Valerie Nursing Home

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 51 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

VALERIE NURSING HOME
Valerie Nursing Home and National Union of Hospital
& Nursing Home Employees , Local 1199H, Retail,
Wholesale & Department Store Union , AFL-CIO.
Case 9-CA-6079
January 25, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On September 20, 1971, Trial Examiner Robert
Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief, and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt his
recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Valerie
Nursing Home, Dayton, Ohio, its officers , agents,
successors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
found herein.
CHAIRMAN MILLER , dissenting in part:
I do not believe that a casual request to see notes
taken at a Board hearing, standing alone, constitutes
coercive interrogation.
I therefore dissent from the finding of that particular
8(a)(1) violation.
' The Trial Examiner found, and we agree , that the Respondent's real
motive in discharging McGinnis was the latter's protected concerted ac-
tivity under Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act Contrary to the implication
of our dissenting colleague , we do not find that union activity immunizes an
employee, who has characterized the food of a nursing home as "slop," from
discharge. The evidence in this case is overwhelming that this incident was
not the reason why Respondent discharged McGinnis The NLRA was
designed by Congress to protect employees from unlawful discharge This
can hardly be accomplished if an employer is free to seize upon a pretext
to do indirectly what the law forbids him to do directly
' We hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision In paragraph 1(c) of the recommended Order, "Convey-
ing to employers " should read "Conveying to employees
195 NLRB No. 6
51
Nor do I believe that a nursing home employee is
immunized by her union activity from discipline for
characterizing, in the presence of a patient and his wife,
the food served by the institution as "slop."
I therefore dissent from the 8(a)(3) finding.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT COHN, Trial Examiner: This case, initiated by a
charge filed February 9, 1971,' and a complaint issued on
March 30, was tried before me on June 2 in Dayton, Ohio.
The complaint alleged that Valerie Nursing Home (herein the
Respondent or Company) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the
Act), by discriminatorily discharging one of its employees on
or about February 1, and by engaging in other acts and
conduct which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. Respondent filed an answer in which it
generally denied the commission of the unfair labor practices
alleged. At the close of the hearing, oral argument was
waived. Posthearing briefs were filed with me by counsel for
Respondent and by counsel for the General Counsel; counsel
for the Charging Party filed a memorandum in which he
supported the brief of the latter.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying,' and
the arguments of counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a partnership licensed to operate, and
is operating, a proprietary nursing home in Dayton, Ohio,
which commenced operations on or about April 1, 1970. It
was stipulated by the parties that during the annual period
next ensuing, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
operation, received gross revenues in the amount of
$304,485.38.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the operations of
Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Re-
spondent.3
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
National Union of Hospital and Nursing Home Em-
ployees, Local 1199H, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO (herein the Union), is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, Restraint, and
Coercion
The Union commenced its organizational drive among the
Respondent's employees on or about October 19, 1970. On
that day, Union Organizer David Jones came into the kitchen
of the Nursing Home and talked to several employees includ-
ing Nora McGinnis,' concerning the benefits of joining the
' All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1971, unless otherwise
specified
Cf Bishop and Malco, Inc. 159 NLRB 1159, 1161
See University Nursing Home, Inc, 168 NLRB 263
At the time in question, she was known as Nora Barker, at the time of
the hearing, she had married and had taken the name of McGinnis She will
(Cont)
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union. He left a few dozen authorization cards, and McGin-
nis took several with her. She signed one of the cards that
evening and mailed it to the Union the following morning,
and also induced two other employees to sign cards.
Thereafter, the Union held meetings for interested em-
ployees at the Dayton Inn in Dayton, Ohio, the first such
meeting being held on November 30. Subsequent meetings
were held on December 7, and 28, 1970, and February 10,
1971, the latter meeting being held at the YMCA in Dayton.
Attending these meetings were not only employees of the
Respondent, but also of other nursing homes in the area,
although the last meeting was solely for the employees of
Valerie.
Several kitchen employees of Respondent testified that on
the day or two following several of the union meetings,
Kitchen Supervisor Betty Cody interrogated them concern-
ing their presence at the meeting, what was discussed, and
who else was there. The interrogations took place separately;
however, each employee admitted that she attended the meet-
ings but sought to shorten the conversation as much as possi-
ble since she did not wish to discuss the matter with Cody.
Cody denied questioning the employees concerning the meet-
ings.' However, the employee witnesses impressed me as be-
ing truthful and candid in their testimony; moreover, Cody
admitted that the union activities of the employees were a
topic of discussion at the weekly supervisors' meetings and I
believe it to be a reasonable inference that she sought the
information partly for that purpose. Accordingly, I discredit
Cody's denial and find that the interrogations took place
substantially as testified to by the employees. Such interroga-
tion, without legitimate purpose, clearly constitutes interfer-
ence, restraint , and coercion within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1), and I so find.'
Prior to February, it had been the practice and policy of
the Company to allow the kitchen employees to partake of
food left over from the patients' meals such as salads, des-
serts, etc. However, during that month, Supervisor Cody
announced to the kitchen employees that such practice would
be discontinued "until we vote the union out."' I find that this
conceded deprivation of employee privileges because of their
union activities constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
About a week or two after one of the union meetings,
employee Opal Campbell observed Supervisor Cody taking
down the kitchen employees' work schedule. When Campbell
inquired as to the reason therefore, Cody responded that she
was doing it pursuant to the direction of the Company's
administrator. When Campbell persisted that she could not
see anything wrong with having the work schedule posted,
Cody responded that she " guess[ed] it's too much like a
union." Cody admitted taking the schedule down, and tes-
tified that the reason she did so was that she wanted all the
employees to be able to perform all duties in the kitchen. That
is to say, she wished to be able to transfer any employee to
be referred to by that name herein
' She did not, however , deny knowledge of the meetings since the time
and place thereof was apparently set forth in union circulars which were
distributed in and about the Respondent 's premises prior to the event
6 According to the testimony of Alendia Smith , Cody, on one occasion,
named other employees of Respondent who attended the meeting , without
indicating how she (Cody) knew of their presence I find such statement to
constitute an "impression of surveillance" as that term has evolved in labor
law. See Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc., 186 NLRB No 36
' This testimony of employee Campbell was admitted by Cody The
petition for the election was filed by the Union on December 8, 1970, the
hearing upon such petition was held on January 22 , the Decision and Direc-
tion of Election was issued February 19, and the election was held on March
25 See Case 9-RC-8839
any job without the employee being able to retort that the
schedule prescribed that she work only at a specific function,
such as the steamtable. When asked whether she made the
above-quoted statement, Cody testified, "not to my knowl-
edge, no." However, for reasons above stated, I am inclined
to credit Campbell and therefore find that the reason for the
action was related to the Union and was calculated to inter-
fere with, restrain, and coerce employees in their Section 7
rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
The evidence shows that at the time Betty Cody became
food service supervisor in October 1970, it was company
policy not to allow kitchen employees to utilize dining room
facilities for eating purposes. Rather, they were supposed to
eat their meals in the "conference room." However, because
this room was apparently small, crowded, and smoky, several
of the kitchen employees requested that they be allowed to
take their meals into the dining room, and this request was
granted by Cody. This practice, however, soon gave rise to
complaints from the nurses aides. In an apparent effort to
reduce the friction which existed between the two groups of
employees, Cody announced that kitchen employees would
be required to eat their meals and take their breaks in the
conference room.
The General Counsel argues that such change in policy was
in retaliation for the kitchen employees engagement in union
activities. However, there is scant evidence in the record to
prove that kitchen employees were more active or militant in
the union campaign than the nurses aides or, if they were,
that the Respondent was aware of it. Moreover, the Em-
ployer's action does not seem to be unreasonable on its face,
and is not union related by oral testimony as were the other
changes discussed above Accordingly, I conclude and find
that this allegation of the complaint has not been proven by
substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.
As previously noted, the hearing on the Union's petition
for an election was held on January 22. Nora McGinnis was
subpoenaed (presumably by the Union) to attend the hearing,
but was not called upon to testify. She did, however, make
notes of the testimony of a company witness respecting the
financial condition of the Respondent. Several days later,
while at work, Supervisor Cody told McGinnis that she had
heard that the latter had taken notes at the hearing and asked
what they were. McGinnis replied that they were just some
figures. Cody asked if she could see them, but McGinnis
declined.' The complaint alleges that such demand (request)
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
It seems clear that one who attends an NLRB hearing
under subpoena at the behest of a labor organization is engag-
ing in union or concerted activities protected by Section 7. Of
course, it is equally plain that not every inquiry concerning
such activities is per se coercive within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1). The Board, in Blue Flash Express, stated the standard
as follows:
In our view the test is whether, under all circum-
stances, the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or
interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act.'
In my view, the conduct of Cody overstepped the bounds
of legitimate inquiry here. Had she merely noted McGinnis'
presence at the hearing and inquired what she was doing
there, an argument could be made that since McGinnis' con-
duct was open and notorious, Cody's remark lacked any
semblance of interference and restraint. But to go further and
make inquiry of-and demand to see-notes taken at the
hearing would seem clearly to impinge upon an employee's
° Credited testimony of McGinnis
109 NLRB 591, 593
VALERIE NURSING HOME
freedom to fully participate in a representation hearing,
which is an activity zealously guarded by the Board.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the interrogation by
Cody of McGinnis' conduct at the NLRB hearing constituted
interference, restraint, and coercion of employee rights in
violation of Section 8(a)(1).
On January 14, Nora McGinnis, along with employees
Phyllis Anderson, Julie Neal, and office girl Shirley Hall, was
called into the office of supervisor of nurses, Rosalie Dyke. It
appears that Dyke called the employees into her office for the
purpose of attempting to track down the origin of a rumor
that two other employees were slated for dismissal by the
Company. However, none of those present volunteered any
information about the rumor, but Dyke admonished them
about starting rumors and "tattling." Near the end of the
discussion, one of the employees, Phyllis Anderson, asked
Dyke a question relating to the discussion of union activities
on company time . According to the testimony of McGinnis
(neither Anderson nor any of the other employees testified),
Dyke responded that she did not want any discussion con-
cerning the Union on company time , or on the premises.
However, on cross-examination, McGinnis testified that
Dyke stated that "she didn't want any more gossip and tat-
tling and confusion on the job; we were there to work, not
gossip." Dyke denied that she used the term "premises" dur-
ing the discussion but rather advised the employees that they
could discuss anything they wanted to on their own time but
not while on duty. She further testified that this was in ac-
cordance with instructions from Respondent's administrator
Rebbin.
Dyke impressed me as an honest and forthright witness
and I am inclined to believe that McGinnis read into Dyke's
statement a little more than was actually stated. Accordingly,
in the absence of any corroboration by any of the other em-
ployees present, I find and conclude that the General Counsel
did not prove this allegation of the complaint by a preponder-
ance of the evidence, and I will therefore recommend that it
be dismissed 10
B. The Alleged Discharge of Nora McGinnis
This employee commenced work for the Respondent on
August 9, 1970, as a kitchen helper and remained in that
capacity until she was discharged by Cody on February 1.
There is nothing in the record to detract from the conclusion
that during the course of her employment she was other than
an exemplary employee. Thus Opal Campbell testified that
she had never heard Cody or Rebbin criticize McGinnis in
her work; rather, she stated that she had heard Cody compli-
ment McGinnis on several occasions."
The incident which assertedly gave rise to the discharge
occurred on Thursday, January 28. It appears that one of the
duties of the kitchen helpers was to assist patients at meal
times in small ways such as pouring their coffee, moving their
food around, etc. McGinnis performed this function for a
patient named Peal who was, apparently, a finicky eater and
whose wife visited him on frequent occasions bringing him
various delicacies from her home. According to the report of
Mrs. Peal to Supervisor Cody on the next day, Friday, Janu-
ary 29, McGinnis, in the presence of Mr. Peal, referred to the
food of the Respondent as "slop." Cody advised Mrs. Peal
that she would "check into it." Although Cody, as a super-
visor, possessed the authority to hire and fire, she discussed
10 In reaching this conclusion I have also considered that Dyke did not
call the meeting for the purpose of importuning the employees to abstain
from engaging in union activities, but rather the issue arose because of the
question of one of the employees
11 This testimony was not denied by Cody, Rebbin did not testify
53
the matter with Administrator Rebbin.12 She then reached the
decision to terminate McGinnis; however, the latter was off
on Friday, and Cody was off on Saturday and Sunday. Ac-
cordingly, Cody placed a note on McGinnis' timecard on
Monday morning to see her before McGinnis clocked in.
When McGinnis came in at approximately 11 a.m. that
morning, Cody terminated her and advised her that the rea-
son for such termination was the report of the family of a
patient, as aforesaid. McGinnis asked the name of the family,
but Cody refused to tell her."
Analysis and Concluding Findings
In my view, the General Counsel proved a prima facie case
of discrimination by showing that McGinnis was an active
participant in the union campaign, that Cody (who made the
decision to fire her) was aware thereof and strongly opposed
the organizational efforts of the employees, and that, there-
after, McGinnis was summarily terminated under circum-
stances which raised suspicions as to the "real reason" or
"true purpose" therefor." That is to say, as above noted,
McGinnis' work record with the Company was concededly
good, and not marred by prior warnings or discipline con-
cerning her performance. Moreover, the evidence shows that
the making of uncomplimentary epithets concerning the food
at the Respondent's nursing home was not unknown among
the kitchen help. Thus, employee Alendia Smith credibly
testified that other employees in the kitchen had from time to
time made derogatory remarks concerning the food (particu-
larly casserole dishes) and none had ever been reprimanded
for making such statements. Indeed, she testified that Cody
herself made a defamatory statement concerning some spin-
ach in the presence of two visitors in the dining room only
2 weeks after McGinnis' discharge Under these circum-
stances, I find it rather incredible that Cody would reach a
decision to mete out the most extreme form of discipline, i.e.,
discharge, to McGinnis on the basis of the one incident that
was reported to her without even giving McGinnis an oppor-
tunity to present her side of the story. Such conduct has been
held to be evidence of discriminatory intent.15
Further doubt is cast upon the proffered reason for the
discharge by the uncontradicted testimony of Alendia Smith.
She stated that on the day of McGinnis' termination she was
a passenger in Cody's car and that the latter had advised her
that she had discharged McGinnis. When Smith asked the
reason, Cody replied that it was "not on account of her union
activities, just the statement that was made by her " However
Cody further indicated that " ... it had been brewing for a
while " I believe it to be a reasonable inference from that
statement that Respondent had considered ridding itself of
" She testified that she did this because she was a new supervisor and
wanted advice from her superior
Testimony of Cody
° See The Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union
AFL (A. H Bull Steamship Company) v NL R,B, 347 U S 17 Local 357,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America v NL R.B, 365 U S. 667, 675
" Rockingham Sleepwear, Inc, 188 NLRB No 110 See also United
States Rubber Company v NLRB, 384 F 2d 660, 662-663 (C A 5),
where the court stated "Perhaps most damning is the fact that both [em-
ployees] were summarily discharged after reports of their misconduct
without being being given any opportunity to explain or give their
versions of the incidents "
At the hearing, McGinnis denied making the statement attributed to her
by Mrs Peal, and the latter was not called as a witness pursuant to directions
from her doctor However, I deem it unnecessary to resolve this particular
credibility issue since, as indicated, I find substantial evidence of discrimina-
tory intent assuming the report was made as testified to by Respondent's
witness
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McGinnis because of her union activities for some time, and
seized upon the Peal incident as a pretext.
Finding the stated motive to be a false one, I am entitled
to infer that the real motive " . . is one that the employer
desires to conceal- an unlawful motive-at least where, as
in this case, the surrounding facts tend to reinforce that infer-
ence.""
Based upon all of the foregoing, I find and conclude that
the termination of McGinnis was in order to discourage
membership in a labor organization in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, and I will recommend an appropriate
remedy.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating against an employee in order to dis-
courage union membership among its employees , Respond-
ent engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against
Nora McGinnis by terminating her employment because she
engaged in union and concerted activities protected by the
Act, I will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to
offer her immediate reinstatement to her former position or,
if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings
she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
her. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the for-
mula prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., 138
NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:"
" Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v NL R B, 362 F 2d 466, 470
(C A 9)
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
ORDER
Respondent, Valerie Nursing Home, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee in regard to his hire or tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of employment, in order to discourage
membership in National Union of Hospital & Nursing Home
Employees, Local 1199H, Retail, Wholesale & Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union membership or union activities.
(c) Conveying to employers the impression that union ac-
tivities are under surveillance.
(d) Altering or changing policies or practices of the Re-
spondent respecting employees' work rules, practices or privi-
leges because of employees' union membership, activities, or
sympathies.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Nora McGinnis immediate and full reinstatement
to her former position or, if that position no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for any loss of pay she may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against her in the manner provided in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act.
(d) Reinstate the policy and practice of the Respondent to
post work schedules and to allow kitchen employees to par-
take of leftover food.1e
(e) Post at its Dayton, Ohio, facility copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being
duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes
1i This provision should not be construed to conflict with any contractual
agreement Respondent may make or may have made with the Union con-
cerning such matters
" In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED
BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "
VALERIE NURSING HOME 55
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.20
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations of the
complaint be dismissed in all respects other than those found
to have been sustained in the above findings and conclusions.
30 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Nora (Barker) McGinnis immediate
and full reinstatement to her former position or, if that
positron no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make her
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the
discrimination against her.
WE WILL reinstate our policy and practice of posting
work schedules for kitchen employees, and of allowing
kitchen employees to eat leftover food.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities
on behalf of National Union of Hospital & Nursing
Home Employees, Local 1199H, Retail, Wholesale &
Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating
against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
respecting their union membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT give our employees the impression that
their union activities are being spied upon.
WE WILL NOT alter or change our policies or practices
with respect to employees' work rules or privileges be-
cause of employees' membership in or activities on be-
half of the above-named Union, or any other labor or-
ganization.
VALERIE NURSING
HOME
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named individual, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal
Office Building, Room 2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.