Westside Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 30, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 96 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ,LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Professional Research, Inc., d/b/a Westside Hospital
and Service and Hospital Employees Union, Local
399, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Service and Hospital Employees Union, Local 399,
SEIU, AFL-CIO and Professional Research, Inc.,
d/b/a Westside Hospital . Cases 31-RC-2687 and
31-CB-1629
May 30, 1975
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Employer-Charging
Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, fmdings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to
the extent consistent herewith and to adopt his
recommended Order.
The unrebutted facts show that Sanchez, 1 of 18 to
20 Spanish-speaking employees in the bargaining
unit, is the spokesman for all of the Employer's
Spanish-speaking employees with regard to their
work-related problems which he presents to and
discusses with the "boss." In January or February
1974, during the early, stages of Respondent's
organizing drive, Sanchez, along with 10 or 11 other
Spanish-speaking employees, was persuaded to sign
an authorization card by one of the Employer's
supervisors under threat of discharge if he refused to
do so. These cards, along with others supporting
Respondent's petition for an election, were submitted
to the Regional Director who rejected all of the
cards, ostensibly because of the supervisory taint, but
who permitted Respondent to submit new cards.
Several weeks prior to the election 1 Respondent's
staff representative, Organizer Vallero, threatened
Sanchez with deportation unless Sanchez sided with,
and signed, an authorization card for, Respondent.
Sanchez related the threat to his wife, whom he told
to "get ready because perhaps we are going to
Mexico," and to five of his Spanish-speaking cowork-
ers in the kitchen. One of those coworkers, S. Garcia,
further discussed the threat with two of the aforesaid
five employees, as well as with three other employees
who are not identified in the record, and who may or
may not be among those five. These facts constitute
the basis of both the unfair labor practice charge and
the Employer's Objection 3 to the election.
The Administrative Lave Judge found that the
threat of deportation, regardless of whether Sanchez
was subject to deportation, violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.2 He also found, however, that
this same misconduct does not warrant setting aside
the election, and recommended that,Objection 3 be
overruled.
The Administrative Law Judge found, in essence,
and we agree, that the test to be used to determine
whether Respondent's conduct destroyed the labora-
tory atmosphere necessary to the exercise of free
choice in the election is, basically, whether that
conduct was coercive and also had a tendency to
affect or interfere with the employees', actions at the
polls. We conclude, however, that the Administrative
Law Judge applied that test in a manner inconsistent
with applicable law. More specifically, while we
agree with his findings that Respondent's threat to
Sanchez was coercive and "could reasonably be
anticipated" to affect his vote, we do not agree with
the substance of the Administrative Law Judge's
subsequent findings that that conduct probably did
not affect any employee other than Sanchez because
(1) there is no evidence of an illegal entry into the
United States by any other employee, and there is a
similar absence of evidence that any other employee
was threatened with deportation, and (2) none of the
five or eight Spanish-speaking employees who were
aware of the threat were affected in their election
choice since there is no objective evidence to indicate
that they were in fact coerced, but, if they were, their
votes nevertheless "would not be decisive to alter the
election results." These findings constitute improper
bases on which to evaluate the nature of the conduct
involved and the tendency of its effect on the
electorate's free choice.
The question of whether there has been unwarrant-
ed interference with free expression of choice does
not turn on election results, or the probable election
results .3 Moreover, the impact of the threat is not
necessarily limited to Sanchez only, since experience
has shown, as demonstrated herein, that statements
made during an election campaign are the subject of
discussion, repetition, and dissemination among the
electorate.4 Furthermore, there is no legal basis for
concluding that Respondent's conduct lost its coer-
1 The election was conducted on May 31, 1974, in a unit of 2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt this fmdmgproforma.
approximately 117 eligible voters. The results were that 58 cast ballots for, 3 Cf. Steak House Meat Company, Inc., 206 NLRB 28 (1973).
and 35 against, Respondent , along with 1 void and 2 challenged ballots. 4 Cf Standard Knitting Mills, Inc., 172 NLRB 1122 (1968).
218 NLRB No. 16
WESTSIDE HOSPITAL
; ive tendency merely because of an absence of direct
evidence showing that some employees are illegal
aliens, or that those employees aware of that conduct
were not in fact coerced. The absence of such
evidence hardly indicates that such conduct had no
tendency to affect their actions at the polls.
Here, the sole Spanish-speaking employee threat-
ened with loss of home and job unless he supported
Respondent in its organizing drive was one of some
prominence-the spokesmen for all Spanish-speak-
ing employees with regard to their work-related
problems. Apart from whether knowledge of the
threat by Sanchez only would constitute unwarrant-
ed election interference, five or eight other Spanish-
speaking employees were aware of it and of the
message that harsh threat was meant to convey:
unless Spanish-speaking employees supported Re-
spondent, they not only risked the loss of their
spokesman, but they also could have been marked
for similar reprisals with which they may or may not
have been able to cope. This message , we conclude,
clearly was coercive and did have a tendency to
restrain the exercise of free choice in the election.
Accordingly, we shall sustain Objection 3, set aside
the election, and direct a new election.5
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Service and
Hospital Employees Union, Local 399, SEIU1 AFL-
CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, should
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on May 31, 1974, among the Employer's employees
be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Case 31-RC-
2687 be, and it hereby is, severed and remanded to
the Regional Director for Region 31 for the purpose
of conducting a new election at such time as he
deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a
bargaining representative.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
5 I a view of our disposition of this proceeding , we find it unnecessary to
resolve the Employer's Objection 2 to the election.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
97
ALLEN SINSHEIMER, JR., Administrative Law Judge: The
above proceeding was heard in Los Angeles, California, on
October 29 and 30, 1974. On May 31, 1974, pursuant to a
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, an
election was conducted in the above representation matter
which was won by the Union.' Thereafter, timely objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election were
filed. On August 2, 1974, the Regional Director issued and
served a Report on Objections and subsequently, on
September 19, a Supplemental Report on Objections, to
which the Employer filed timely exceptions. On October
23, 1974, the Board issued an order directing hearing on
Objection 3 which was, and is, also the subject of the unfair
labor practices alleged herein in Case 31-CB-1629. The
Board further ordered that the hearing on said Objection
,,may be consolidated with any hearing in Case 31-CB-
1629." It also stated that, with respect to the Employer's
exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations
that Objection 2 be overruled, it was reservingjudgment as
to the merits of said Objection 22 pending the outcome of
the hearing which the Board had directed.
On August 27, 1974, the complaint3 in Case 31-CB-1629
was issued. On October 25, 1974, pursuant to the Board's
order, suprci, an order consolidating cases and notice of
hearing was issued by the Regional Director for Region 31.
The issues are: (1) Did the Union threaten an employee
with deportation, in violation of Section 8(bxlxa)? (2) If
so, did it engage in conduct which should result in setting
aside the aforesaid election?
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs of the
General Counsel, the Petitioner-Charging Party and the
Respondent-Employer, I make the following findings and
conclusions:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER-CHARGING PARTY
Professional Research, Inc. d/b/a Westside Hospital,
herein called the Employer, a California corporation, has a
facility in Los Angeles, California, where, at all times
material it has been engaged in the operation of an acute
medical proprietary hospital. During the past calendar or
fiscal year, the Employer received gross revenues in excess
of $250,000 and purchased goods valued in excess of
$5,000 from firms located in California which in turn had
purchased said goods in substantially the same form
directly from outside the State of California. I find the
Employer is, and at all times material has been, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
1 A tally of ballots shows that, of approximately 117 eligible voters, 96
ballots were cast, of which 1 was void ; 58 were cast for the Petitioner, 35
against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged.
2 This objection, according to the Board, "charges essentially that the
Petitioner unlawfully influenced the results of the election of May 31, 1974,
by compensating election observers who were eligible voters in a sum which
was disproportionate to the employees' normal wage rate:'
3 Based on a charge filed July 29,1974.
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Service and Hospital Employees Union, Local 399,
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
About January or February 1974,_ Respondent com-
menced an organizing campaign among the Employer's
employees. Adam Small, organizer for Respondent, was in
charge of the campaign. Small testified he submitted some
42 authorization cards from employees of the Employer to
the Region, together with an election petition on February
8. However, these cards were found unacceptable appar-
ently because a supervisor of the Respondent had assisted
in obtaining- the cards including the card of one, Louis
Sanchez. The Regional Director then allowed Respondent
5 or' 6 days within which to submit new authorization cards
or face dismissal of its petition. In order to accomplish this,
Respondent assigned additional organizers to assist Small.
One of these was Ernest Vallero, assigned to the campaign
in April, both because he was experienced and could speak
Spanish.
Louis Sanchez is employed by the Employer in the
kitchen as a cook's helper and has been employed in that
and other capacities for 5 years. He is originally from
Mexico and speaks Spanish almost exclusively.4 Sanchez
was one of the more senior Spanish-speaking employees in
the kitchen at the Employer and at tunes when fellow
Spanish-speaking employees have come to him with work-
related problems he has acted as spokesman for these
employees and proceeded to take up and present these
problems to the "boss." According to Sanchez, there are
about 10 to 11 Spanish-speaking employees working in the
kitchen and about 18 to 20 Spanish-speaking employees
throughout the hospital and bargaining unit.
Evidently the Union did obtain sufficient cards within
the time allowed by the Regional Director and according
to Small they then had obtained and submitted either 58 or
62 cards. Small also testified that among the first group of
rejected cards there were 10 or 12 signed by Spanish-
speaking persons and possibly 1 or 2 more among the
second group of cards.
About 2 weeks before the election on May 31, Vallero
visited Sanchez at Sanchez' apartment house. Sanchez
testified that Vallero was waiting outside his apartment
house about 8 p.m., that Vallero introduced himself to
Sanchez as a representative of the Respondent Union and
stated he wanted to talk to Sanchez about the Union.
Sanchez testified that he initially told Vallero he did not
want to discuss the Union, that Vallero insisted and
Sanchez then agreed to talk to him. He did not take Vallero
to his apartment but to that of his brother, David Sanchez,
in the same building. David was not present when Vallero
and Louis Sanchez arrived. Two other persons, Gregorio
Marron and Jesus Velasquez, David's roommates, allowed
Vallero and Louis Sanchez into the apartment. Velasquez
was in the kitchen and Marron was in the dining room,
where Sanchez and Vallero talked. Marron accordingly,
heard part of the conversation, although a television set
was in operation.
According to Sanchez, Vallero told him that a black man
from the Union (apparently Adam Small) was "very angry
with" him. Sanchez was asked if Vallero said the black
man would do anything to him and responded: "A. He
said to me that the black man was far more angry with me,
because he knew that I was one of the ones who did not
want the union."-
Sanchez also testified that in the conversation Vallero
also said, "In case you don't side with us, there are many
problems that are going to come to you because the
employees of the hospital who prefer-the union and those
of the union are angry with you and they are going to get
the police and the immigration after you so that they will
put you out of the country." Sanchez further testified that
Vallero told him he could help him with his problems and:
A. That he said to me that if I went in favor of the
union that he would protect me against anything that
happened to me.
Sanchez further testified:
Q. What else did he say?
A. He said, "Don't do it for yourself. Do it for your
family." He then said to me, "I want you to be with me
so that then I can go and tell my friends and the people
at the hospital that you are with me, that you are my
friend and I want you to sign this paper for me." He
said, "I want to take proofs to my friend so they believe
that you are not against the union."
Q. What did he present to you?
A. He gave me, he drew out a paper so I could sign
it. I said, "I can't, because I have to talk to my friends
first."
Q. What happened next?
A. He then said, "Well, perhaps you will change
your mind tomorrow and I will leave you a paper. I will
leave you a card." He left me another card. He insisted
that I sign the paper.
Gregorio Marron testified that, although the TV was on,
when he saw Vallero and Sanchez were talking, he paid.
more attention to the conversation. Marron testified they
began talking about the Union, that Vallero said, "Don't
be a fool . . . ." Marron further testified:
Q. Can you repeat to me what Mr. Vallero said to
Mr. Sanchez concerning immigration?
A. Yes, that if he [Sanchez] didn't side with him
[Vallero], if he didn't go in the Union that he was going
to have problems with immigration ... .
Marron added that Vallero was speaking in a very loud
manner.
Sanchez testified that following the meeting with Vallero
he "told the Spanish-speaking employees who were
working there that a man from the Union had gone to
threaten me with having the police and the immigration
after me." Evidently, Sanchez was referring to persons who
worked in the kitchen and he mentioned seven persons by
name . Subsequently, after being referred to an affidavit in
4 He testified through an interpreter as did several of the witnesses.
WESTSIDE HOSPITAL 99
which he listed only three persons by name whom he told
the next day, Sanchez testified he could recall specifically
telling five of the seven named persons, either the next day
or thereafter, of the threat.
Vallero did not testify. Testimony was adduced to the
effect that he had left in July, after the objections had been
filed and, although aware that he would be needed as a
witness, had gone to Seattle on a family emergency, and
that the Union had endeavored to locate him, but could
not do so. Small testified Vallero never told him that
Vallero had threatened an employee with deportation.
Small also testified he was not angry with Sanchez, that the
reports the Union had were that Sanchez favored the
Union, and that (he) Small was the only black male
employee of the Umon participating in the organizational
drive. The Union accordingly argues that it is highly
unlikely that Vallero would inform Sanchez that a black
male employee of the Union was angry with him because
Sanchez did not favor the Umon. The Union also raises
other questions as to whether Sanchez paid full rent for the
apartment he lived in. There was testimony that Sanchez
did some work for his apartment as did others, and that the
building was owned by one, Jerry Flannigan, a supervisor
of the Employer .5
The Union also points out that although on direct
examination Sanchez testified that he had subsequent to
the alleged conversation with Vallero informed seven
Spanish surname employees in the kitchen of the threat
that in an affidavit he referred only to three persons by
name. As stated above, in subsequent testimony Sanchez
specifically named five people, and I find that Sanchez did
tell five persons in the kitchen of the threat made to him.
The Union further asserts that Marron did not have
sufficient recollection of the conversation, that his testimo-
ny was at variance with Sanchez' in testifying that Vallero
said if Sanchez didn't side with him on the Union Sanchez
was going to have trouble with the immigration authorities,
while Sanchez testified that Vallero said that it was
employees of the Employer and a black male employee of
the Union who would have him deported. The Union also
contends that Marron's watching television also affected
his testimony so that it should be discredited.
The purported variation in testimony between Sanchez
and Marron as to who would have him deported insofar as
there may be any variation appears to be that one person
stated his understanding one way and the other in a
slightly different way. However, the meaning is clear and
essentially the same to the listener - the Union through its
representative was threatening deportation. The threat
emanated from a union representative With the implication
that the Union would make certain things known with the
result that Sanchez would be deported. I do not consider
this difference in testimony to be significant.
Finally, in evaluating the testimony after considering the
Union's contentions, I find that Sanchez testified consist-
ently and credibly on both direct and cross-examination,
that he appeared to be a careful, conscientious witness and
5 The Umon also objected to my sustaining of an objection to a question
to Sanchez about whether he had informed the Employer as to whether he
had immigration papers. The objection was sustained on the basis that any
that on the matter of the threat of deportation he was
corroborated by Marron: Further, as noted, there is no
testimony to the contrary. I accordingly credit Sanchez'
testimony that he was threatened with deportation by an
admitted union representative for which the Union is
responsible. I find that the Union, by such threats,
regardless of whether Sanchez was or was not subject=to
deportation violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
I have found that the Respondent Union violated
Section 8(bx1)(A) of the Act by its threat to Louis
Sanchez, a Spanish-speaking employee, that the Union
would seek to have him deported. The question is whether
such threat to one employee is sufficient to warrant setting
aside the election. I have also found above that Sanchez
reported this threat to some five other employees in the
'kitchen. Also as set forth, the total number of Spanish-
speaking employees in the kitchen appears to have been
about 10 or 11 and in the entire hospital some 18 to 20
Spanish-speaking employees. Sanchez testified that the
persons in the kitchen to whom he talked did not tell him
that any of them had been threatened and that he knew of
no such threat to anyone else. Further there is no evidence
that such a threat was made to any other employee,
Spanish or otherwise. There is no evidence of any nature as
to whether any other employee might be subject to
deportation in any case. There is some evidence, supra, that
Sanchez was contacted on occasion by certain employees
in the kitchen about complaints as to working conditions,
etc., and that he took these matters up with the "boss."
One employee, Salvador Garcia, after being told by
Sanchez of the threat, in essence told Sanchez not to worry
because he had his papers and would help. Garcia said he
spoke to Guillermo Aguilar 6 and approximately three
other persons concerning this conversation with Sanchez.
One employee, Socorro Leon, testified that she had been a
practical nurse at the hospital during the preelection
period, that she had been visited by two union representa-
tives, one of whom spoke Spanish, who were friendly to her
and did not threaten her with deportation. Leon has been
in the country for some 10 years and speaks English well
enough to testify without an interpreter. Leon apparently
indicated to the union representatives that she was friendly
to the Union.
I have found, supra, that Sanchez related the threat of
deportation to five persons who worked in the kitchen.
Garcia testified, supra, he so informed by name one of
these same five and three other persons who may or may
not have been among the five. There is no evidence of any
other person being subject to such threats. There is no
evidence of any kind appertaining to any illegal entry into
the U.S.A. on the part of other persons in the umt. As set
forth, one of the persons to whom Sanchez spoke, Garcia,
specifically said he had papers and offered to help. The
election as stated involved' 117 eligible voters, of whom 96
cast ballots with 1 void, 5,8 for the Union, 35, against the
effect on credibility such might have would not be sufficient to warrant
entering into such an area.
6 Aguilar was also one of the persons whom Sanchez informed of the
threat by Vallero.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union, and 2 challenges. There were 18 to 20 Spanish-
speaking employees in all, of whom 10 or 11 worked in the
kitchen. Besides Sanchez five were specifically named as
having been informed of, the threat by Sanchez with
possibly three of the same persons or possibly three others
so informed by Garcia. There is no evidence of anyone else
being so threatened nor of being possibly subject to
deportation. As stated, Sanchez on occasion took up
matters with the "boss" on behalf of fellow employees in
the kitchen as were the employees he informed of the
threat. Under these circumstances should the election be
set aside?
Conclusions
While the Board has indicated numbers alone may not
be determinative,10 can they be completely ignored?
However, without regard to specific numbers, can it be said
that the improper conduct would have probably coerced
employees other than Sanchez? As indicated, supra, I do
not consider that such a finding should be made herein.
Based on analysis of all the foregoing and the standards set
forth, in my judgment on this record; the conduct of
Vallero toward Sanchez does not warrant setting aside the
election. I shall accordingly recommend that Objection 3
be overruled.
IV, THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Certainly Vallero's conduct cannot be countenanced.
However, can it be said to have, under all the circum-
stances, so affected the election and the Board's requisites
for a fair election that the results thereof should not be
allowed to stand?
Was the conduct such that it could be said to be of such
nature and so pervasive as to raise doubt about the election
results. Is it reasonable to infer that employees other than
Sanchez were coerced into supporting the Union or
alternately deemed it necessary to do so to protect
Sanchez?
Admittedly no precise or absolute answer can be given to
such questions . The test to apply (apparently where union
conduct is involved) according to the Board in Great
Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 177 NLRB 942
(1969), is "Conduct upon which an election is set aside
must be found to have affected the outcome of the election,
i.e., likely to coerce prospective voters to cast their ballot in
a particular manner." The Board thereupon quoted with
approval from N.L.R.B. v. Zelrich Company, 344 F.2d 1011
(C.A. 5, 1965), as follows:
For conduct to warrant setting aside an election not
only must that conduct be coercive, but it must be so
related to the election as to have had a probable effect
upon the employees' actions at the polls.7 [Emphasis
supplied.]
From the facts set forth above, it could reasonably be
anticipated that Sanchez' vote would be affected. But
could it reasonably be anticipated that other votes would
probably be so affected. I question such probable effect.
Further, even if so, there is the question in any case of how
many votes might be affected. Certainly even the five or
possibly eight votes of the employees directly advised
thereof8 would not be decisive in any event as a change of
at least I I votes 9 plus challenges would be required to alter
the election results.
7 To same effect, N L R B. v. Golden Age Beverage Company, 415 F 2d 26
(CA. 5, 1969); The court indicated in fn 5 of said decision that it deemed it
immatenal that the incidents involved rank-and-file employees rather than
union representatives The Board appears to apply a different standard to
conduct of employees who are not union representatives, namely, "whether
the character of the conduct was so aggravated as to create a general
atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free expression of choice of
representatives impossible." Steak House Meat Company, Inc, 206 NLRB
28 (1973), Central Photocolor Co, Incorporated 195 NLRB 839 (1972).
8 There does not appear to be any objective evidence to indicate that
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Employer described in section I, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in, and
is engaging in, certain unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that it be required to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the
foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Charging Party-Employer is engaged in activi-
ties affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. As found above, the Respondent has violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening an employee
with deportation if he did not support the Union.
4. The unfair labor practice affects commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact,, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
Respondent , Service and Hospital Employees Union,
Local 399 , SEIU, AFL-CIO , Los Angeles , California, 'its
officers , agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
these persons were in fact coerced nor do I consider that such should be
inferred from the record herein
9 There were at most 10 or 11 in the kitchen
10 See Steak House and Photocolor, supra
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions and Order,' and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
WESTSIDE HOSPITAL
(a) Restraining or coercing employees of Professional
Research, Inc., d/b/a Westside Hospital by threatening
employees with deportation if they do not support the
Union.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
the employees of said employer in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, and all other
places where notices to members are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members and employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 31 signed
copies of said notices for posting by the aforesaid employer
if willing, in places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be provided
by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly
signed by the Respondent Union's official representative,
shall be forthwith returned to the Regional Director.
101
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
As set forth above, it is hereby recommended that the
Objection 3 to the election be overruled.
12 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of
Professional Research Inc., d/b/a Westside Hospital,
by threatening them with deportation if they do not
support the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce the employees of said employer in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
SERVICE AND HOSPITAL
EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL
399, SEIU, AFL-CIO