
and her discharge for failing to meet the requirements set forth in her PIP to involve
circumstances substantially different than those involving Staus.
20
The General Counsel and the Union contend that the Respondent’s treatment of supply
specialist Barbara Mathis establishes that the Respondent treated Staus in a disparate manner. In
this regard, they argue that Mathis had similar documented performance problems to those of
Staus but was never placed on a PIP or subject to any discipline. Mathis was a supply specialist
at Presbyterian Hospital at the same time that Staus was employed. Beaver testified that because 25
of concerns about Mathis’ performance, she was subject to daily audits for several months
beginning on June 12, 2013. The daily audit for June 17, 2013, reflects that there were
“complaints from Units that they were “consistently out of items.” This document also reflects
that other rooms were overstocked and that there were items stored on the floor and overflowing
product was coming out of bins. (GC Exh. 91, p. 4.) During the period between July 18, and 30
September 23, 2013, Ondo received email complaints from approximately 5 unit directors whose
supply rooms were stocked by Mathis. The complaints included supply rooms being in disarray,
overstocked items and missing items. (GC Exh. 91, pp. 7-10, 13.) The daily audit for September
17 reveals that the areas serviced by Mathis were out of 54 items, that rooms needed to be
cleaned and that there were broken bins and dividers. (GC Exh. 91, p. 12.) On September 18, the 35
rooms supplied by Mathis were out of 31 items, some rooms had overstock and rooms needed to
be “straightened out.” On September 25, the supply rooms stocked by Mathis were out of 51
items and rooms needed to be cleaned and overstock removed. (GC Exh. 91, p.14.) Beaver
testified that Mathis was never placed on a PIP because she responded well to coaching.
40
As I have noted previously in this decision, in order to meet its burden under Wright Line,
an employer must establish that it has consistently and evenly applied its disciplinary policies.
DHL Express, Inc., supra, JD slip op. at 7; Septix Waste, Inc., 346 NLRB 494, 495-496 (2006.)
The Respondent has placed one other employee, Schmidt, on a PIP for performance related
problems similar to those of Staus but this action occurred after Staus was placed on a PIP and 45
ultimately discharged for allegedly not improving his performance. As I have noted above,
however, the Respondent’s action toward Schmidt occurred several months after the placement
JD–62–14
112
of Staus on a PIP and therefore I give it less weight to conduct that occurred before or during this
same period that Staus was evaluated. Moreover, Schmidt was ultimately discharged for having
an occurrence during the period he was on the PIP, which resulted in his automatic discharge.
Thus, the circumstances of his discharge is not comparable to that of Staus, since he was not
discharged for failing to complete the requirements set forth in the PIP.5
The placement of employees Thompson and Fisher on PIPs is distinguishable from Staus’
situation as they occurred at a different facility than the Respondent. In addition, Fisher held a
different position, supply lead, and was placed on a PIP ultimately discharged because of her
inability to effectively demonstrate leadership and communication skills.10
I find that the evidence establishes that the Respondent treated Staus in a disparate
fashion from Mathis. Both employees held the same position contemporaneously. Shortly after
Staus engaged in open union activity, he was placed on a PIP, without receiving prior counseling
and was then discharged for allegedly failing to improve his performance. Mathis, on the other 15
hand, was closely monitored from June to September 2013, and at the end of that period was still
having the same performance related problems of missing products, overstocked items and
disorderly supply rooms. While Beaver claims that Mathis was not placed on a PIP because she
responded well to coaching, the objective evidence described above establishes that his
testimony in this regard is not credible. While the objective evidence establishes that Staus had 20
performance related issues, they were similar to those involving Mathis, but he was treated in a
much different fashion. Under the circumstances, I find that the Respondent has not met its
burden under Wright Line to establish that it would have placed Staus on a PIP absent his union
activity. Accordingly, I find that his placement on a PIP violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.25
With respect to his discharge, the evidence described above establishes that the
Respondent has not discharged any other supply specialist for performance related problems.
Rather, the evidence indicates that the Respondent tolerated similar performance from Mathis
without the imposition of any disciplinary action. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent’s 30
discharge of Staus also violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of 35
the Act by:
(a) Denying nonemployee organizers access to its cafeteria by causing the police to
remove them while permitting other visitors and guests of hospital personnel to use the cafeteria.
40
(b) Engaging in the surveillance of conversations and meetings between employees and
union organizers.
(c) Engaging in the surveillance of employees meeting with union organizers by requiring
employees to produce identification.45
JD–62–14
113
(d) Discriminatorily prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia in patient care
areas while permitting employees to wear insignia regarding other entities not related to the
hospital in patient care areas.
(e) Prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia in nonpatient care areas.5
(f) Discriminatorily prohibiting employees from posting union materials on its bulletin
boards while allowing the ESS employee council to post materials on its bulletin boards.
(g) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their union activities.10
(h) Threatening to discipline employees for refusing to participate in an unlawful
interrogation.
(i) Impliedly threatening an employee with a poor evaluation because of her union 15
activities.
(j) Instructing employees they were not allowed to post any union materials on bulletin
boards.
20
(k) Coercively requiring employees to write a statement regarding their union activities.
(l) Demanding employees’ consent to be photographed and photographing employees
engaged in union activity without proper justification.
25
(m) Coercively informing an employee that the manner in which she solicited statements
from employees during its internal grievance process was the reason a warning had been
rescinded.
2. The Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) 30
of the Act, by dominating, interfering with the formation and administration of, and rendering
unlawful assistance in support to the ESS employee council.
3. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by:35
(a) Issuing a final written warning to Felicia Penn because of her union activity.
(b) Suspending and issuing a final written warning to Leslie Poston because she used its
email system to send a union related message.40
(c) Discharging Finley Littlejohn because of his union activities
(d) Issuing a final written warning and discharging Albert Turner because of his union
activities45
JD–62–14
114
(e) Issuing a verbal and written warning to James Staus, placing him on a Performance
Improvements Plan (PIP) and discharging him because of his union activities..
4. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(4), (3)
and (1) of the Act by:5
(a) Discharging Ronald Oakes because of his union activities and because he was named
in a prior unfair labor practice charge
(b) Issuing a final written warning to Chaney Lewis because of his union activities and 10
because he was named in a prior unfair labor practice charge.
5. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6) and (7) of the Act.
15
6. The Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall 20
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
I order that the Respondent withdraw all recognition and completely disestablish the ESS
employee council and refrain from recognizing it, or any successor, as a representative of any of 25
the Respondent’s employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning terms
and conditions of employment.
The Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged Ronald Oakes, Albert Turner, Finley
Littlejohn, and James Staus, must offer them reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of 30
earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB No. 8 (2010).
The Respondent, having discriminatorily suspended Leslie Poston must make her whole 35
for any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with Ogle
Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest at
the rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
40
I shall order the Respondent to compensate the above-named employees for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump sum backpay awards and to file a report with the
Social Security Administration allocating backpay awards to the appropriate calendar quarters
for each employee. Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10 (2014).
45
JD–62–14
115
In the complaint the General Counsel sought the following additional remedies for any
unfair labor practices I may find in this proceeding: (a) a 120-day notice posting period; (b) a
reading of the notice “at a meeting or meetings of UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside employees,
scheduled to ensure the widest possible employee attendance, during working hours in the
presence of the Board agent.”; (c) grant the Union access to public areas in the UPMC 5
Presbyterian Shadyside facilities with the right to speak to employees during employees’ non-
working time; and (d) “[d]uring the period that the NLRB Notice to Employees is posted in
connection with this proceeding, allow current employees to post Union literature and notices on
its bulletin boards and all places where notices to employees are customarily posted within
Respondent’s UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside facilities.” In their briefs, the General Counsel and 10
the Union argue in support of these additional remedies, while the Respondent opposes the
imposition of any additional remedies beyond those usually provided for.
I deny the General Counsel’s request for 120-day notice period as neither the General
Counsel Union nor the Union has provided any authority for extending the Board’s traditional 60 15
day notice posting period.
In considering the other special remedies sought by the General Counsel, I note that the
Board has held that in determining whether additional remedies are necessary to fully dissipate
the coercive effect of unlawful discharges and other unfair labor practices it has broad discretion 20
to fashion a remedy to fit the circumstances of each case. Pacific Beach Hotel, 361 NLRB No.
65 slip op, at 2-3 (2014); Excel Case Ready, 334 NLRB 4-5, (2001). In this regard, the Board has
held that a public reading of the notice is an “effective but moderate way to let in a warming
wind of information, and more important, reassurance.” Federated Logistics & Operations, 340
NLRB 255, 256 (2003) citing J.P. Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 417F.2d 533, 539-540 (5th Cir. 25
1969). In the instant case, I find that the unfair labor practices of the Respondent justify the
additional remedy of a notice reading. The Respondent responded to the Union’s organizing
campaign with extensive and serious unfair labor practices. In the first instance, the Respondent
has engaged in numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As part of its campaign in
opposing the Union, and in order to dissuade employees from supporting it, the Respondent 30
formed and dominated the ESS employee council in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the
Act. In addition, the Respondent discharged four employee supporters of the Union, including
three of the most visible, Oakes, Turner, and Staus. The Board has noted that the unlawful
discharges of union supporters are highly coercive and that is particularly true when employee
leaders of the union movement have been terminated. Excel Case Ready, supra, at 5.35
While the potential unit of nonclinical support employees that the Union is attempting to
organize is large, approximately 3500 employees, the Board has granted a notice reading remedy
when serious unfair labor practices have been committed in a relatively large unit. In this
connection, the Board granted a notice reading remedy in Audubon Regional Medical Center, 40
331 NLRB 374 (2000). In that case, the union was seeking to represent a unit of approximately
650 employees. During the union’s campaign, the employer engaged in several violations of
Section 8(a)(1) and discharged one employee and denied three other employees certain positions
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Given the seriousness of the of the
Respondent’s unfair labor practices in the instant case, which were committed in several 45
different departments, I find that a reading of the notice to the employees the Union is seeking to
JD–62–14
116
organize, the Respondent’s nonclinical support employees, will serve to appropriately
ameliorate the lasting impact of the Respondent’s coercive conduct.
As noted above, I have broad discretion in terms of fashioning an appropriate remedy.
Although the General Counsel did not specifically request a broad order as a remedy, I find that 5
the Respondent has engaged in such egregious and widespread misconduct so as to demonstrate
a general disregard for employees’ statutory rights and I will therefore issue a broad order
requiring the Respondent to refrain from violating the Act “in any other manner,” instead of a
narrow order to refrain from engaging in conduct violative of the Act “in any like or related
manner.” Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). The Board has noted that a broad order can 10
be appropriate even when a respondent has not been shown to have committed prior violations of
the Act, when the conduct engaged in is egregious or widespread. Federated Logistics &
Operations, supra at 258 fn. 9.
I find that my order that the notice be read to the Respondent’s nonclinical support 15
employees and the issuance of a broad order are sufficient special remedies to address the unfair
labor practices that occurred herein. Accordingly, I deny the General Counsel’s request that the
Union be given access to public areas in the Respondent’s facilities with the right to speak to
employees during their nonworking time. The Board has typically granted such a remedy in
circumstances different than those present in the instant case. For example, while the Board 20
granted such a remedy in United States Service Industries, Inc., 319 NLRB 231 (1995), the
employer in that case was a third time recidivist with a long history of opposition to the statutory
rights of its employees. In Audubon Regional Medical Center, supra, the Board imposed such a
remedy, in addition to other special remedies, in lieu of granting a bargaining order under NLRB
v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. (1969), and in conjunction with a direction of a second election.25
I also deny the General Counsel’s request that during the notice posting current
employees be permitted to post union literature and notices on bulletin boards and in all places
where notices are customarily posted. Given the notice reading remedy and broad order I am
ordering in this case, I do not believe this additional special remedy is warranted under the 30
circumstances present here. While such a remedy was granted in United States Service
Industries, supra, as noted above, that case involved a serial recidivist. In Excel Case Ready, the
Respondent committed egregious unfair labor practices, including the discharge of 3 employees,
in a relatively small unit of 32 employees which exacerbated the effect of those unfair labor
practices. In Blockbuster Pavilion, 331 NLRB 1274 (2000), this special remedy, in addition to 35
others, was imposed in lieu of granting a Gissel bargaining order.
While I have found that the Respondent has discriminatorily applied its bulletin board
policy, I find that, under the circumstances of this case, the Board’s traditional remedy for such a
violation is sufficient, as modified by the Board’s analysis in Register Guard I, supra. See Vons 40
Grocery Co., 320 NLRB. 53, 57 (1995) and Honeywell, Inc., 262 NLRB 1402, 1403 (1982).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended50

50 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules,
JD–62–14
117
ORDER
The Respondent, UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
5
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Denying nonemployee organizers access to its cafeteria by causing the police to
remove them while permitting other visitors and guests of hospital personnel to use the cafeteria.
10
(b) Engaging in the surveillance of conversations and meetings between employees and
union organizers.
(c) Engaging in the surveillance of employees meeting with union organizers by requiring
employees to produce identification.15
(d) Discriminatorily prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia in patient care
areas while permitting employees to wear insignia regarding other entities not related to the
hospital in patient care areas.
20
(e) Prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia in nonpatient care areas.
(f) Discriminatorily prohibiting employees from posting union materials on its bulletin
boards while allowing the ESS employee council to post materials on its bulletin boards.
25
(g) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their union activities.
(h) Threatening to discipline employees for refusing to participate in an unlawful
interrogation.
30
(i) Impliedly threatening an employee with a poor evaluation because of her union
activities.
(j) Instructing employees they were not allowed to post any union materials on bulletin
boards.35
(k) Coercively requiring employees to write a statement regarding their union activities.
(l) Demanding employees’ consent to be photographed and photographing employees
engaged in union activity without proper justification.40
(m) Coercively informing an employee that the manner in which she solicited statements
from employees during its internal grievance process was the reason a warning had been
rescinded.
45

be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–62–14
118
(n) Forming, dominating, and rendering unlawful assistance to the ESS employee
Council, or any other labor organization
(o) Issuing verbal or written discipline to its employees, suspending its employees,
placingits employees on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), or discharging its employees 5
for engaging in union activities
(p) Issuing written discipline or discharging its employees because they were named in an
NLRB charge or participated in a Board proceeding.
10
(q) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
15
(a) Withdraw recognition from and completely disestablished the ESS employee council,
and refrain from recognizing the ESS employee council, or any successor thereof, as
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning
terms and conditions of employment.
20
(b)Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Ronald Oakes, Albert
Turner, Finley Littlejohn, and James Staus full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
25
(c) Make Ronald Oakes, Albert Turner, Finley Littlejohn, James Staus, and Leslie Poston
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(d) Compensate Ronald Oakes, Albert Turner, Finley Littlejohn, James Staus, and Leslie 30
Poston for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay awards, and
file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay awards to the
appropriate calendar quarters for each employee.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any 35
reference to the unlawful discharges of Ronald Oakes, Albert Turner, and Finley Littlejohn, and
within 3 days thereafter notify these employees in writing that this has been done and that the
discharge will not be used against them in any way.
(f) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any 40
reference to the unlawful placement on a PIP and discharge of James Staus and within 3 days
thereafter notify the him in writing that this has been done and that his placement on a PIP and
discharged will not be used against him in any way.
(g) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any 45
reference to the unlawful suspension and written warning given to Leslie Poston and within 3
JD–62–14
119
days thereafter notify her in writing that this has been done and that the suspension and written
warning will not be used against her in any way.
(h) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful verbal and written warnings issued to Felicia Penn, Chaney Lewis, 5
Albert Turner, and James Staus and within 3 days thereafter notify the in writing that this has
been done and that the written warnings will not be used against them in any way.51
(i) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board 10
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(j) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Pittsburgh, 15
Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”52 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed 20
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these 25
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
February 21, 2013.
(k) During the time the notice is posted, convene the non-clinical support employees,30
during working time at the Respondent’s Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania facility, by shifts,
departments, or otherwise, and have a responsible management official of the Respondent read
the notice to employees or permit a Board agent, in the presence of a responsible management
official of the Respondent, to read the notice to employees.
35

51 While the Respondent rescinded the written warnings issued to several employees, the
Respondent either gave no reason or unclear reasons as to why the warnings were rescinded. I
believe it is necessary to have the written warnings rescinded pursuant to this decision and order
so that employees are made expressly aware that the warnings were unlawful and were rescinded
through operation of law.
52 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD–62–14
120
(l) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges 5
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 14, 2014.
10
____________________
Mark Carissimi
Administrative Law Judge
15
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT deny nonemployee organizers of the SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania,
CTW, CLC, or any other union, access to our cafeteria by causing the police to remove them
while permitting other visitors and guests of hospital personnel to use the cafeteria.
WE WILL NOT engage in the surveillance of conversations and meetings between
employees and union organizers.
WE WILL NOT engage in the surveillance of employees meeting with union organizers
by requiring employees to produce identification.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily prohibit employees from wearing union insignia in
patient care areas while permitting employees to wear insignia regarding other entities not
related to the hospital in patient care areas.
WE WILL NOT prohibit employees from wearing union insignia in nonpatient care
areas.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily prohibit employees from posting union materials on our
bulletin boards while allowing the ESS employee council to post materials on our bulletin
boards.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogating employees regarding their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discipline employees for refusing to participate in an
unlawful interrogation.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten an employee with a poor evaluation because of her
union activities.
WE WILL NOT instruct employees that they are not allowed to post any union materials
on bulletin boards.
WE WILL NOT coercively require employees to write a statement regarding their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT demand employees’ consent to be photographed and photograph
employees engaged in union activity without proper justification.
WE WILL NOT coercively inform an employee that the manner in which she solicited
statements from employees during our internal grievance process was the reason a warning had
been rescinded.
WE WILL NOT form, dominate, and render unlawful assistance to the ESS employee
council, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT issue verbal or written warnings to our employees, suspend our
employees, place our employees on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), or discharge our
employees for engaging in union activities.
WE WILL NOT issue written warnings or discharge our employees because they were
named in an NLRB charge or participated in a Board proceeding.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the ESS employee
council, and refrain from recognizing the ESS employee council, or any successor thereof, as a
representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning terms and
conditions of employment.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Ronald Oakes, Albert
Turner, Finley Littlejohn, and James Staus full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Ronald Oakes, Albert Turner, Finley Littlejohn, James Staus, and Leslie
Poston whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
WE WILL compensate Ronald Oakes, Albert Turner, Finley Littlejohn, James Staus and
Leslie Poston for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay awards,
and file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay awards to the
appropriate calendar quarters for each employee.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful discharges of Ronald Oakes, Albert Turner, and Finley Littlejohn, and
within 3 days thereafter notify these employees in writing that this has been done and that the
discharge will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful placement on a PIP and discharge of James Staus and within 3 days
thereafter notify him in writing that this has been done and that his placement on a PIP and
discharge will not be used against him in any way.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful suspension and written warning given to Leslie Poston and within 3
days thereafter notify her in writing that this has been done and that the suspension and written
warning will not be used against her in any way.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful verbal and written warnings issued to Felicia Penn, Chaney Lewis,
Albert Turner, and James Staus and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writing that this has
been done and that the warnings will not be used against them in any way.
UPMC PRESBYTERIAN SHADYSIDE
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1000 Liberty Avenue, Federal Building, Room 904, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4111
(412) 395-4400, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/06-CA-102465
or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (412) 395-6899.