ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 2018

367 NLRB No. 52 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

367 NLRB No. 52
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound vol-
umes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secre-
tary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typo-
graphical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound
volumes.
Alaris Health at Castle Hill and 1199, SEIU United
Healthcare Workers East. Cases 22–CA–125034,
22–CA–125866, and 22–CA–140619
December 21, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND KAPLAN
On February 3, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Mi-
chael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the

1 This case is one of four related cases involving unfair labor practice
strikes at facilities affiliated with Alaris Health. See, in addition to this
case, Alaris Health at Harborview, 367 NLRB No. 54 (2018); Alaris
Health at Boulevard East, 367 NLRB No. 53 (2018); and Alaris Health
at Rochelle Park, 367 NLRB No. 55 (2018). The judge heard these cases
consecutively and issued four separate decisions. The Respondent and
the Charging Party each submitted consolidated briefs addressing all four
cases; the General Counsel submitted a separate brief in each case.
2 Member Emanuel is recused and took no part in the consideration
of this case. Additionally, former Member Hirozawa and Ellen Dichner,
former Member Pearce’s chief counsel, took no part in the consideration
of this case. Therefore, we deny as moot the Respondent’s motion to
disqualify Board Member Kent Y. Hirozawa and Chief Counsel Ellen
Dichner.
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand-
ard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d
Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing the findings.
The judge inadvertently set forth an incorrect description of the bar-
gaining unit. The correct unit description, as set forth in the parties’ col-
lective-bargaining agreement, is as follows:
[A]ll CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, and all other em-
ployees excluding professional employees, registered nurses, LPNs,
cooks, confidential [employees], office clerical employees, supervisors,
watchmen and guards.
In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s findings that the
Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by (1) refusing to bargain in
good faith with the Union’s chosen bargaining committee, (2) unreason-
ably delaying in providing the Union with requested information that was
relevant and necessary for bargaining, and (3) refusing to provide the
Union with requested information concerning health insurance and daily
work schedules.
Also in the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s findings that
the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by (1) soliciting employee Claudia
Saldana to convince coworkers not to go on strike and to help in resolv-
ing employees’ grievances; (2) interrogating employee Devika Smith
about whether she planned to go on strike; (3) threatening Smith by stat-
ing it would be a shame for Smith and her coworkers to go on strike and
lose their jobs; (4) accusing Saldana of backstabbing Administrator Nel-
son Maurice Duran after Saldana testified before the Union City Board
of Commissioners, thereby implying retaliation for her protected
General Counsel and the Charging Party each filed an an-
swering brief, and the Respondent filed a combined reply
brief to the answering briefs.1 The General Counsel also
filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Re-
spondent filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2
The Board has considered the decision and the record in
light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs and
has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,3 and
conclusions4 and to adopt the judge’s recommended Order
as modified and set forth in full below.5
The judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent vi-
olated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
immediately reinstate 15 unfair labor practice strikers
activity; (5) warning employee Diana Lewis to “be careful” because Du-
ran was mad and wanted to know when employees would go on strike;
(6) threatening Saldana that she and 17 other single mothers were going
to lose their jobs for going on strike; (7) at group meetings, interrogating
employees as to why they were going on strike, and threatening them
with termination and changes in working conditions if they went on
strike; and (8) engaging in surveillance of picketing employees.
Lastly, in the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s finding that
the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) by reducing the work hours
of employees Brenda Mota-Lopes and Leanne Crawford. Although the
Respondent filed an exception to the judge’s factual finding that Craw-
ford “was locked out and, after being reinstated on October 27, also in-
curred reduced work hours,” the Respondent did not except to the judge’s
finding that it unlawfully reduced Crawford’s work hours. In any event,
the Respondent did not present any argument or evidence in support of
this exception. Accordingly, we find, pursuant to Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(ii)
of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, that this bare exception should be
disregarded. See, e.g., Charter Communications, LLC, 366 NLRB No.
46, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2018) (citing New Concept Solutions, LLC, 349
NLRB 1136, 1136 fn. 2 (2007)).
In affirming the judge’s findings, we do not rely on his citation to
Alcan Rolled Products, 358 NLRB 37 (2012), which was issued by a
panel subsequently found invalid by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Noel
Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). Although Wayneview Care Center, 352
NLRB 1089 (2008), a two-member decision cited by the judge, was va-
cated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit following issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in New Pro-
cess Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), we rely on it here because
a three-member panel of the Board subsequently incorporated the deci-
sion by reference in a later decision, and that decision was enforced. See
2010 WL 5173270 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (order vacating and remanding to
the Board), 356 NLRB 154 (2010), enfd. 664 F.3d 341 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
We note that Atlas Refinery, Inc., 354 NLRB 1056 (2010), another two-
member decision cited by the judge, was also reaffirmed and incorpo-
rated by reference in a subsequent decision by a three-member panel.
357 NLRB 1798 (2011), enfd. 620 Fed.Appx. 99 (3d Cir. 2015).
4 We have amended the judge’s conclusions of law to conform to the
violations found.
5 We have amended the judge’s recommended remedy. We have also
modified the judge’s recommended Order consistent with the violations
found, the amended remedy, and the Board’s standard remedial lan-
guage. We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as mod-
ified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
after their unconditional offer to return to work. As ex-
plained below, we reject the Respondent’s argument, un-
addressed by the judge that its delay in reinstating the
strikers was justified by its contracts with staffing agen-
cies that supplied temporary replacement employees dur-
ing the strike.
I.
On September 5, 2014,6 the Union notified the Re-
spondent that unit employees would go on strike from
September 16 through September 18.7 In deciding to
strike, the employees were motivated in part by the Re-
spondent’s unlawful refusal to negotiate with their union’s
chosen bargaining committee and the Respondent’s un-
lawful refusals to furnish, and unreasonable delays in fur-
nishing, certain information relevant to negotiations for a
collective-bargaining agreement. The employees also
sought to pressure the Respondent to accede to their bar-
gaining demands.8
Prior to September, the Respondent had contracts with
several staffing agencies, including MediStar Personnel,
Tristate Rehab Staffing, and Towne Nursing Staff, under
which the agencies would supply temporary employees on
an as-needed basis. After the Respondent was notified of
the strike, those contracts were amended to provide that
the Respondent would employ replacements supplied by
the agencies for a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks, depending on
the agency. Specifically, as amended, the MediStar con-
tract required the Respondent to retain MediStar-supplied
replacements for a minimum of 30 days,9 the Tristate con-
tract obligated the Respondent to retain Tristate-supplied
replacements for 4 weeks, and the Towne contract re-
quired the Respondent to retain five Towne-supplied re-
placements for 6 weeks.
On September 16, approximately 40 of the Respond-
ent’s employees went out on strike. During the strike, the
Respondent covered strikers’ shifts with unit employees
who did not participate in the strike, non-unit employees,
employees from other Alaris Health facilities, and

6 All subsequent dates are in 2014.
7 There is no dispute that this notice complied with Sec. 8(g) of the
Act, which requires unions to give 10 days’ written notice before striking
or picketing a health care institution.
8 “Under settled principles, a strike is an unfair labor practice strike
where the employer’s unfair labor practice conduct constitutes one of the
causes of a strike.” Boydston Electric, Inc., 331 NLRB 1450, 1452
(2000) (citing Trumbull Memorial Hospital, 288 NLRB 1429, 1449
(1988)). There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the strike
was an unfair labor practice strike. Because we adopt this uncontested
finding and the judge’s finding that the Respondent unlawfully refused
to reinstate 15 strikers, we find it unnecessary to pass on the General
Counsel’s cross-exceptions to the judge’s failure to make certain find-
ings regarding alleged permanent replacement of those strikers.
temporary employees supplied by the staffing agencies. A
total of 19 agency employees worked for the Respondent
during the strike, 1 from MediStar, 12 from Tristate, and
6 from Towne.
On September 18, the Respondent’s attorney, David
Jasinski, informed the Union’s attorney, William Massey,
that some strikers would not be allowed to return to work
on September 19 because of the Respondent’s contractual
commitments to the staffing agencies. Massey asked why
the Respondent would make such a commitment when it
knew the strike would last only 3 days. Jasinski replied
that the Respondent needed to be prepared in case the
strikers changed their minds and remained on strike for
longer than 3 days. Later that day, the Union submitted
an unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of all
the strikers.
On September 19, the Respondent refused to reinstate
15 employees who had participated in the strike.10 After
the strike ended, 13 agency-supplied employees continued
working for the Respondent: one from MediStar, eight
from Tristate, and four from Towne. Five of those em-
ployees—one from MediStar, three from Tristate, and one
from Towne—did not work on September 19, the day after
the strike ended. That day, two nonunit Quality Assurance
CNAs and one CNA from another Alaris facility per-
formed bargaining unit work at Castle Hill. The Respond-
ent did not reinstate any of the 15 unfair labor practice
strikers at issue until weeks after their unconditional offer
to return to work.
II.
It is well settled that unfair labor practice strikers are
entitled to immediate reinstatement after they have sub-
mitted their unconditional offer to return to work, even if
their employer has hired replacements. NLRB v. Interna-
tional Van Lines, 409 U.S. 48, 50–51 (1972); Mastro Plas-
tics v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 278 (1956). Thus, an em-
ployer must immediately reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers who make an unconditional offer to return to
9 We find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel’s renewed
motion to strike Respondent’s Exhibit 9 (the MediStar contract). See GC
Answer Br. at 28–29. As explained in the text, even considering the
MediStar contract, the Respondent has failed to establish a legitimate
justification for denying immediate reinstatement to the unfair labor
practice strikers.
10 Those 15 strikers are Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa
Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne
Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Angeline Murillo, Stephanie Garcia,
Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis
Martin, and Komi Anakpa. To the extent the Respondent’s bare excep-
tion to the judge’s finding that Leanne Crawford was “locked out” is in-
tended as an exception to the judge’s finding that Crawford was not im-
mediately reinstated, we find that it should be disregarded. See fn. 3,
supra.
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 3
work, discharging, if necessary, any replacements who
have been working in their stead. See Orit Corp., 294
NLRB 695, 698 (1989), enfd. mem. 918 F.2d 225 (D.C.
Cir. 1990). An employer that fails or refuses to do so vi-
olates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Id. at 701.
In recognition of the administrative difficulties associ-
ated with reinstating striking employees on short notice,
the Board ordinarily grants employers a reasonable period
of time, up to 5 days, to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers. Drug Package Co., 228 NLRB 108 (1977), enf.
denied in part on other grounds 570 F.2d 1340 (8th Cir.
1978).11 In Drug Package, the Board reaffirmed its policy
that the backpay period for unfair labor practice strikers
does not commence until 5 days after the unconditional
offer to return to work. Id. at 114. The Board explained
that the 5-day period represents a reasonable accommoda-
tion between the interests of the employees in returning to
work as quickly as possible and the employer’s need to
accomplish the administrative tasks involved in effectuat-
ing that return in an orderly manner, including, if neces-
sary, discharging any replacement workers. Id. at 113–
114.12 However, where “an employer has rejected, at-
tached an unlawful condition to, or ignored an uncondi-
tional offer to return to work, the 5-day period serves no
useful purpose and backpay will commence as of the un-
conditional offer to return to work.” See Teamsters Local
574, 259 NLRB 344, 344 fn. 2 (1981) (citing Interstate
Paper Supply Co., 251 NLRB 1423 (1980)).
Here, the Respondent specifically disavowed any claim
that its multiweek delay was justified by the 5-day admin-
istrative grace period for reinstating unfair labor practice
strikers described in Drug Package Co. In any event, we
find that a grace period is not warranted here. As the
Board explained in Drug Package Co., “[t]he 5-day period
is not to enable the employer to delay reinstatement or to
obtain 5 days during which he is not required to pay back-
pay, but is in recognition of the practical difficulties he
may face in reinstating the employees, when he is not in a
position to know exactly when they may seek to return.”
Id. 114. That is not the situation in this case. Even assum-
ing that the Respondent remained uncertain as to the du-
ration of the strike—notwithstanding that the Union’s stat-
utorily-required 8(g) notice stated that the strike would
last from September 16 through 18—the Respondent did

11 See also Beaird Industries, Inc., 313 NLRB 735, 735 fn. 2 (1994)
(finding that employer did not violate the Act by reinstating unfair labor
practice strikers 4 days after the effective date of an unconditional offer
to return).
12 The Board made clear, however, that administrative difficulties are
not a basis for delay beyond the 5-day period: “As strikers cannot assert
that an employer does not need the 5 days, neither can employers assert
that a period longer than the 5-day period is required.” Id. at 113–114
not move to promptly reinstate the strikers following their
unconditional offer to return to work on September 19.
Rather, this was a situation where an employer rejects, un-
duly delays, or ignores an unconditional offer to return to
work, such that the 5-day grace period serves no useful
purpose and the employer’s obligation commences with
the unconditional offer to return. See, e.g., Ideal Dyeing
& Finishing Co., 300 NLRB 303, 321 (1990), enfd. 956
F.2d 1167 (9th Cir. 1992); Newport News Shipbuilding,
236 NLRB 1637, 1638 (1978), enfd. 602 F.2d 73 (4th Cir.
1979).
Nor do we find that the Respondent’s asserted contrac-
tual obligations to retain agency-supplied replacement
employees for 4 to 6 weeks excused its delay in reinstating
15 unfair labor practice strikers under Pacific Mutual
Door Co., 278 NLRB 854 (1986). In Pacific Mutual
Door, the Board held that a 30-day notice-of-cancellation
provision in a contract between the employer and an em-
ployee-leasing company that supplied temporary strike re-
placements constituted a legitimate and substantial busi-
ness justification for a delay in reinstating economic strik-
ers. Id. at 856. However, Pacific Mutual Door does not
apply to unfair labor practice strikers, who are entitled to
immediate reinstatement (subject to the 5-day administra-
tive grace period).
The difference in our treatment of economic and unfair
labor practice strikers is well established. The Board has
explained this distinction as follows:
Unlike those who strike to secure economic objectives
in an atmosphere untainted by employer unfair labor
practices, unfair labor practice strikers are not required
to assume the risk of being replaced during the strike, but
instead are guaranteed a right to return to their former
positions as soon as they unconditionally seek active
reemployment. This guarantee, we believe, is essential
in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act and the
public policies underlying it. Any other construction of
the statute would permit an employer, through the suc-
cessful exercise of his economic power, to recruit re-
placements for strikers, to defeat, for all practical pur-
poses, the interdictions of the Act against his commis-
sion of unfair labor practices and lightly to disregard the
protests of his work force against his unlawful acts. It
would permit employers to recruit a new group of
fn. 28; see also Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 856 (1999) (re-
jecting employer’s argument that its contractual obligation to compen-
sate temporary workers for at least a full 40-hour workweek justified its
failure to immediately reinstate unfair labor practice strikers where the
employer did not begin reinstating the strikers within 5 days after they
unconditionally offered to return to work), enfd. in relevant part 233 F.3d
831 (4th Cir. 2000).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
employees and to leave without employment some or all
of those who had been adversely affected by his unlaw-
ful infringement of employee rights.
Colonial Press, Inc., 207 NLRB 673, 674 (1973), enf.
denied in part on other grounds 509 F.2d 850 (8th Cir.
1975). The uncontroversial proposition relied upon by the
Respondent—that economic strikers who have been tem-
porarily replaced have the same right to reinstatement as
unfair labor practice strikers—is not to the contrary. See
Harvey Mfg., 309 NLRB 465, 469–470 (1992) (quoting
Teledyne Still-Man, 298 NLRB 982, 985 (1990), enfd. 938
F.2d 627 (6th Cir. 1991)) (temporarily replaced economic
strikers, like unfair labor practice strikers, “have a right to
immediate reinstatement ‘because even economic strikers
are entitled to reclaim their jobs . . . if the jobs are vacant
or are occupied only by temporary replacements when
they make their unconditional offer to return.’”). Unfair
labor practice strikers do not stand in the shoes of eco-
nomic strikers who have been temporarily replaced, as the
Respondent asserts, and it does not follow that a legitimate
and substantial business justification for a delay in rein-
stating economic strikers under Pacific Mutual Door also
constitutes a legitimate and substantial business justifica-
tion for a delay in reinstating unfair labor practice strikers.
We recognize that in order to continue operations dur-
ing a strike, an employer may sometimes contractually
commit to retaining temporary replacement workers for a
period of time. Such a commitment may, in turn, generate
an interest in delaying reinstatement of strikers in order to
avoid paying both sets of workers. Where employees
strike in support of economic objectives and the employer
has not committed any unfair labor practices, this interest
in avoiding double payment may constitute a legitimate
and substantial business justification for an employer’s
delay in reinstating such economic strikers. Pacific Mu-
tual Door, above at 856.13 But where the employer’s own
unlawful conduct contributed to employees’ decision to
strike, its financial interest does not permit it to delay re-
instating strikers; rather, “since the employer is at fault for
interfering with protected rights of the employees, it must
bear the consequences of having violated the Act.” Orit
Corp., 294 NLRB at 698, and cited cases.
Relatedly, we reject the Respondent’s claim that, as a
health care facility, it must be allowed to delay reinstating

13 See also Randall, Burkart/Randall, Division of Textron, 257 NLRB
1, 6–7 (1981) (finding legitimate and substantial business justification
for delaying reinstatement of economic strikers where employer’s
prestrike inventory buildup required by its customers made the immedi-
ate employment of a substantial number of the strikers unnecessary),
enfd. in part and denied in part on other grounds 687 F.2d 1240 (8th Cir.
1982); NLRB v. Southern Florida Hotel & Motel Assn., 751 F.2d 1571,
1583 (11th Cir. 1985) (finding employer’s business decision to eliminate
unfair labor practice strikers “pursuant to contractual com-
mitments required by staffing agencies for temporary
workers needed to ensure proper staffing levels and unin-
terrupted patient care during a strike.” While Board prec-
edent requiring immediate reinstatement of unfair labor
practice strikers does not prevent an employer from enter-
ing into such contractual commitments, the employer, not
the unfair labor practice strikers, must bear the risk of hav-
ing to pay for two groups of workers at the same time.
Although ensuring adequate staffing and continuity of pa-
tient care are undeniably important, they do not justify
shifting the financial burden of securing a replacement
work force from the party that committed unfair labor
practices to the employees who struck in protest of those
practices.
Finally, creating an exception to permit health care em-
ployers to deny immediate reinstatement to unfair labor
practice strikers based on staffing-agency contracts that
ensure continuity of patient care but require minimum
terms of employment would be contrary to the balance
struck by Congress in Section 8(g) of the Act. Section
8(g) was added as part of the 1974 amendments to the Act,
which were intended to remedy the exclusion of nonprofit
hospital workers from the Act’s coverage while providing
“‘special protection’” to health care institutions “‘in order
to assure continuity of patient care.’” Special Touch
Home Care Services, 357 NLRB 4, 7 (2011) (quoting
Walker Methodist Residence, 227 NLRB 1630, 1630
(1977)), enf. denied on other grounds 708 F.3d 447 (2d
Cir. 2013). Section 8(g)’s requirement that unions provide
health care institutions with at least 10 days’ notice before
striking was “intended as a sufficient safeguard to enable
health care workers to strike.” NLRB v. Special Touch
Home Care Services, 708 F.3d 447, 456 (2d Cir. 2013).
Permitting health care employers to deny immediate rein-
statement to unfair labor practice strikers would place an
additional and significant burden on health care employ-
ees’ right to strike beyond that deemed appropriate by
Congress. This, the Board is not free to do. See Laborers
Local 1057 v. NLRB, 567 F.2d 1006, 1015 (D.C. Cir.
1977) (“[T]he Board is not free to draw the line elsewhere
even in a well-intentioned belief that broader protection of
the public interest in health care outweighs the resulting
imposition on employees.”).14
a service justified denying reinstatement to economic strikers), denying
enf. in relevant part to 245 NLRB 561 (1979).
14 Contrary to the Respondent’s assertion, neither Sutter Roseville
Medical Center, 348 NLRB 637 (2006), nor Roosevelt Memorial Medi-
cal Center, 348 NLRB 1016 (2006), supports applying Pacific Mutual
Door to an unfair labor practice strike at a health care facility. Although
both Sutter Roseville and Roosevelt Memorial involved health care em-
ployers, neither case involved an unfair labor practice strike. Sutter
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 5
III.
In any event, we find that even assuming for the sake of
argument that a delay beyond 5 days in reinstating unfair
labor practice strikers could ever be justified by an em-
ployer’s contractual obligation to retain temporary strike
replacements for a minimum period of time, the Respond-
ent would not have satisfied its burden of establishing that
its staffing-agency contracts constituted a legitimate and
substantial business justification for its delay. First, the
Respondent has not demonstrated that the staffing agen-
cies required the lengthy minimum terms as a condition of
supplying the temporary replacements during the strike.
Compare Pacific Mutual Door, 278 NLRB at 856 (finding
30-day cancellation provision gave the employer a legiti-
mate and substantial business justification for delaying re-
instating economic strikers where the provision repre-
sented a condition on the employer’s ability to obtain tem-
porary replacements and continue its operations), with
Harvey Mfg., 309 NLRB at 469 (finding employer’s con-
tract with temporary replacement agency did not justify
delay in reinstating economic strikers because there was
no basis to find that the contract provisions allegedly re-
quiring the delay were necessary in order to induce the
agency to provide replacements and because the provi-
sions did not clearly require the delay). There is no cred-
ited record evidence regarding the parties’ negotiations
that resulted in the contract amendments or the reasons the
Respondent agreed to the 4–6 week terms.15 In addition,
Jasinski told Massey that the Respondent entered into the
contracts in case the strike lasted longer than 3 days.
There is no evidence Jasinski said that the staffing agen-
cies demanded 4-6 week terms. Thus, the record does not
support the Respondent’s claim on brief that the staffing
agencies insisted on the 4–6 week terms as a condition of
providing temporary replacements.
Second, the Respondent has not established that it was
financially liable for agency employees it did not use after
the strike ended. Since 12 Tristate employees worked for
the Respondent during the strike, the Tristate contract os-
tensibly required the Respondent to retain 12 Tristate em-
ployees for 4 weeks after the strike. However, only eight
Tristate employees worked at Castle Hill after September

Roseville involved an economic strike, and the complaint did not allege
that the employer violated the Act by delaying the reinstatement of eco-
nomic strikers replaced by temporary employees hired pursuant to 5-day
contracts. 348 NLRB at 637 & fn. 6. In Roosevelt Memorial, a union
gave notice of its intent to engage in an economic strike, but, 4 days be-
fore the strike was to commence, the union postponed the strike indefi-
nitely. In the meantime, the hospital had scheduled agency-supplied
temporary replacements and per diem employees to work during the
strike. The Board found that the hospital’s subsequent minimal reduc-
tion in the hours of the would-be economic strikers during the period in
18. Additionally, the Towne contract stated that the Re-
spondent agreed to employ five Towne employees for 6
weeks, but only four Towne employees worked at Castle
Hill after the strike. The Respondent has not provided any
evidence demonstrating that it had to compensate Tristate
or Towne for replacements who were guaranteed employ-
ment after the strike but did not work. Indeed, the record
does not support a finding that the Respondent would have
had to pay for any agency employees that it did not use
after the strike. Accordingly, the Respondent cannot es-
tablish that its contracts generated the kind of business in-
terest in retaining temporary replacements that could war-
rant a delay in reinstating the strikers.
Third, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate that
agency-supplied employees actually replaced the 15 strik-
ers who were not immediately reinstated. While the Re-
spondent refused to immediately reinstate 15 strikers on
September 19, only eight agency-supplied employees
worked at Castle Hill that day. In addition, three nonunit
employees—two Quality Assurance CNAs and one CNA
from another Alaris-affiliated facility—performed bar-
gaining unit work at Castle Hill on September 19. Thus,
even if the Respondent’s contractual obligations could
have justified denying immediate reinstatement to some
strikers, the contracts could not justify the Respondent’s
refusal to immediately reinstate at least some of the 15
strikers at issue here. See Sutter Roseville, 348 NLRB at
637, 645–647 (temporary agency contracts did not justify
delay in reinstating economic strikers replaced by in-
house, non-unit employees). The Respondent has not pro-
vided any basis for determining which delays were at-
tributable to its use of temporary replacements and which
were not, but rather argues that the agency contracts justi-
fied its actions with respect to all 15 strikers. Accordingly,
even assuming for argument’s sake that a defense under
Pacific Mutual Door were available to the Respondent as
a matter of law, it would not have met its burden of estab-
lishing a legitimate and substantial business justification
for delaying the reinstatement of the 15 strikers.
For these reasons, we affirm the judge’s conclusion that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by failing
which the strike was to have occurred was justified by the hospital’s de-
sire to avoid incurring the additional expense of unused labor and to
maintain the goodwill of the per diem employees. 348 NLRB at 1020–
1021. No such circumstances are present here.
15 Several of the Respondent’s witnesses testified about their under-
standing of the staffing contracts, but those witnesses did not participate
in the negotiations with the staffing agencies. The judge discredited their
testimony as vague, noting that the Respondent failed to call to the stand
Linda Dooley, the Alaris officer who signed the staffing agreements, or
to otherwise explore the circumstances leading to the addenda.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
to immediately reinstate 15 unfair labor strikers on their
unconditional offer to return to work.16
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Replace the judge’s Conclusion of Law 5(a) with the
following:
“(a) Duran solicited employee Claudia Saldana in July
2014 to convince other employees not to go on strike.”
2. Insert the following as Conclusion of Law 5(b) and
renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
“(b) Duran interrogated employee Devika Smith in
September 2014 as to whether she planned to go on
strike.”
3. Replace the judge’s Conclusion of Law 6 with the
following:
“6. Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by:
“(a) Failing and refusing, on September 19, 2014, to
immediately reinstate 15 employees who engaged in an
unfair labor practice strike and had made an unconditional
offer to return to work.
“(b) Reducing the work hours of Brenda Mota-Lopes
and Leanne Crawford upon their reinstatement after the
strike.”
AMENDED REMEDY
We amend the judge’s remedy as follows.17 First, the
judge ordered the Respondent to recall the 15 strikers de-
nied immediate reinstatement on September 19. How-
ever, the judge found, and no party disputes, that 14 of the
strikers have been reinstated to their former jobs. We shall
not order the Respondent to offer reinstatement to those
strikers. The fifteenth striker, Leanne Crawford, was re-
instated on October 27, but she was not granted full rein-
statement to her former job because her hours were unlaw-
fully reduced. We shall order the Respondent to offer
Crawford full reinstatement to her former job, including
her former hours.
Second, the judge ordered the Respondent to restore the
previous work hours of the two strikers whose hours were
reduced when they were reinstated. As stated above, we
order the Respondent to offer Crawford full reinstatement
to her former job, including her former hours. The other
striker whose hours were reduced, Brenda Mota-Lopes,

16 Backpay for this violation shall commence as of September 19,
when the strikers, through their union, unconditionally offered to return
to work. See Teamsters Local 574, 259 NLRB 344, 344 fn. 2 (1981)
(citing Interstate Paper Supply Co., 251 NLRB 1423 (1980) (“[I]f an
employer has rejected, attached an unlawful condition to, or ignored an
unconditional offer to return to work, the 5-day period serves no useful
purpose and backpay will commence as of the unconditional offer to re-
turn to work.”)).
quit her employment with the Respondent sometime after
the strike ended, and the General Counsel does not seek
her reinstatement. Accordingly, we do not order this rem-
edy for her.
Third, the judge provided that both the 15 strikers who
were denied immediate reinstatement and the 2 strikers
whose hours were reduced be made whole as prescribed
in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). However,
the make-whole award for the reduction in Crawford’s and
Mota-Lopes’ hours is properly calculated in the manner
set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest at
the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). The Ogle Protec-
tion formula applies where, as here, the Board is remedy-
ing “a violation of the Act which does not involve cessa-
tion of employment status or interim earnings that would
in the course of time reduce backpay.” Ogle Protection
Service, supra at 683; see also Pepsi-America, Inc., 339
NLRB 986, 986 fn. 2 (2003). However, Crawford suf-
fered both delayed reinstatement and reduced hours upon
her return, requiring separate backpay calculations. Thus,
backpay for Crawford shall be calculated pursuant to F.
W. Woolworth from September 19 (the date of the strikers’
unconditional offer to return) to October 27 (the date
Crawford was reinstated, albeit with reduced hours and
thus not fully), and pursuant to Ogle Protection after Oc-
tober 27.
Fourth, in accordance with our decision in King Soop-
ers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), enfd. in pertinent part
859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017), we shall order the Respond-
ent to compensate the 15 strikers denied immediate rein-
statement for their search-for-work and interim employ-
ment expenses regardless of whether those expenses ex-
ceed interim earnings. Search-for-work and interim em-
ployment expenses shall be calculated separately from
taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in
New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, supra.
Finally, the Respondent shall be required to compensate
affected employees for the adverse tax consequences, if
any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and to file
17 As noted above, supra fn. 3, the Respondent has not excepted to the
judge’s finding that it unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union’s
chosen bargaining committee. Nor does it argue that the judge’s recom-
mended affirmative bargaining order is improper. We therefore find it
unnecessary to provide a specific justification for the affirmative bar-
gaining order. See Lily Transportation Corp., 363 NLRB No. 15, slip
op. at 3 fn. 5 (2015), enfd. 853 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2017); Heritage Con-
tainer, Inc., 334 NLRB 455, 455 fn. 4 (2001); see also Scepter Inc. v.
NLRB, 280 F.3d 1053, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 7
with the Regional Director for Region 22, within 21 days
of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agree-
ment or Board order, a report allocating the backpay
awards to the appropriate calendar years for each em-
ployee. AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143
(2016).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re-
spondent, Alaris Health at Castle Hill, Union City, New
Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with 1199, SEIU United
Healthcare Workers East (the Union) because of the com-
position of the Union’s bargaining committee.
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by
refusing to provide and unreasonably delaying in provid-
ing it with requested information that is relevant and nec-
essary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the
collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s
unit employees, including health insurance and daily work
schedule information.
(c) Soliciting employees to convince other employees
not to go on strike and soliciting employee grievances and
impliedly promising to remedy them.
(d) Coercively interrogating employees about their un-
ion activities and/or support.
(e) Threatening employees with termination, job loss,
or changes in working conditions if they go on strike.
(f) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals
for engaging in union or other protected concerted activ-
ity.
(g) Placing employees under surveillance while they
engage in union or other protected concerted activities.
(h) Failing and refusing to immediately reinstate em-
ployees who engage in an unfair labor practice strike upon
their unconditional offer to return to work.
(i) Reducing the work hours of employees because they
have engaged in an unfair labor practice strike.
(j) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, 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.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit concerning terms and con-
ditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
[A]ll CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides,
and all other employees excluding professional
employees, registered nurses, LPNs, cooks, confidential
[employees], office clerical employees, supervisors,
watchmen and guards.
(b) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation it requested concerning health insurance and daily
work schedules.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Leanne Crawford full reinstatement to her former job, in-
cluding her former hours, or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
(d) Make Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa
Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Diana
Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Angeline
Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie
Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin, and Komi
Anakpa whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of its unlawful failure to immediately
reinstate them upon their unconditional offer to return to
work in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
judge’s decision as amended in this decision, plus reason-
able search-for-work and interim employment expenses.
(e) Make Leanne Crawford and Brenda Mota-Lopes
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of having their work hours unlawfully reduced
in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s
decision as amended in this decision.
(f) Compensate the affected employees for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region 22,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed,
either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years for each
employee.
(g) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful failure to im-
mediately reinstate Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana,
Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santi-
ago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez,
Angeline Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulaz-
eez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin,
and Komi Anakpa upon their unconditional offer to return
to work, and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writ-
ing that this has been done and that the failure to immedi-
ately reinstate them will not be used against them in any
way.
(h) 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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic
copy of such records if stored in electronic form, neces-
sary to analyze the amount of back pay due under the
terms of this Order.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Union City, New Jersey, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix”18 in both English and
Spanish. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 22, 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 phys-
ical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distrib-
uted electronically, such as by email, posting on an intra-
net or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent customarily communicates with its employ-
ees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these 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 Re-
spondent at any time since March 27, 2014.
(j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 22 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
Dated , Washington D.C. December 21, 2018
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
_______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

18 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
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 vio-
lated 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with 1199, SEIU United
Healthcare Workers East (the Union) because of the com-
position of its bargaining committee.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Un-
ion by refusing to provide or unreasonably delaying in
providing it with requested information that is relevant
and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions
as the collective-bargaining representative of our unit em-
ployees, including health insurance and daily work sched-
ule information.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to convince other em-
ployees not to go on strike.
WE WILL NOT solicit employee grievances and im-
pliedly promise to remedy them.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you about your un-
ion activities and/or support.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with termination, job loss, or
changes in working conditions if you go on strike.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified reprisals for
engaging in union or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT place you under surveillance while you
engage in union or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to immediately reinstate
employees who engage in an unfair labor practice strike
upon their unconditional offer to return to work.
WE WILL NOT reduce the work hours of employees who
engage in an unfair labor practice strike.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 9
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit concerning terms
and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
[A]ll CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides,
and all other employees excluding professional employ-
ees, registered nurses, LPNs, cooks, confidential [em-
ployees], office clerical employees, supervisors, watch-
men and guards.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information it requested concerning health insurance and
daily work schedules.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Leanne Crawford full reinstatement to her
former job, including her former hours, or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana,
Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santi-
ago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez,
Angeline Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulaz-
eez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin,
and Komi Anakpa whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of our unlawful failure to im-
mediately reinstate them upon their unconditional offer to
return to work, less any net interim earnings, plus interest,
plus reasonable search-for-work and interim employment
expenses.
WE WILL make Leanne Crawford and Brenda Mota-
Lopes whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of having their work hours unlawfully
reduced, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 22, within 21 days of the date the amount
of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate
calendar years for each employee.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to our unlaw-
ful failure to immediately reinstate Devika Smith, Claudia
Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha
Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodri-
guez, Angeline Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 2014.
2 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis
Martin, and Komi Anakpa upon their unconditional offer
to return to work, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify them in writing that this has been done and that the
failure to immediately reinstate them will not be used
against them in any way.
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL
The Board’s decision can be found at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-125034 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Rela-
tions Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570,
or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Saulo Santiago, Michael P. Silverstein, and
Eric B. Sposito, Esqs., for the General Counsel.
David F. Jasinski and Rebecca D. Winkelstein, Esqs.
(Jasinski, P.C.), of Newark, New Jersey, for the Respondent.
William S. Massey and Patrick J. Walsh, Esqs.
(Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP), of New York, New
York, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case in-
volves the latest chapter in a long relationship between Alaris
Health at Castle Hill (Castle Hill or Respondent), a New Jersey
nursing home and its unionized employees. Tried in Newark,
New Jersey, over 9 days between June and October 2015, the
case addressed complaint allegations that Castle Hill committed
numerous unfair labor practices during 20141 bargaining for a
new contract: (1) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act)2 by refusing to meet with the Un-
ion’s chosen bargaining committee and then delaying and refus-
ing to provide information requested by the Union which was
relevant to bargaining; (2) violated Section 8(a)(1) by attempting
to stifle employee participation in a likely strike through interro-
gation, threats and surveillance; and (3) violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by retaliating against 16 employee strikers by refusing to
reinstate them and/or reducing their work hours.3
3 The complaint was amended to modify pars. 21 through 24 (GC
Exh. 1(w)). In addition, the General Counsel subsequently withdrew
complaint pars. 28–29 and modified par. 30 to remove reference to par.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
Castle Hill contends that the Charging Party, Service Employ-
ees International Union 1199 (the Union), is bogged down on
past history in negotiating for successor contracts and engagedin
a series of acts designed to “set up” Castle Hill for unfair labor
practice charges, which it denies, and then used those charges to
mask an economic strike at Castle Hill and the other three Alaris
facilities as an unfair labor practice strike.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by
the General Counsel, the Union, and Castle Hill,4 I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Castle Hill, a corporation, operates a nursing home and reha-
bilitation center providing in-patient medical care at its facility
in Union City, New Jersey, where it annually derives gross rev-
enues in excess of $100,000 and purchases and receives goods
valued in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State
of New Jersey. Castle Hill admits, and I find, that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act, as well as a health care institution within
the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, and the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Parties
Castle Hill is the successor-in-interest to Castle Hill Health
Care Center. Although the company name has changed, the fa-
cility’s ownership has remained the same and the individuals in-
volved in bargaining and the operational aspects mostly remain
the same. At the relevant times in this complaint, Castle Hill’s
supervisors included: Nelson Maurice Duran, the administrator;
Regina Figueroa, Alaris’ vice president of operations for health
care staffing; Alexandra Bracea, the director of nursing; Laura
Vartolone, the assistant director of nursing; Fredline Altenor, the
staffing coordinator; Lavonza Jaboiun, a nursing supervisor;
Ann Taylor, a quality assurance nurse from health care staffing
who serves as a Castle Hill consultant. David Jasinski, Esq., has
served as Castle Hill’s labor counsel and chief negotiator during
collective bargaining, accompanied by Mendy Gold, a principal
in Castle Hill.5
Castle Hill and its predecessors have recognized the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of approxi-
mately 120 employees in successive collective-bargaining agree-
ments, the most recent of which was effective from April 1,

28 alleging that Castle Hill unilaterally discontinued its dues-checkoff
agreement with the Union.
4 Notwithstanding my instruction that the parties submit one “omni-
bus” brief addressing this case, as well as the other three cases involving
Alaris facilities, the General Counsel submitted separate briefs for each
case. Castle Hill moved to strike the General Counsel’s exhibits. I de-
cided against such an extreme measure but, in order to ensure that there
was no prejudice to Castle Hill, I permitted it to submit supplemental
briefs in each case. Castle Hill declined the option.
5 Castle Hill admitted only that Duran was a Sec. 2(11) supervisor.
However, the undisputed facts established that Bracea, Jabioun and
2010, to March 31, 2014:
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs,
and all other employees excluding professional employees,
registered nurses, cooks, confidential [employees], office cler-
ical employees, supervisors, watchmen and guards.6
The Union’s leadership includes: Milly Silva, the executive
vice president; Clauvice Saint Hilaire, the vice president; and
Ron McCalla and Chistina Ozual, union organizers. During col-
lective bargaining, the Union’s chief negotiator was William
Massey, Esq., assisted by McCalla. Castle Hill’s employees des-
ignated as members of the bargaining committee were Danielle
Humphrey, Devika Smith, L. Stuckey, Ron Lesesne, Tosha
Sangare and Marquis Francois.7
The parties enjoy a relationship that both describe as respect-
ful. An outsider’s more accurate description is that Castle Hill
and union representatives are professional labor negotiators who
represent their clients with tactical, albeit scripted, fervor. The
parties began meeting shortly before the 2010 contract expired,
but controversy soon erupted over the method of meeting and
information requested by the Union. This was not a surprise,
given the previous disagreements during their 2007–2008 nego-
tiations, which resulted in the Union going on strike, filing an
unfair labor practice complaint, and Judge Mindy Landow issu-
ing a decision finding unfair labor practices by Castle Hill in
prematurely declaring impasse, unlawfully implementing its fi-
nal contract offer, failing to furnish the Union with requested in-
formation, and unilaterally discontinuing pension fund contribu-
tions. The Board affirmed Judge Landow’s decision on Septem-
ber 28, 2010. Castle Hill Health Care Center, 355 NLRB 1156
(2010).
B. The Union’s Information Requests
1. The December 27, 2013 request
Saint Hilaire initiated the process for a new contract in a letter,
dated December 27, 2013. He requested that Castle Hill engage
in bargaining and offered alternative dates in February. He also
requested that Castle Hill furnish the Union with the following
information by January 24: detailed job descriptions and perfor-
mance evaluations describing job duties for bargaining unit po-
sitions; summary plan descriptions and related costs of available
fringe benefits such as health insurance, disability, pension,
profit sharing and 401(k) plans;8 numbers of employees covered
by health insurance and related costs; temporary staffing agen-
cies used and related costs; work schedules for each nursing unit
from January to October 2013; OSHA injury and illness records
for 2011–2013; health and safety policies; overtime work
Vartalone were also statutory supervisors, while Jasinski, Altenor,
Figueroa and Taylor acted as agents within the meaning of Sec. 2(13).
6 GC Exh. 3.
7 Section 17(c) of the agreement, entitled “Negotiations,” stated that
the “Union negotiating committee, not to exceed six (6) Employees, shall
be paid for up to three (3) negotiating sessions, by the Employer, at
straight time rates, for all lost time from work.”
8 McCalla knew that Castle Hill did not maintain a 401(k) plan at the
time of the previous negotiations but credibly explained that it was a
standard request that was made in the event that one was created during
the term of the expired agreement. (Tr. 153–154.)
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 11
policies, shift differentials, and premium pay; gross annual pay-
roll information; cost reports submitted to Medicaid; and any
other documents describing any terms and conditions of employ-
ment for unit members.9
Jasinski had several conversations with McCalla and Massey
in January about dates to commence collective bargaining. He
apprised them several times that he would be engaged in a
lengthy trial in Atlantic City, New Jersey, during portions of
February and March. The trial eventually started on February 9
and lasted until March 22. Rebecca Winklestein, Esq., Jasinski’s
cocounsel in this proceeding, served a similar role in that case.
At some point during those discussions, Jasinski suggested a
brief contract extension, but did not request an extension of time
to respond to the Union’s December 27 information request.10
Neither Massey nor McCalla accepted that offer. McCalla did,
however, express the Union’s preference to bundle all four con-
tracts together during collective bargaining, echoing the Union’s
position during the 2007 negotiations. Consistent with his re-
sponse in 2007, Jasinski refused, insisting there was a separate
contract for each facility and each should be negotiated sepa-
rately. He proposed bargaining dates of either March 27 or 31.11
In a letter, dated February 21, McCalla responded to Jasinski
by agreeing to meet on either day and break out negotiations into
separate bargaining sessions for each facility. However, he also
proposed to have an initial session with the bargaining commit-
tees for all four facilities present in order for union officials to
open with their remarks:
In our discussions concerning bargaining dates you said you
have possible availability on March 27 and definite availability
on March 31. We request that we use one of those dates to
begin bargaining at Alaris Health at Boulevard East, Alaris
Health at Castle Hill, Alaris Health at Harbor View, and Alaris
Health at Rochelle Park. If we need to move the bargaining ses-
sion for a different facility tentatively scheduled for the 31st, so
be it. As you know the four Alaris contracts expire on the
March 31, 2014 and we’ve yet to receive any response to infor-
mation requests sent to the facilities on December 27, 2013.
We believe it’s important to start bargaining before the con-
tracts expire as it’s our desire to reach contract settlements in
these facilities as quickly as possible.
While we understand the employer’s position on separate bar-
gaining tables for each facility and our agreement to hold four

9 Castle Hill did not dispute testimony by McCalla and Massey that
employees complained about short staffing. (GC Exh. 4.)
10 There is no dispute regarding Jasinski’s assertion regarding his past
practice of providing Castle Hill’s response to the Union’s information
requests on the first day of negotiations. (Tr. 2154.) Moreover, his testi-
mony that he told McCalla in January and Massey in February that he
would not have an opportunity to delve into the December 27 infor-
mation request was also undisputed. However, in light of Massey’s
March 13 email demanding a response to the information request, it is
clear that the Union never consented to delayed document production
until March 27. (Tr. 1420–1424, 1986–1987; GC Exh. 7.) It is also likely
that Jasinski, an experienced labor litigator who defended against the Un-
ion’s unfair labor practice charges resulting from previous contract ne-
gotiations, would have mentioned such an agreement or understanding
in subsequent communications.
separate meetings on the first day of bargaining we believe it
would be advisable to add a fifth initial session with all facili-
ties and bargaining committees present to give our union leader
Milly Silva and counsel Bill Massey an opportunity to address
the proceedings before we break into separate sessions. This
would obviously be an opportunity for management represent-
atives to speak directly with the employees and Union officials.
Please let us know which of these dates would be your prefer-
ence.12
In a letter, dated February 26, Jasinski confirmed the proposed
bargaining dates and agreed to the proposal to have Silva and
Massey open with remarks, but insisted they make them at the
beginning of each bargaining session for each of the facilities.
He also renewed his request for a 90-day contract extension, but
made no mention of the December 27 information request:
We are in receipt of your letter identifying a number of facili-
ties whose contracts expire on March 31, 2014. A brief re-
sponse is warranted.
Each identified facility is a separate and independent operation
with its own collective bargaining agreement covering employ-
ees for that particular facility. They maintain separation opera-
tions, including all necessary staff. Each facility is unique and
the bargaining history at each facility recognize its independ-
ence.
In light of these undisputed facts, we will adhere to our prior
practice and not agree to joint bargaining. Of course, Milly
Silva and Bill Massey may present the Union’s respective po-
sitions for each facility at each bargaining session and, quite
candidly, we welcome their attendance.
We are available and confirm the March 27 and 31 dates for
each facility. Please notify me of the times to commence nego-
tiations for each facility. In scheduling for these sessions, we
request notification of the members of the bargaining commit-
tee who will be attending. We request these names at least two
(2) weeks in advance to avoid any disruption in our staffing.
Bargaining sessions, as in our prior negotiations, will take place
at the Union's offices in Edison.
Finally, in a spirit of good faith and cooperation, as discussed,
we will agree to the extension of each collective bargaining
agreement for an additional ninety (90) days. This additional
11 Massey conceded that it was Jasinski’s longstanding position to ne-
gotiate each contract separately, but noted that there were previous occa-
sions prior to 2014 when the employer agreed to bargain two to four fa-
cilities at different times on the same day. (Tr. 926–928.) Jasinski con-
ceded that in 2010 all four contracts were essentially bargained at the
same time in the final bargaining session based on an off-the-record
meeting involving delegates from all four facilities. (Tr. 1509–1510.)
12 Jasinski’s testimony regarding assurances by McCalla about nego-
tiating the contracts separately is consistent with McCalla’s documented
agreement to do that—subject to an opening statement by Silva at the
beginning of negotiations. The assurances of separate bargaining, how-
ever, made no mention of the composition of Castle Hill’s bargaining
committee. (GC Exh. 5; Tr. 869, 1426–1427.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
time will afford all parties the opportunity to formulate its bar-
gaining positions and engage in give-and-take at the bargaining
table in an effort to reach an amicable agreement that balances
the needs of all parties. Should the Union wish to jumpstart the
negotiations and submit its initial proposals to us prior to the in-
itial bargaining session, we will accept and review each proposal.
Thank you.13
On March 13, McCalla emailed Jasinski to inform him that
each of the four Alaris facilities would receive releases for bar-
gaining committee members that day by fax and certified mail.
Massey followed up with an email later that day regarding the
commencement of bargaining and the outstanding information
requests:
This is to follow up on Ron’s correspondence below concern-
ing the start of bargaining with the four Alaris facilities. As you
are likely aware, on December 27, 2013, the Union, via Vice-
President Clauvice St. Hilaire, served information requests on
the four Alaris facilities, copies of which are attached hereto for
your convenience. Clauvice requested that the sought after doc-
uments be produced to the Union by January 24, 2014. We are
now in March, only a couple of weeks away from sitting down
to start negotiations, and I understand that none of the four fa-
cilities has produced even a single document to the Union. Sim-
ilarly, I am advised that the facilities have not requested an ex-
tension of time nor an explanation for the delay in producing
these documents, which are relevant and necessary for bargain-
ing. Please have the four facilities produce the requested infor-
mation as soon as possible, but no later than March 18, 2014.
Please advise your clients to supply information as it becomes
available rather than waiting to assemble all the information re-
quested. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best re-
gards.14
2. The March 14 information request
In a letter, dated March 14, Massey followed up on his email
to Jasinski from the day before, insisting on a response to the
December 27, 2013 information request by March 18. In addi-
tion, Massey made a supplemental request for the most current
payroll roster, daily schedules from January to December 2013
(to the extent not already covered by the previous request), actu-
arial plan values, and specific health insurance plan documents.
The health insurance documents sought included any relating to
summary plan descriptions, costs, terms of coverage, census data
reflecting plans selected by employees, actuarial and utilization
plan values, and requests for proposals and financial impact re-
lated information.15

13 GC Exh. 6.
14 Jasinski’s testimony established that he never had an agreement
from the Union for an extension of time to respond to the December 27
information request. When asked on direct examination about that re-
quest, Jasinski simply lumped that issue in with his interest in a contract
extension. (Tr. 1416–1418.) Massey had no recollection of any such con-
versation, but “could appreciate . . . that it would be difficult to do lots
of other work while [Jasinski was] on trial.” (Tr. 930–931.) Nevertheless,
the other trial only extended into February and Jasinski simply ignored
Massey’s March 13th reminder to provide the information in advance of
3. The March 27, 2014 bargaining session
On March 27, Castle Hill and the Union met at 11 a.m. at the
Union’s offices in Iselin, New Jersey, for the first collective-bar-
gaining session. Two days were set aside for bargaining. Bar-
gaining was to start with the Castle Hill contract and be followed
by negotiations over the Harborview, Boulevard East, and Ro-
chelle Park contracts. Massey, McCalla, Saint Hilaire, Silva,
Ozual, and approximately 20–25 employee delegates from Cas-
tle Hill, Rochelle Park, Harborview, and Boulevard East were
present for the Union. Jasinski was present for the Employer, but
Mendy Gold had not yet arrived.
After waiting about an hour for Gold, Jasinski agreed to start
the Castle Hill negotiations. Milly Silva and Massey opened with
brief opening remarks. After reviewing the sign-in sheet, Jasin-
ski protested the presence of employee-members from the facil-
ities. He proclaimed Castle Hill’s readiness to commence Castle
Hill negotiations, but noted each contract was different and the
parties had not previously engaged in joint bargaining. Massey
replied that the Union was entitled to bargain with a team of its
choosing. Jasinki disagreed, accused the Union of playing games
and was prepared to leave if employees from the other three fa-
cilities did not leave. Massey asked him to reconsider and reiter-
ated that the Union was entitled to pick its own team. At that
point, Jasinski placed a packet of information relating to Castle
Hill’s December 27 information request and retreated to a cau-
cusing room.16
Shortly thereafter, Massey and McCalla went to speak with
Jasinski. They asked him to relent, but neither side budged over
the composition of the Union’s bargaining committee. That con-
versation ended when Gold arrived and Jasinski asked to confer
with his client. A few minutes later, Jasinski and Gold returned
to the negotiation room. After confirming the Union’s continued
position regarding the composition of the bargaining committee,
Jasinski said that they would leave. At no point during this meet-
ing did Jasinski assert confidentiality concerns as a reason for
excluding employees from other Alaris facilities during Castle
Hill bargaining sessions.
The parties then discussed future dates for bargaining and
Jasinski provided Massey with packets responsive to the Decem-
ber 27 information requests by Harborview, Boulevard East, and
Rochelle Park. The cover letter in each packet conveyed Jasin-
ski’s view that the Union previously requested the information:
Enclosed please find a copy of the requested information. As
you will see, much of the information was already in the posi-
tion of the Union and available to the Union via its members.
We are glad to provide you with another copy. Should you have
any additional questions or require additional information,
the March 27 bargaining session. (Tr. 926, 929–930, 1416–1418; GC
Exh. 7.)
15 This request refined the previous request for monthly work sched-
ules from one that sought daily work schedules. (GC Exh. 8.)
16 I credit Jasinki’s undisputed testimony that some delegates in at-
tendances made side remarks, sneered, and laughed, but not his assertion
that their conduct made it “not conducive to bargaining.” If that were
true, Jasinski, an experienced labor litigator, would have raised that as a
concern. He made no mention of their conduct as he walked out. (Tr.
80–83, 870–872, 1432–1434.)
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 13
please advise.17
Before Jasinski and Gold left, the Union did not submit a pro-
posal.18 Silva did, however, ask about rumors that Boulevard
East would be demolished to make way for apartment building
development. Jasinski replied that the Boulevard East question
did not apply to the Castle Hill negotiation, while Gold said that
there was nothing to report. Jasinski said he would get back to
them about Boulevard East. Shortly thereafter, Jasinski and Gold
left and did not return in order to commence bargaining over
Boulevard East, Harborview, and Rochelle Park.
In a letter, dated April 1, Jasinski proposed dates for the re-
sumption of bargaining at the four facilities:
After the abbreviated March 27th bargaining session, I want to
reiterate that we are available to meet on April 1st, 2nd and 3rd
to continue negotiations for the referenced facility. We under-
stand that the Union did not believe it was prudent to meet on
any of those dates since it needed additional time to review in-
formation. In light of the upcoming religious holidays, we con-
firmed that we are available on April 28th and 29th, and also
offered April 30th and May 1st to meet on any one of those
dates for this facility. We believe that it is best to dedicate one
of these days for this facility only and not piggyback any other
negotiations for the designated dates. The employees deserve
our undivided attention. Unfortunately, despite our admitted
avai1ability, the Union has not confirmed any of those dates at
this time.
If the Union is interested in meeting to continue negotiations at
this facility, we ask that you confirm one of those dates for this
facility. In addition, if you are interested in moving the negoti-
ations forward, if we receive your written proposal prior to our
next session, it will give us the ability to review it and prepare
a response and to continue good faith bargaining.
Finally, we again express our willingness to extend the current
collective bargaining agreement for an additional period of
time to afford the parties the opportunity to continue negotia-
tions in good faith, and seek to reach an amicable resolution
that balances the needs of your members with the facility and
the care for our residents. Thank you.19
In his reply later that day, McCalla documented the parties’
March 27 meeting, disagreed with Castle Hill’s “refusal to hold
bargaining sessions for more than one facility per day “ as “un-
reasonable and a poor use of the time and resources of all par-
ties.” Notwithstanding Castle Hill’s position, McCalla proposed
to commence separate bargaining dates for each facility as fol-
lows: Castle Hill on April 28; Boulevard East on April 29; Ro-
chelle Park on May 1; and Harbor View on May 2.
As discussed on March 27, we reiterate that your clients' refusal
to hold bargaining sessions for more than one facility per day
is unreasonable and a poor use of the time and resources of all

17 GC Exh. 10; R. Exh. 2.
18 Castle Hill notes the discrepancy in testimony between Massey and
Saint Hilaire as to whether the Union was prepared to give a proposal if
the bargaining session had gone forward. (Tr. 938, 1059.)
19 GC Exh. 12.
parties. That said, assuming the Employers have not reconsid-
ered on this issue, the Union confirms our agreement from last
week to bargain on April 28 and April 29, we accept your offer
to bargain, on May 1, and we offer May 2 for a fourth session.
We propose the following sequence:20
3. The Union’s followup request
In a letter to Jasinski, dated April 9, Massey expressed concern
over Castle Hill’s failure to provide the Union with the infor-
mation described in items 10, 11, and 12 of the December 27
request, and items 2, 3(b), (c), and (e) through (1) of the March
14 request. In addition, Massey noted that the responses to items
14 and 15 of the December 27 request and item 3(a) of the March
14 request were incomplete. He asked for the outstanding infor-
mation to be provided by April 15.21
On April 21, Jasinski responded by reminding Massey that
“each facility is separate and we provided separate information
for each facility. In the future, we request that any inquiry be
addressed for the individual facility.” In response to items 10 and
11, Jasinski stated that there were no documents because the fa-
cility had not used agency personnel to perform bargaining unit
work. Item 12 was noted to be voluminous and Jasinski proposed
that the Union “accept a representative sample of work sched-
ule[s] for a limited period of time.” As to items 13 and 14, Jasin-
ski referred Massey to the employee handbook.22 In a separate
letter dated the same day, Jasinski responded to the Union’s
March 14 supplemental request by noting that items 1 and 3 were
previously provided, while item 2 was burdensome and unnec-
essary. Jasinski requested the Union to refine it to one not as
overbroad.23
5. The April 28 bargaining session
Prior to meeting with Castle Hill on April 28, the Union un-
dertook a propaganda blitz in a flier distributed to the employees
at the four facilities:
At our first bargaining session on Thursday, March 27th, we
came prepared to bargain with management at each of our four
facilities. But management refused to sit face to face with our
full bargaining team to discuss their proposals. They want to
divide us and weaken us, but we won't let that happen! We
won't wait years for a new contract! For more information, con-
tact your organizer, Christina Ozual at [xxx-xxx-xxxx]. The
next negotiations are scheduled for Monday, 4/28 and Tuesday,
4/29. Let's all be ready to stand strong and speak with one
voice!24
Jasinski and Gold met with the Union for bargaining over the
Castle Hill contract on April 28. Massey, McCalla, Silva, Saint
Hilaire, and Ozual were accompanied by eight bargaining unit
employees. The employees present included Davika Smith and
Danielle Humphrey from Castle Hill, Max Pedestin of Rochelle
20 GC Exh. 11.
21 GC Exh. 21.
22 GC Exh. 22.
23 GC Exh. 23.
24 GC Exh. 44.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
Park, and Denise Bowden of Harborview.25 Jasinski expressed
his continuing disapproval with the composition of the Union’s
bargaining team, but moved forward with the meeting. He pro-
vided the Union with Castle Hill’s proposal to renew the contract
and the Union provided a counterproposal, which included a
comprehensive economic package.26 Massey reminded Jasinski,
however, that the Union was still waiting for the CNA work
schedules and health insurance related information. In response
to Jasinski’s letter asserting the 12-month request was burden-
some, Massey agreed to accept 3 months of daily work sched-
ules. With respect to health insurance, Jasinski said he would get
back to the Union.
6. The employee schedules
In a letter, dated May 14, Jasinski furnished Massey with the
monthly staffing schedules at Castle Hill for each floor for all
shifts from January 12 through end of June. The monthly sched-
ules reflected projected CNAs’ work schedules and floor assign-
ments.27 On May 21, Jasinski responded to Massey’s additional
information request:
In response to your additional information request, we have
provided you with all relevant information. Most recently, we
supplemented our initial response with schedules for this Facil-
ity. The additional information which you have requested is
simply without merit. You are well aware of this fact, since
similar information was requested when the SEIU responded
that the information was not available, since it would be a vio-
lation of HIPAA.28
It is disconcerting that the Union now requests information
which it has previously been unable or refused to provide in
negotiations. It was either an oversight or, worse, disingenuous,
to make these requests.
We are prepared to continue to negotiate a collective bargain-
ing agreement that balances the interests of our employees and
your members with those of the Facility. Should you have any
other questions, please advise.29
The parties met again for bargaining on May 29. Massey again
opened with a statement that the information provided in re-
sponse to the Union’s request was not satisfactory because it
consisted of projected monthly schedules instead of daily reports
reflecting actual work performed by CNAs. Massey also asked
what Jasinski meant by HIPAA protected information. Jasinski
insisted that the monthly schedules were sufficient, but did not
identify the health related documents that were HIPAA pro-
tected. He then presented Castle Hill’s counterproposal and Mas-
sey provided the Union’s responses.30 The meeting concluded,
with Massey agreeing to get back to Jasinski with future bargain-
ing dates.

25 R. Exhs. 6, 104.
26 The Union does not dispute that, notwithstanding Castle Hill’s fail-
ure or refusal to provide necessary information requested on December
27 and March 14, it was still able to submit a proposal. (R. Exh. 1; Tr.
939.)
27 GC Exh. 13.
28 During the hearing, Jasinki sought to undermine the Union’s need
for health insurance information based on the lack of health or safety-
7. The July 8 bargaining session
The parties’ July 8 bargaining session opened, as usual, with
housekeeping issues, including the Union’s request for daily
schedules. Jasinski replied by insisting the Union owed him in-
formation regarding the Union’s pension fund. Massey repeated
the Union’s position that the information provided on May 14
was insufficient for it to formulate staffing proposals. Massey
insisted the Union needed the actual daily schedules as opposed
to projected monthly schedules, due to the changes under the Af-
fordable Care Act and needed to compare them to the levels of
health care to be provided by the employer (“need to look to the
ratios”). In addition, Massey told Jasinski that Castle Hill failed
to provide the Union with information responsive to items 2,
3(b), (c), and (e) through (1) of the Union's request for infor-
mation as described in the supplemental request.
Castle Hill’s daily schedules, also referred to as attendance
sheets, are generated by the staffing coordinator, Fredline Al-
tenor, and posted on a board next to the time clock. Although
printed a month in advance, these schedules are marked up by
Altenor or supervisors to reflect the days and shifts actually
worked.31 In contrast, the monthly schedules generated a month
in advance do not reflect the days or shifts that are not actually
worked due to sick or other leave.
On July 30, Jasinski replied to the Union’s continuing request
for health plan information and employees’ daily schedules:
We want to be clear and avoid any misunderstanding regarding
your multiple information requests. The Employer has been
fully responsive. The latest request purportedly asked for sup-
plemental information for the Employer's health plan which
was nothing more than harassment, grounded in bad faith, and
not intended to facilitate contract negotiations. It is intended to
only stall negotiations. We are not about to allow that to hap-
pen. At the negotiations, we informed you that the Employer is
not in possession of such information and/or the Union is re-
questing confidential information. We reiterated, at the bar-
gaining table, it is irrelevant, unnecessary and not intended to
facilitate contract negotiations.
In addition, the Union requested information concerning work
schedules at this facility. We provided the Union with the mas-
ter list which represents our work schedules. This is the only
relevant information, and it was provided.
As stated across the bargaining table, the Employer will neither
waive nor modify its rights as set forth in the Managements
Rights clause of the collective bargaining agreement. Staffing
has historically been a right reserved to this administration, and
we will not give-up in this contract negotiation our unilateral
right to determine staffing at this Facility. We will reject any
Union proposal that modifies our rights concerning staffing
related grievances filed and focused on several CBA provisions: Sec. 8
(grievance and arbitration procedure); and Sec. 29(c) (Health and Safety
Committee whose purpose “shall be to identify and recommend preven-
tative measures where appropriate”).
29 GC Exh. 24.
30 GC Exh. 9; R. Exh. 3.
31 GC Exh. 52.
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 15
levels on the units and the way we staff this Facility. That is our
final position and we will not deviate from it.
Once again, we suggest the Union focus on the negotiation of
a new collective bargaining agreement for our employees. We
are puzzled with the Union's refusal to meet or provide, dates
for parties to bargain in good faith. We reiterate our request for
new dates to continue to negotiate.32
C. Employees Prepare for a Possible Strike
Beginning in March, Ozual or Saint Hilaire began holding
monthly meetings with employees in the first-floor breakroom.
They provided employees with contract education, bargaining
updates, and listened to complaints. The bargaining updates in-
cluded the significant issues involving in bargaining such as
health insurance coverage, pension plan funding, staffing, and
the rumored demolition of Boulevard East. Ozual and Saint
Hilaire also informed employees about Castle Hill’s refusal to
meet with the Union’s chosen committee on March 27 and its
refusal to provide requested information.
By May, the Union recommended that employees step up the
pressure on Castle Hill by engaging in informational picketing.
On June 10, several Castle Hill employees participated in infor-
mational picketing. The signs contained messages which read
“1199 Stop Unfair Labor Practices!”33 Employees who partici-
pated included Devika Smith, Diana Lewis, Lakeysa Smith, and
Marquis Francois.
Thereafter, the Union gradually increased the public pressure.
In July, the Union’s New Jersey communications coordinator,
Bryn Loyd-Bollard, created “Alarisk.com”, a website devoted to
the Union’s bargaining campaign against Castle Hill. The web-
site’s home page included a news alert providing the economic
motives behind a potential strike:
NEWS ALERT: HUNDREDS OF HEALTHCARE
WORKERS STRIKE AFTER CONTRACT TALKS SOUR.
Don't put your health at alarisk.
Stand up for quality care and goodjobs in nursing home.
Stand with nursing home residents, families and caregivers and
tell the owners of Alaris Health (formerly Omni Health
Systems) to settle afar contract that protects patients and work-
ers.
Despite making $41 million in profit in 2012, many Alaris
nursing homes suffer from substandard staffing levels while
hardworking caregivers live in poverty. The overwhelming
majority of Alaris nursing home employees earn less than
$25,000 a year, and some have to rely on public assistancejust
to make ends meet.
Our communities depend on skilled caregivers to provide
for our loved ones in their times of need. They deserve better.
We deserve better.34
Loyd-Bollard also arranged for radio advertisements publiciz-
ing the Union’s position and generated fliers and a press release
publicizing a July 23 rally. The fliers protested Castle Hill’s un-
fair labor practices and refusal to negotiate in good faith for a

32 GC Exh. 14.
33 GC Exhs. 19(e)-(f).
reasonable contract.35
On July 23, Silva convened a press conference in Jersey City
near Alaris’ corporate headquarters. There were elected officials
and approximately 10 employees from Alaris facilities in attend-
ance, including CNA Claudia Saldana, who proceeded to criti-
cize Castle Hill’s collective-bargaining stance. In prepared re-
marks that followed, Silva excoriated Castle Hill for a mélange
of reasons as justification for a possible future strike, including
unfair labor practices and regressive economic proposals.
We are here today because Alaris Health, the multimillion dol-
lar for-profit nursing chain based here in Journal Square, is
showing a callous disregard for the wellbeing of the communi-
ties in which they operate.
The owners of Alaris are violating the rights of its employees,
they are raking in huge profits while maintaining substandard
staffing levels, and they are planning to demolish one of their
long-term care facilities without being forthright to the nursing
home’s residents or caregivers about their plans. We are here
to demand that Alaris start acting responsibly.
The women and men standing beside me play a critical role as
caregivers to some of the most vulnerable people in our com-
munities. It is essential that their rights and dignity as workers
be upheld, because there is a connection between the quality of
life of caregivers and the quality of care for patients.
It is of grave concern to us that Alaris has committed numerous
unfair labor practices and continues to act in the same disre-
spectful and illegal manner as they did five years back, when
they operated under the name Omni Health Systems. We do
not want a repeat of 2009, when hundreds of nursing home
workers had no choice but to go on strike in order to protect
standards for good jobs and quality patient care. Omni may
have changed their name to Alaris, but it seems that they have-
n't changed their ways.
After nearly four months and 16 bargaining sessions, 450 care-
givers at four Alaris Health nursing homes are still working un-
der expired contracts. All they are asking for are the basics to
make ends meet—something that must be insisted upon for
every healthcare worker who, as a fundamental requirement of
her job, needs to remain physically and mentally healthy.
Yet instead of moving forward, Alaris wants to further erode
job standards in nursing homes. They’re asking low-wage
workers, who earn less than $23,000 a year full-time, to pay
even more for health insurance and to reduce critical benefits
including sick leave. Many workers already have no choice but
to enroll in public assistance just to get their children the
healthcare they need, and the concessions that Alaris is seeking
will only make the situation worse.
We will not let vital healthcare jobs suffer so that Alaris, which
makes $40 million in profit a year, can walk away with even
more.
It is disgraceful that Avery Eisenreich, the principal owner of
34 GC Exh. 48.
35 GC Exhs. 44–45.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
Alaris, which receives literally hundreds of millions of dollars
in Medicaid and Medicare funding each year to provide care to
the elderly and vulnerable, decides to pocket millions for him-
self before making sure that the caregivers who work directly
with patients have what they need to get by.
Avery has also failed to address persistent staffing shortages at
these four facilities, each of which have certified nursing assis-
tant staffing levels below both state and national averages. Our
union has proposed a framework for addressing staffing short-
ages, but management has for months failed to provide the un-
ion with requested information on staffing and has refused to
negotiate over this critically important issue.
And in Guttenberg, where Avery Eisenreich owns a facility on
Boulevard East that is home to 100 elderly and frail residents,
he plans to demolish the nursing home in order to build luxury
high-rise apartments. He is not being upfront about what his
plans are, and the nursing home’s residents, their family mem-
bers, and workers have been left in the dark. This is incredibly
disrespectful to everyone who depends on Boulevard East, ei-
ther as a patient or as an employee.
In many ways, Alaris is acting in complete disregard for the
community. We are here today to say that enough is enough.
We do not want to strike. Our members would rather be doing
the job they love and caring for their residents instead of walk-
ing the picket line. But they are ready to strike if they have to,
to protect quality care and good jobs.
I’d like to introduce you to a few members of 1199, who work
at Alaris nursing homes in Hudson and Bergen counties. They
have been working very hard these past months to win a con-
tract that respects their dignity as caregivers and as providers
for their own families.36
After the July rally, the Ozual and Saint Hilaire began laying
the foundation for a strike. They met with employees in the
breakrooms approximately two to three times a week. During the
meetings, they told employees about planning for a strike be-
cause of Castle Hill’s regressive economic proposals and unfair
labor practices, including the refusal to provide requested daily
schedules.37
On August 19, several employees, including Saldana, spoke
at a public meeting of the Union City Board of Commissioners.
Saldana explained that Castle Hill employees were “trying to
fight for a better contract,” criticized Castle Hill’s bargaining po-
sition, including its refusal to pay for dependent health insurance,
and pleaded for political support. Their efforts yielded support-
ive resolutions from the Board of Commissioners and Hudson
County, and Saldana posed for a photograph with Union City’s

36 GC Exh. 57.
37 The undisputed record reveals mixed reasons given by Ozual and
Saint Hilaire to employees as justification for a strike, including Castle
Hill’s economic proposals and unfair labor practices. (Tr. 352, 1101,
1232, 1238–1240.)
38 GC Exhs. 31–33.
39 Duran denied having one-on-one meetings with employees and in-
sisted that he merely answered questions if employees asked him about
going on strike. He also denied threatening an employee if they went on
strike. However, Duran’s terse denials, considered in conjunction with
mayor while holding a copy of the resolution. That photograph
appeared on the Union’s “Facebook” page, a social media web-
site, the next day.38
D. Management Becomes Aware of Potential Strike in July
Duran was aware of the July 23 press conference at Journal
Square and passed that information along to Figueroa. Thereaf-
ter, he began to approach certain union supporters.39 In late July,
Duran called Saldana into his office and implored her and
coworkers not to strike. Saldana replied that she had no influence
over coworkers and urged Castle Hill to reach an agreement with
the Union.
In late August, about a week after Saldana spoke before the
Board of Commissioners, Duran approached her in the sixth-
floor dining room and said, “I can’t believe you stabbed me in
the back. I saw the picture with the mayor.” He then proceeded
to show Saldana a copy of the Union’s Facebook publication
showing Saldana holding the resolution as she stood with Union
City Mayor Brian Stack. Saldana denied that she instigated any-
thing and still considered Duran her friend. Duran, unconvinced,
sighed, “hah!” Other employees were present.
Sometime around mid-August, Duran told Saldana that An-
gela Rodriguez, a coworker on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, “was a
big mouth and is instigating coworkers going on strike and going
to lose her job.” Saldana shared that conversation with Rodri-
guez.
Duran confronted Saldana one last time on the Friday before
the strike. Duran approached her as she worked in the sixth-floor
dining room. Speaking to her in Spanish and English, Duran
asked Saldana to “talk to [her] friends and not to go on strike,”
adding that he was new and wanted to “fix the place.” Saldana
told Duran that she was only speaking for herself and suggested
he urge the owner to negotiate a fair contract with the employees.
Duran said it was a shame that Saldana, a good worker, as well
as 17 single mothers, were going on strike and lose their jobs.
Saldana rebuffed the threat, insisting she enjoyed a good work
history, had never been disciplined, and would be good any-
where she ended up. Duran concurred with Saldana’s assess-
ment, but added that he felt “sorry for the single moms.” Saldana
replied that she earned only $11.96 after working at Castle Hill
for 13 years. Duran replied that “you’re going to lose your job
because of the union and they’re not doing anything for you.”40
A few weeks before the strike, CNAs were instructed to attend
a meeting with Duran and Bracea in the second-floor conference
room.41 Once assembled, Duran asked why employees were go-
ing on strike if Castle Hill was giving them what they requested
and faulted the Union for its lack of interest in negotiating. He
warned that some employees would be locked out and upon
his shifting and contradictory testimony regarding the reasons for rein-
statements after the strike, made him less than credible and I credited
employees’ versions of these pre-strike encounters. (Tr. 1563.)
40 Saldana appeared nervous throughout her testimony, but was very
credible. (Tr. 281–284, 295–301.)
41 Bracea provided vague testimony about certain employees who
came to her with questions and anxiety about the ramifications of a strike.
However, she did not provide a reliable account of Duran’s meeting with
employees. (Tr. 1641–1643.)
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 17
returning their assignments would not be the same.42 Around the
same time, Duran spoke individually with at least one CNA, Di-
ana Lewis, and made the same point about Castle Hill’s letter
inserted with payroll checks asserting that the Union’s requests
had been met.43
Duran and Bracea were not the only managers or supervisors
who interacted with employees over a potential strike. Figueroa,
Alaris’ vice president of operations for healthcare staffing, met
with Castle Hill employees in the conference room around the
end of July and into August. Available employees were paged
and asked to come to the meetings, which were optional. The
discussion was in English and lasted approximately 20-30
minutes. Duran was also present and spoke. Some employees
told Figueroa and Duran about their anxiety due to calls from the
Union about bargaining and a potential strike. Others simply lis-
tened and/or asked questions. Figueroa followed with written
talking points from a document that she distributed to supervi-
sors.44 Her talking points noted the need to care for the patients
and families, and discussed employees’ rights to choose whether
or not to go on strike. After these meetings, Alaris sent out a
memorandum to employees warning that Castle Hill would have
to hire replacements if they went out on strike.45
E. Unit Employees Decide to Strike
On August 27, Massey, Silva, McCall, Ozual, and Saint
Hilaire met at the Union’s office in Iselin, New Jersey, with ten
employee delegates from Boulevard East, Rochelle Park, and
Harborview. Another six employees from Castle Hill partici-
pated by telephone. The union officials met with the employees
for about 1-1/2 hours.46 The Castle Hill contingent included un-
ion delegate Marquis Francois. McCalla laid out a case for a
strike based on the Union’s inability to make significant head-
way in negotiations and the wide gap between proposals. Massey
followed with a recitation of the unfair labor practice charges
filed for the four facilities and the complaints that would be filed.
He also provided an explanation of the difference between an
economic strike and a strike premised on unfair labor practices.
Massey then proposed a resolution setting forth the reasons
for going out on strike. At the conclusion, the employee dele-
gates present voted to send ten-day notices to engage in a three-
day strike. The group also discussed and decided who would de-
liver the notices along with McCalla. The delegates were also
instructed to tell the membership that the strike was authorized
and it was motivated by economic and unlawful practice rea-
sons.47 The employees present signed the resolution and the six
participating by telephone from Castle Hill voiced approval:
At a meeting of the Alaris Bargaining Committee of 1199
SEIU United Healthcare

42 Lakeysa Smith did not possess a good recollection of the names of
others present at the impromptu meeting, but her testimony was gener-
ally spontaneous and credible. (Tr. 384-388.)
43 Lewis’ credible testimony was not disputed by Duran. (Tr. 452–453.)
44 R. Exh. 7.
45 Duran and Jasinski provided inconsistent testimony as to which
document was used as talking points at this time. However, the two doc-
uments were fairly similar in substance. (GC Exhs. 70-71.)
Workers East ("the Union"), held at the Unions office in Iselin,
NJ on August 27, 2014, upon the recommendation of Execu-
tive Vice President Milly Silva, the following resolution was
considered and adopted by the undersigned Committee mem-
bers:
WHEREAS, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East is
the collective bargaining representative of bargaining unit em-
ployees of Bristol Manor Health Care Center, Castle Hill
Health Care Center, Harborview Healthcare Center and Pali-
sades Nursing Center, all affiliates of Alaris Health (collec-
tively, "the Employer"); and
WHEREAS the Union has bargained in good faith with the
Employer to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has Violated our rights by commit-
ting Unfair Labor Practices, specifically by failing and refusing
to provide information requested by the Union that is needed
for bargaining (especially health insurance and staffing infor-
mation), unduly delaying in providing other information, and
unlawfully interfering with the composition of the Union's bar-
gaining committee and
WHEREAS, Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board
has informed the Union
that a Complaint against the Employer alleging multiple Unfair
Labor Practices in connection with this unlawful conduct is
forthcoming; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has continued to make unreasona-
ble bargaining demands of the Union and its members; and
WHEREAS the Employer has continued to commit additional
Unfair Labor Practices, including by unlawfully polling and
coercively interrogating Union members, and threatening Un-
ion members with adverse employment consequences for en-
gaging in protected Union activity; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the Union
and its members hereby determine to serve the Employer with
the legally required ten-day notice of intent to engage in a rally
and vigil at Castle Hill Healthcare Center on or about Septem-
ber 10, 2014, in response to the Employer's ongoing Unfair La-
bor Practices and unreasonable bargaining position; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the Union and its
members hereby determine to serve the Employer with a sub-
sequent legally required ten-day notice of intent to engage in a
strike, for three days at each facility, in response to the Employ-
er's ongoing Unfair Labor Practices and unreasonable
46 CNA Devika Smith was one of the Castle Hill employees who par-
ticipated by telephone.
47 Art. IV, sec. 7 of the Union’s Constitution gives delegates the “re-
sponsibility of involving their members in all affairs of the Union. Article
V, Section 6(b) states the rights of members ‘[t]o vote on all strike calls
and strike settlements directly affecting the members as employees. Ar-
ticle VII, Section 11(1)(f) states that the’” Regional Delegate Assembly
shall have the power to call strikes in its region, subject to the approval
of the members directly involved and the executive council. (R. 106.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
bargaining position.48
In a letter, dated August 29, Jasinski sought to discount the
Union’s justification in moving towards a strike, noting that it
had been approximately 2 months since the parties’ last bargain-
ing session. He referred to his request at the conclusion of their
last session for future bargaining dates, but the Union never pro-
posed any. At this point, Jasinski suggested the parties resume
negotiations during the weeks of either September 8 or 15. He
concluded by attributing the standoff to the Union’s continuing
request for ‘irrelevant and unnecessary” information, and the
Union’s attempts to resurrect staffing proposals that were previ-
ously resolved.49
On September 5, approximately ten employees, including
Devika Smith and Marquis Francois, delivered to Duran the con-
tractually required ten-day notice of bargaining unit employees’
intention to go out on strike for three days:
Notice I hereby given, pursuant to section 8(g of the National
Labor Relations Act, that 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Work-
ers East, New Jersey Region and the employees it represents
intend to conduct a strike and picketing at Castle Hill located at
615 23rd Street, Union City, NJ 07087. The strike and infor-
mational picket are to protest the Employer's ongoing Unfair
labor Practices and the Employer's unreasonable bargaining
demands. The strike will commence at 530 AM on Tuesday
September 16, 2014 and end at 653 AM on Friday September
19, 2014.50
Such action had been submitted to the membership for a vote
in past years, as required by the Union’s constitution.51 In this
instance, unit members were informed of the scheduled strike
and provided with reasons attributing the strike action to Castle
Hill’s bargaining posture and unfair labor practices.52
On the same day, Jasinski emailed Massey, questioning the
Union’s motives and cancelling proposed bargaining dates in
September in order for his clients to dedicate its “time, effort and
our resources to ensuring the strike contingency plan at each Fa-
cility that received a strike notice is in place and fully opera-
tional.”53
F. Supervisors Statements About Strike Activity
During the weeks prior to delivery of the Union’s strike no-
tice, Castle Hill managers and supervisors communicated their
views to the CNAs. A few weeks before the strike, Duran

48 It is undisputed that the strike resolution was not disseminated tothe
entireunion membership for a vote as required by the Union's consti-
tution. (GC Exh. 15.)
49 GC Exh. 25.
50 GC Exh. 16.
51 Castle Hill correctly notes that a membership strike vote was not
conducted in accordance with the Union’s constitution. (Tr. 2221, 2229.)
However, the vote of the delegates was subsequently ratified by the
membership’s actions in going on strike and Castle Hill failed to cite any
CBA or other legal provision supporting the notion that the delegate’s
strike vote was null and void or that it even has standing to raise such a
procedural objection. (R. Exh. 106 at 5-7.)
52 Castle Hill correctly notes that most employees who provided
mostly scripted testimony as to their reasons for favoring a strike men-
tioned economic reasons, but half of those employees also cited Castle
approached Devika Smith on the third floor and asked if she was
striking. She told him yes. He replied that she had a lot of influ-
ence and added it would be a shame to have employees go out
on strike and lose their jobs.54
Bracea approached CNA Komi Anakpa and asked him if he
was going to join the strike. In addition, Duran told Anakpa “I
don’t know if you can afford to go on strike.”55
Duran also approached Saldana in the sixth-floor dining room,
told her that Angela Rodriguez had a big mouth, was instigating
employees to go on strike, and would lose her job as a result.
Saldana passed along the comment to Rodriguez.56
About a week later, Smith’s head nurse and supervisor,
Jaboiun, asked Devika Smith if employees were going on strike
and cautioned her to be careful because Duran was mad. About
2 weeks before the strike, Duran approached Smith again on the
third floor and asked if she was going on strike. Smith did not
respond. Duran tried again about a week before the strike as
Smith spoke with a coworker outside the facility after her shift
was over. After asking her if he was going on strike, he said yes.
Duran laughed and left.57
In late August or early September, Duran and Regina Figueroa
convened meetings in the second-floor conference room to ap-
prise employees of the consequences of their actions if they went
out on strike. In these meetings, Duran told employees that he
knew that employees were going out on strike and asked why
they were choosing that course of action. He also spoke about
wages and health insurance, including the fact that current em-
ployees would not have to contribute for single-coverage health
insurance, and that the only ones who would pay would be new
hires. The employees told him they wanted better benefits,
higher wages, and most importantly, a contract. Duran warned
that their jobs were “on the line” and criticized the Union’s tac-
tics, insisting a strike would be futile in their efforts to get a bet-
ter contract. He added that some employees might not return to
work if they went on strike since Castle Hill would need people
to cover their shifts. In addition, upon returning, some employees
would have different work assignments.58
In one of those group meetings in the second-floor conference
room, Angela Rodriguez replied to Duran’s inquiry as to their
reasons for striking by explaining that they would not strike if
Castle Hill signed a contract. Duran responded that the Union
was not interested in signing a contract. He added that if the em-
ployees wanted more money they should go to school.59
Hill’s alleged unfair labor practices regarding information requests and
refusal to bargain in good faith.
53 R. Exh. 8.
54 Smith’s provided detailed and credible testimony regarding state-
ments by Duran and Jaboiun. (Tr. 226-233.)
55 This finding is based on Anakpa’s credible testimony. (Tr. 670.)
56 Saldana and Rodriguez provided credible and consistent testimony
regarding Duran’s remarks. (Tr. 302-303, 695.)
57 Jaboiun did not testify.
58 This finding is based on the credible testimony of CNAs Lakeysha
Smith (Tr. 383–387), Leanne Crawford (Tr. 485–489), and Angeline
Murrilla (Tr. 737–739.).
59 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Angela Rodri-
guez. (Tr. 683–687.)
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 19
In early September, Duran approached Diana Lewis on the
third floor and warned that some employees could be terminated
if they went on strike. He insisted that Castle Hill attempted to
settle a contract with the Union, but blamed the standoff on the
Union’s intransigence. Lewis did not respond and Duran clari-
fied his statement further by advising that she could be fired. He
suggested she think about that.60
Altenor, the staffing coordinator, was responsible for calling
floaters and informing them of their shift assignments. A few
days before the strike, she approached Brenda Mota-Lopes, a
part-time floater, on the first floor and asked if she was going on
strike. After Mota-Lopes said she intended to strike, Altenor
warned that her hours could be cut. Mota-Lopes replied that she
was not scared. Altenor said she was not threatening, but noted
that management was going to let a lot of people go.61
G. Supervisors Observe Employees During Prayer Vigil
In early September, employees from all four facilities also par-
ticipated in a prayer vigil with Silva and their local State Assem-
blyman in front of Castle Hill.62 The participants included Castle
Hill employees Diana Lewis and Leanne Crawford. As they
prayed, Duran and a female looked at them from about ten feet
away. He could be heard saying that their action was a joke, there
was nothing to worry about, it was just bad publicity, and it
would not be a problem to do what he had to do next.63
H. Alaris Prepares for the Strike
Castle Hill is subject to New Jersey State requirements for
minimum staffing ratios at its nursing facilities.64 It was no sur-
prise therefore, that after receiving the ten-day notice on or
around September 5, Jasinski drafted another memorandum for
distribution to employees warning that they would be replaced if
they went out on strike. The document acknowledged receipt of
the ten-day strike notice, challenged the Union’s rationale for the
strike, outlined Castle Hill’s proposed concessions, and the Un-
ion’s refusal to return to the bargaining table. While acknowl-
edging each employee’s choice of whether or not to strike, he
stated the facility had no choice but to implement a “contingency
plan” and “hire qualified replacement workers in the event any
employee abandons his or her job.”65
In anticipation of its staffing needs prior to the strike, Castle
Hill hired eight part-time CNAs in early September. 66 Around
the same time, Castle Hill entered into contracts with three

60 This finding is based on Lewis’ credible and undisputed testimony.
(Tr. 453–455.)
61 Brenda Mota-Lopes was very credible. (Tr. 793–794.)
62 GC Exh. 35.
63 I base the finding regarding the observation of employees on
Leanne Crawford’s credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 489–492.)
64 R. Exh. 13.
65 GC Exh. 70.
66 GC Exhs. 58–61, 76–78, 81.
67 I did not credit the vague testimony of Jasinski, Figueroa and Taylor
regarding alleged negotiations by unidentified persons which resulted in
Castle Hill agreeing to the terms in the attached addenda. (R. Exhs. 9-
11.) Linda Dooley, an Alaris officer who signed the agreements was
available, but did not testify, and the circumstances by which the addenda
were added were not explored. (Tr. 722, 2636.)
temporary staffing companies. Addenda were attached to each
form agreement requiring that Castle Hill retain the temporary
employees for minimum terms of four or six weeks. This was a
peculiar development in light of the Union’s prior notice of a 3-
day strike.67
I. The Strike
Massey did not speak with Jasinski about the strike before-
hand, but sent him an email and voice mail the day before on
September 15. On the same day, Jasinski called McCalla request-
ing he alert employees not to walk off early because it could
leave the facilities understaffed and compromise their licenses.68
As predicted, certain Castle Hill employees/unit members
ceased work and engaged in a strike on September 16. Over the
next 3 days, the striking employees picketed outside the facil-
ity.69 Their signs demanded Castle Hill engage in good-faith bar-
gaining and protested unfair labor practices. In addition, the Un-
ion coordinated a prayer vigil and rally outside Castle Hill on
September 17, the second day of the strike. Accompanied by
Silva and a local politician, several employees spoke during the
vigil.70
During the picketing on September 16, employees observed
Bracea, the director of nursing, accompanied by Laura Varto-
lone, the assistant director of nursing, on the second-floor patio
holding a cellular telephone in the direction of the striking em-
ployees in a clear indication that she was photographing them.
Devika Smith made eye contact with her and Bracea lowered the
telephone.71 On September 17, the second day of the strike, pick-
eting employees observed Duran and Bracea taking photographs
from the second-floor recreation room.72
During the strike, Castle Hill covered the shifts of the striking
CNAs with an assortment of nonstriking employees from Castle
Hill and other Alaris facilities, supervisors and other nonunit
quality assurance CNAs, newly hired employees, and temporary
staffing agency employees. In all, three staffing companies pro-
vided approximately 18 temporary employees to work at Castle
Hill during the strike.73
J. Employees Attempt to Return to Work
On September 18, the last day of the strike, Jasinski informed
Massey that some strikers would not be allowed to return to work
the next day because of the contractual commitments with the
staffing agencies. Massey questioned why Castle Hill would
68 GC Exh. 28.
69 GC Exh. 19(f).
70 GC Exh. 35.
71 Bracea confirmed credible testimony of Devika Smith, Marquis
Francois, and Murilla. She attributed her actions in the midst of a strike
to excitement over seeing local politicians present at the employee rally
(Tr. 237–244, 359–360, 740–742, 1637; GC Exh. 18.)
72 I based this finding on Angela Rodriguez’s credible and undisputed
testimony. (Tr. 690–691.) Although credible in other respects, however,
I do not credit Saldana’s testimony regarding management surveillance
since she failed to include such details in her otherwise detailed Board
affidavit. (Tr. 327–329.)
73 GC Exhs. 52, 73.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
make such a commitment if employees gave notice of a three-
day strike. Jasinski explained that Castle Hill needed to be cau-
tious in case the employees changed their minds and remained
on strike for a longer period of time. Massey disagreed, noting
that the Union’s history belied such a concern. In an email sent
later that day, Massey, on behalf of all Castle Hill employ-
ees/unit members who engaged in the strike, made an uncondi-
tional offer to return to their former or substantially equivalent
positions of employment.74
On September 19, employees who participated in the strike
reported to work at Castle Hill. At the beginning of each of the
three shifts, employees were informed by managers or supervi-
sors whether they were being permitted to return to work. Fifteen
CNAs who participated in the strike and engaged in picketing
were not reinstated to work on September 19: Devika Smith,
Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Nata-
sha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodri-
guez, Aneglina Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulaz-
eez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin, and
Komi Anakpa.75
Although Castle Hill refused to reinstate 15 CNAs on Septem-
ber 19, 3 nonunit employees, Angelo Daug, Doris Arco, and V.
Brooks, were assigned and performed CNA-related bargaining
unit work that day. Daug and Arco, Castle Hill’s quality assur-
ance CNAs, were replaced in their regular roles by three Alaris
at Essex facility in order to facilitate that arrangement. Brooks
was temporarily reassigned from another Alaris facility.76
The employees eventually returned to work and, as positions
opened up, Jasinski would call and inform Massey, who would
notify the employee to return to work.77
In addition to the 15 employees not reinstated, two employees
suffered a reduction in work hours after returning to work.78
Brenda Mota-Lopes participated in the strike and picketed out-
side Castle Hill and Harborview, but was not locked out.79 How-
ever, after returning to work on September 20 and 21, Mota-
Lopes worked 8-hour shifts, but was not assigned work the fol-
lowing weekdays. During the week of September 28 and October
4, she was assigned to work 24 hours each week. During the re-
mainder of October, Mota-Lopes’ work hours were reduced to
an average of between 16 and 32 hours, and she received no
overtime.80
Leanne Crawford was locked out and, after being reinstated
on October 27, also incurred reduced work hours. She was a
floating CNA who participated in the strike, carried signs alleg-
ing unfair labor practices and calling for improved medical cov-
erage.81 After being reinstated, her work schedule averaging 8-
10 days per pay period before the strike was reduced to 6-7 days

74 GC Exh. 28.
75 The findings omit reference to testimony and other evidence regard-
ing subsequent reinstatements, offers of reinstatement, and shift assign-
ments. Those are matters for compliance, if applicable. (GC Exhs. 13,
27, 52.)
76 GC Exh. 52 at F3.
77 Duran was also not credible regarding the reinstatement process. He
initially testified that the Bracea and Taylor made the staffing decisions.
However, after insisting he did not participate in those decisions, Duran
per pay period. She complained about the reduction in hours to
Altenor in November and her schedule was further reduced to an
average of 6 days per pay period. Crawford complained again
and her schedule was further reduced to an average of 5-6 days
per pay period.82
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. CASTLE HILL’S OBJECTION TO THE UNION’S BARGAINING
COMMITTEE
The complaint alleges that Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union on
March 27 because employee representatives from the other three
facilities were present. Castle Hill contends that its insistence
that the Union’s bargaining committee be restricted solely to
Castle Hill employees was consistent with past practice. Addi-
tionally, Castle Hill contends that the parties' collective-bargain-
ing agreement limited the Union's bargaining committee to six
members.
Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees and employers the
right to “to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing” and the Supreme Court has recognized this right
as fundamental to the statutory scheme. NLRB v. Jones & Laugh-
lin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 33 (1937). Generally, both parties
have a right to choose whomever they wish to represent them in
negotiations, and neither party can control the other party's se-
lection of representatives. General Electric Co., 173 NLRB 253,
255 (1968), enfd. 412 F.2d 512, 516–517 (2d Cir. 1969); Min-
nesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 415 F.2d 174, 177–178 (8th
Cir. 1969) (affirming Board determination that “so long as it con-
fines negotiations to terms and conditions of employment within
the bargaining unit, it has free rein . . . in its choice of negotia-
tors.”)
The right to choose one’s bargaining representatives, how-
ever, is not absolute. An exception to the general rule arises when
the situation is so infected with ill-will, usually personal, or con-
flict of interest as to make good-faith bargaining impractical.
See, e.g., NLRB v. ILGWU, 274 F.2d 376, 379 (3d Cir.
1960) (ex-union official added to employer committee to “put
one over on the union”); Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 108
NLRB 1555 (1954) (union established company in direct com-
petition with employer); NLRB v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 182
F.2d 810 (6th Cir. 1950) (union negotiator expressed great per-
sonal animosity towards employer). But cf. NLRB v. Signal Mfg.
Co., 351 F.2d 471 (1st Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied 382
U.S. 985 (1966) (similar claim of animosity rejected). On the
other hand, where the employer simply asserts that there was ill-
will and a conflict of interest relative to the proposed union
was confronted with prior testimony that he did participate in the staffing
decisions.
78 The initial claim of reduced hours for Diana Lewis was not pursued.
79 GC Exh. 19(p).
80 The extent of Mota-Lopes’ diminution in work hours and pay sub-
sequent to the strike is a matter left to compliance, if applicable. (GC
Exh. 55; Tr. 788–789, 803–807.)
81 GC Exh. 19(n).
82 I based this finding on Crawford’s credible and undisputed testi-
mony. (Tr. 497-500; GC Exh. 41.)
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 21
representatives, the Board is unlikely to grant an exception to the
presumptive rule that both employers and employees have an un-
restricted right to choose their own representative. Atlas Refin-
ery, Inc., 354 NLRB 1056, 1070 (2010) (employer "violated §
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union
as long as [the union's designated representative] was part of the
bargaining committee”).
Mere inclusion of persons outside the negotiating unit does
not constitute exceptional circumstances. NLRB v. Indiana &
Michigan Electric Co., 599 F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1979) (other
units); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 415 F.2d 174,
supra at 177–178 (other locals); General Electric Co. v. NLRB,
412 F.2d 512, 517–520 (2d Cir. 1969) (other international un-
ions); Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d 40, 44 (6th Cir. 1963)
(other locals). Further, the employer's claim that the union's use
of outsiders is an unlawful attempt to compel companywide or
multiplant bargaining also is insufficient unless the employer can
demonstrate that the union actually attempted to bargain outside
unit boundaries. Indiana & Michigan Electric, 599 F.2d at
191; Minnesota Mining, 415 F.2d at 178; General Electric, 412
F.2d at 519–520.
In this case, there was no evidence that the Union sought to
force Castle Hill into multiemployer bargaining through the
presence of bargaining unit members from the other three facili-
ties. NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., supra, 599 F.2d
185 (employer asserting that union sought to force companywide
negotiations must demonstrate that the coordinated bargaining in
question was done in bad faith with that objective in mind). The
only hint of Union strategy that affected all four facilities was its
desire to have Silva and Massey make opening statements out
the outset of bargaining. See Electrical Workers Local 46, 302
NLRB 271, 273–274 (1991) (union not justified in refusing to
negotiate with employer group’s chosen committee of members
and non-members at the outset of separate bargaining sessions in
accordance with a longstanding practice of including all both
group members and nonmembers under a single collective-bar-
gaining agreement).
Some delegates in attendances made side remarks, sneered
and laughed in response to Jasinski’s remarks on March 27.
However, Jasinski never mentioned that as an issue on March
and it was hardly an indication that the participation of employ-
ees from the other three facilities represented a “clear and present
danger to the collective bargaining process” or would create ill
will and make bargaining impossible. See International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers Local 46, 302 NLRB at 273–274
(union did not meet burden of showing that the employer group's
chosen representatives were “so tainted with conflict or so pa-
tently obnoxious as to negate the possibility of good-faith bar-
gaining”).
Castle Hill’s additional concern at hearing that the presence of
employees from other facilities would violate the confidentiality
of Castle Hill employees does not pass muster. See Milwhite Co.,
Inc., 290 NLRB 1150, 1152 (1998) (mere fear that negotiations
will result in compromising confidentiality is insufficient), citing
General Electric Co., 173 NLRB at 255.
Castle Hill cites CBS, Inc., 226 NLRB 537, 539 (1976), as
support for the proposition that the Union’s bargaining
representatives presented “a clear and present danger to the bar-
gaining process or would create such ill will as to make bargain-
ing impossible or futile.” That case, however, involved a conflict
of interest regarding the composition of a bargaining committee
because one committee member was part of a labor organization
that did not represent CBS's members, but rather, two key com-
petitors. That is hardly the scenario here. Castle Hill also cites
Fitzsimons Mfg. Co., 251 NLRB 375, 379–380 (1980), for a sim-
ilar proposition. In Fitzsimons, however, an employer lawfully
excluded a union representative who engaged in an unprovoked
physical attack on company's personnel director. Id. That sce-
nario was also inapplicable.
Given the absence of evidence of exceptional circumstances
indicating bad faith on the part of the Union, Castle Hill was ob-
ligated to bargain with the Union’s bargaining committee on
March 27 even though employee-members from the other three
facilities were present. General Eecltric, 412 F.2d at 520. By
walking out of the negotiations under those circumstances, Cas-
tle Hill refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. See Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322
F.2d at 44 (employer unlawfully refused to negotiate with union
bargaining committee, which added temporary representatives
from affiliated bargaining units in order to improve communica-
tion between them); NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.,
supra, 599 F.2d 185 (employer unlawfully refused to bargain
with union negotiating committee because the union was coordi-
nating the various bargaining efforts).
II. CASTLE HILL’S DELAY IN PROVIDING INFORMATION
The complaint alleges that Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act when it unreasonably delayed in providing the
Union with information requested in order to prepare for bar-
gaining. Castle Hill contends that it responded in a manner rea-
sonably consistent with past practice and that union officials
sanctioned the delay because of counsel’s other commitments.
The duty to timely furnish requested information cannot be
defined in terms of a per se rule. Good Life Beverage Co., 312
NLRB 1060, 1062 fn. 9 (1993). Rather, what is required is a rea-
sonable good-faith effort to respond to the request “as promptly
as circumstances allow.” Id. See also Woodland Clinic, 331
NLRB 735, 737 (2000). In evaluating the promptness of an em-
ployer's response, the Board considers the complexity and extent
of the information sought, its availability, and the difficulty in
retrieving the information. West Penn Power
Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), citing Samaritan Medical Cen-
ter, 319 NLRB 392, 398 (1995), enfd. in relevant part 394 F.2d
233 (4th Cir. 2005). Since “information concerning terms and
conditions of employment is presumably relevant,” it must be
“provided within a reasonable time, or, if not provided, accom-
panied by a timely explanation.” In Re W. Penn Power Co., supra
at 597(citing FMC Corp., 290 NLRB 483, 489 (1988)). Even a
relatively short delay of 2 or 3 weeks may be held unreasonable.
See, e.g., Capitol Steel & Iron Co., 317 NLRB 809, 813 (1995),
enfd. 89 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1996) (2-week delay unreasonable
under the circumstances because the information sought was
simple, close at hand, and easily assembled); Aeolian Corp., 247
NLRB 1231, 1244 (1980) (3-week delay unreasonable under the
circumstances).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD22
Castle Hill received the Union’s initial information request on
December 27 and a supplemental request on March 14. In early
January, Jasinski informed Massey and McCalla that he would
be busy with a State court proceeding in parts of January and
February. In that regard, he proposed several times to extend the
term of the expiring contract, but the Union never agreed. At no
time, however, during his written and verbal communications
with the Union did he request an extension of time to respond to
the information requests. That is because Jasinski always in-
tended to produce a response to the information requests on the
first day of bargaining.
Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Co., 291 NLRB 980(1988),
enfd, 909 F.2d 1484 (6th Cir. 1990), cited by Castle Hill, is in-
applicable here. In that case, the Board found a delay in provid-
ing requested information justified to the extent that the employ-
er's confidentiality interests outweighed a union's need for infor-
mation. The employer feared that competitors might gain an ad-
vantage if they acquired information about tariff rates contained
in certain business contracts. In this case, however, Castle Hill
never asserted confidentiality concerns as an excuse for the delay
at any time prior to March 27.
The passage of nearly 3 months in responding to the Union’s
initial information request and 5 weeks responding to the supple-
mental request was unreasonable. Castle Hill was entirely mum
on the subject notwithstanding follow-up reminders by the Un-
ion to provide the information prior to the March 27 bargaining
session. Instead, Jasinski simply delivered the information at the
March 27 session, where union representatives had a relatively
short period of time to review the information. The tactic was
clearly calculated to prolong bargaining by ensuring that the Un-
ion would need more time to analyze the information provided
and, thus, be unable to commence meaningful bargaining at the
first session. The fact that Castle Hill previously delayed in pro-
ducing requested information until the first bargaining session
does not rescue it from a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
III. REFUSAL TO PROVIDE DAILY SCHEDULES AND HEALTH
INSURANCE INFORMATION
The General Counsel contends that Castle Hill violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act on July 30 when Castle Hill re-
fused to provide information requested by the Union which was
relevant and necessary to the performance of its duties as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative, specifically employees’ daily
work schedules and health insurance information. Castle Hill re-
fused to provide such further work schedule information, insist-
ing that the Union should be satisfied with the monthly master
schedules provided. With respect to the health insurance infor-
mation, Castle Hill claimed it was prohibited from releasing such
information under the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.83
An employer has a duty to furnish relevant information nec-
essary to union representatives for the proper performance of
their duties as the exclusive bargaining representative. NLRB v.
Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 153 (1956); Detroit Edison v.
NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); W-L Molding Co., 272 NLRB

83 45 CFR §§ 160 and 164.
1239, 1240–1241 (1984); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S.
432, 435–436 (1967); A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356
NLRB 499, 500 (2011). Information requests regarding bargain-
ing unit employees' terms and conditions of employment are
“presumptively relevant” and must be provided. Whitesell Corp.,
352 NLRB 1196, 1197 (2008), adopted by a three-member
Board, 355 NLRB 635 (2010), enfd. 638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir.
2011); Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235
(2005).
The standard for establishing relevancy is the liberal, “discov-
ery-type standard.” Alcan Rolled Products, 358 NLRB 37, 40
(2012), citing and quoting applicable authorities. The Union, in
accord with its duty, sought copies of daily work schedules in
order to formulate and present appropriate proposals on behalf
of employee-members. See Wayneview Care Cen-
ter, 352NLRB 1089, 1115 (2008) (work schedules relating to
unit employees, are presumptively relevant, including infor-
mation on current schedules for each department). Moreover, the
Union was entitled to production of schedules of work actually
performed by employees and was not relegated to the monthly
work schedules. See McGuire Steel Erection, Inc. & Steel Enter-
prises, Inc., 324 NLRB 221, 223–224 (1997) (employer unlaw-
fully refused to provide additional payroll records on the grounds
that it already provided the union with other types of payroll rec-
ords); National Grid USA Service Co., Inc., 348 NLRB 1235
(2006) (union was entitled to copies of invoices containing base
line information, not just unverified summaries made by em-
ployer); Merchant Fast Motor Line, 324 NLRB 563 (1997) (un-
ion was not required to accept an employer’s declaration as to
profitability or summary financial information provided by the
employer); McQuire Steel Erection, Inc., 324 NLRB 221 (sum-
maries of payroll records deemed not sufficient to meet a re-
spondent's statutory obligation).
Similarly, Castle Hill was obligated to furnish the requested
health insurance information necessary for the Union to formu-
late its own proposal. One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc., 55
NLRB 1237 (2010). The Union was entitled to the requested in-
formation concerning the costs of health insurance to Castle Hill
and covered employees in order to analyze them within the con-
text of the Affordable Care Act. This was significant infor-
mation, given the Union’s bargaining objective to increase de-
pendent health insurance coverage and its interest in exploring
alternative proposals to offset the costs.
Jasinski initially insisted the Union already had the infor-
mation, which was incorrect; the Union had only been provided
with partial information relating to gross payroll benefits,
monthly health plan costs, and a summary description of the
plan. After the Union persisted, he agreed to inquire further and,
on May 21, raised vague privacy objections under HIPAA. Such
confidentiality concern came more than 2 months after the infor-
mation request. Moreover, the documentary evidence and Jasin-
ski’s vague testimony failed to identify how any of the requested
health insurance related documents involved the confidential
medical information of any employees. Lastly, Jasinski refused
Massey’s offer to work out an accommodation for the release of
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 23
the allegedly confidential information. See Castle Hill Health
Care Center, 355 NLRB at 1183–1184 (generalized confidenti-
ality concern unavailing as an excuse to refuse information re-
quest); Exxon Co. USA, 321 NLRB 896, 898 (1996) (confidenti-
ality objection must be timely raised).
Under the circumstances, Castle Hill’s refusal to provide
health insurance information on May 21 and daily work schedule
information on July 30 as requested by the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. INTERROGATION AND THREATS REGARDING STRIKE ACTIVITY
The complaint alleges that Castle Hill engaged in various vi-
olations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The standard in determin-
ing whether employer conduct violates that section of the Act is
based on whether statements made to employees reasonably tend
to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the
Act. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969).
In assessing the lawfulness of an interrogation, the Board ap-
plies the totality of circumstances test adopted in Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. sub nom. Hotel Employees
Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). The Board has
additionally determined that in employing the Rossmore House
test, it is appropriate to consider the factors set forth in Bourne
v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964): whether there was a
history of employer hostility or discrimination; the nature of the
information sought (whether the interrogator was seeking infor-
mation to base taking action against individual employees); the
position of the questioner in the company hierarchy; the place
and method of interrogation, and; the truthfulness of the reply.
In applying the Bourne factors, the Board seeks to determine
whether under all of the circumstances the questioning at issue
would reasonably tend to coerce the employee at whom it was
directed so that he or she would feel restrained from exercising
rights protected by Section 7 of the Act. Westwood Health Care
Center, 330 NLRB 935, 941 (2000).
A. Interrogation of Employees Regarding Strike Activity
In July, Duran, the highest ranking Castle Hill supervisor, ap-
proached Saldana while she worked, implored her to convince
coworkers not to go on strike and asked for her help in resolving
employees’ concerns. Saldana rebuffed him and explained that
employees would not go on strike if management negotiated a
fair contract and then nobody would go on strike. Under the cir-
cumstances, Duran’s remarks were coercive in nature and vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1). Reno Hilton Resorts, 320 NLRB 197, 207
(1995).
Although not specifically alleged in the complaint, the Gen-
eral Counsel moves to further amend it to conform to the proof
that Duran also unlawfully interrogated Devika Smith regarding
her participation in the strike. The motion is granted, as the state-
ments, albeit not alleged, resulted from testimony which was re-
ceived without objection and reasonably fell within the ambit of
other coercive statements made by Duran to employees during
individual and group encounters in August and September. See
Hi-Tech Cable Corp., 318 NLRB 280 (1995) (conforming plead-
ings to proof allowed where complaint alleged similar coercive
statements by same manager, had an opportunity to cross-exam-
ine the witness and present witnesses in opposition, and
addressed their legality in its post-hearing brief); Meisner Elec-
tric, Inc., 316 NLRB 597 (1995) (same).
Duran twice interrogated Devika Smith on two occasions after
she handed him the Union's 10-day strike notice. In the first in-
cident, Duran approached Smith as she worked and asked
whether she was going on strike, but Smith did not respond. A
few days later, Duran approached Smith outside the facility en-
trance after work and asked if she was going out on strike. Smith
said yes. In neither instance did Duran assure Smith that no re-
prisals would be taken against her as a result of her response.
Such assurances were necessary given that Duran was crisscross-
ing the facility threatening employees, including Smith herself,
with termination if they participated in the strike. In both in-
stances, Duran unlawfully interrogated Smith in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1).
B. Threats to Employees of Job Loss or Other Reprisals
In determining whether a supervisor's statement is unlawfully
coercive, the test is whether the employee would reasonably be
coerced by it. See Engelhard Corp., 342 NLRB 46, 60-61
(2004) (test for coercion under Sec. 8(a)(1) is “whether the em-
ployer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be
said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights
under the Act”) (emphasis in original), enfd. 437 F.3d 374 (3d
Cir. 2006). Under the circumstances, the aforementioned state-
ments supervisors were clearly coercive in violation of Section
8(a)(1). See, e.g., Hialeah Hospital, 343 NLRB 391, 391
(2004) (manager's statements to employees that he felt “be-
trayed” and “stabbed in the back” implied employee disloyalty
in supporting the union and constituted an implicit threat of un-
specified reprisals).
In July, Duran approached Devika Smith, a union delegate,
while she worked, and, noting her influence with coworkers, said
that it would be a shame for Smith and her coworkers to go on
strike and lose their jobs.
In August, Saldana testified before the Union City Board of
Commissioners and succeeded in getting the political support of
that body. The next day, her photograph holding a resolution
standing alongside the mayor appeared on the Union’s Facebook
website. Shortly thereafter, Duran confronted Saldana at work.
He accused her of backstabbing him and implied retaliation for
her activity.
Similarly, about 3 weeks before the strike, Head Nurse
Jabouin approached Devika Smith at work, told her that Duran
was mad and he wanted to know when everybody was going on
strike. After Smith refused to share any information with her,
Jaboiun warned Smith to "be careful" because Duran was mad
and persisted in asking again when employees would go on
strike.
About a week before the September 16 strike, Duran ap-
proached Diana Lewis as she was exiting a resident's room. Du-
ran candidly told Lewis that he knew that "you all" were going
on strike. When Lewis did not respond to Duran, he continued
by saying that he did not know what she was going to do, but if
you all go on strike, some of the strikers can be fired. When
Lewis again refused to indulge Duran, he ratcheted up the rheto-
ric. Duran told her that if you all go on strike, you could be fired.
Duran told her to think about it and he walked off of the floor.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD24
On the Friday before the September 16 strike, Duran con-
fronted Saldana again as she worked. Duran insisted that Saldana
join him at a side table. When Saldana complied, Duran told her
that it was a shame that she was going to lose her job because
she was such a good worker. Duran then declared that 17 other
single mothers were also going to lose their jobs for going on
strike.
The aforementioned supervisory statements sent clear mes-
sages that engaging in Section 7 activity was harmful to Castle
Hill. See Hoffman Fuel Co., 309 NLRB 327, 327 (1992) (em-
ployer's questioning coupled with a veiled threat unlawful where
there was no legitimate purpose for ascertaining the employee's
prospective union activities). Duran’s implied threats of termi-
nation violated Section 8(a)(1).
In addition, threatening employees that a strike will lead to job
loss is unlawful because it incorrectly conveys to employees that
their employment will be terminated as a result of a strike,
whereas the law is clear that economic strikers retain certain re-
instatement rights. Baddour, Inc., 303 NLRB 275 (1991) (with-
out explanation the employer stating “you could end up losing
your job by being replaced with a new permanent worker” was
unlawful); Larson Tool & Stamping Co., 296 NLRB 895, 895–
896(1989) (employees could lose their jobs to permanent re-
placements). By threatening employees with loss of their jobs if
they participated in a strike, Duran violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
C. Coercive Statements at Group Meetings
At group meetings held in late August or early September in
the second-floor conference room, Duran interrogated employ-
ees as to why they were going on strike, threatened them with
termination, and changes in working conditions.
In assessing the lawfulness of an interrogation, the Board ap-
plies the totality of circumstances test adopted in Rossmore
House, supra. Circumstances considered in evaluating the ten-
dency to interfere include the (1) background, (2) the nature of
the information sought, (3) the identity of the questioner, and (4)
the place and method of the interrogation. Sunnyvale Medical
Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217, 1218 (1985); Rossmore House, 269
NLRB 1176, 1178 fn. 20 (1984). Conversations about union ac-
tivity between employers and employees are considered lawful
when they involve open union supporters, in a casual setting, and
are unaccompanied by coercive statements. Toma Metals, Inc.,
342 NLRB 787 (2004) (lawful for a supervisor to ask an em-
ployee what is up with the rumor of the union where they had a
friendly relationship); Emery Worldwide 309 NLRB 185, 186–
187 (1992) (no violation where a low-level supervisor engaged
in a casual, amicable conversation with an employee that did not
involve coercive statements).
Applying the totality of the circumstances, Duran’s statements
were coercive in nature. First, it is clear that Castle Hill and, spe-
cifically, Duran have a history of hostility towards the Union.
Second, it is evident that the questioners were merely trying to
thwart a strike. Third, Castle Hill’s highest ranking official and
a high-ranking Alaris representative were questioning the em-
ployees. Fourth, the questioning was not done in a casual setting
but took place at work in a conference room. These factors sup-
port the conclusion that Duran’s questions were unlawfully
coercive.
Additionally, Duran’s statements relating to termination and
changes in working conditions at the aforementioned meetings
were unlawfully coercive. Threatening employees that a strike
will lead to adverse action, including job loss is unlawful because
it incorrectly conveys to employees that their employment will
be adversely affected as a result of a strike, whereas the law is
clear that economic strikers retain certain reinstatement rights
and other protections. Baddour, Inc., supra, 303 NLRB 275
(without explanation the employer stating “you could end up los-
ing your job by being replaced with a new permanent worker”
was unlawful); Larson Tool & Stamping Co., 296 NLRB at 895-
896 (employees could lose their jobs to permanent replace-
ments). Duran made no differentiation between economic and
unfair labor practice strikes. As the Board has stated, “employers
cannot tell employees without explanation that they would lose
their jobs as a consequence of a strike or permanent replace-
ment.” Baddour, 303 NLRB at 275. Accordingly, Duran’s state-
ments violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
V. SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES DURING STRIKE
Duran photographed the striking employees from a second-
floor window in the facility as they picketed outside on Septem-
ber 16, the first day of the strike. Similarly, on September 16 and
17, Bracea took photographs of the striking employees from in-
side Castle Hill as they picketed in front of the facility. Bracea
explained her actions on September 17 as those of a bewildered
bystander interested in photographing politicians who joined the
strikers on the second day of the strike. On that occasion, she was
accompanied by Laura Vartolone, the assistant director of nurs-
ing.
It is not unreasonable to expect that the spectacle of a mass
protest of employees carrying signs and chanting slogans would
pique the interest of managers, supervisors, and employees
working within the facility. The Board does, however, consider
the photographing and videotaping of employees unlawful, “if
the observation goes beyond casual and becomes unduly intru-
sive.” F. W. Woolworth Co., 310 NLRB 1197 (1993). See also
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB., 515 F.3d
942, (9th Cir. 2008), quoting Kenworth Truck Co., 327 NLRB
497 (1999).
Castle Hill failed to demonstrate any justification for the pho-
tographing of picketing employees outside Caste Hill. See Food
and Commercial Workers Local 204 v. NLRB, 506 F.3d 1078,
(D.C. Cir. 2007); Timken Co., 331 NLRB. 744, (2000); National
Steel & Shipbuilding Co. v. NLRB, 156 F.3d 1268, 1271–1272
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (upholding the Board's finding that a company
committed an unfair labor practice by videotaping union rallies
without sufficient justification). There was no evidence of vio-
lence, unruly behavior, or past actions on the part of picketing
employees indicating any possibility of a disruption to Castle
Hill’s operations which might otherwise have justified photo-
graphing their activity by the facility’s manager and nursing di-
rector. Under the circumstances, Castle Hill violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in unlawful surveillance of pick-
eting employees outside its facility on September 16 and 17.
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 25
VI. REFUSAL TO REINSTATE 15 EMPLOYEES
The complaint alleges that the Castle Hill violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to reinstate certain employ-
ees when they returned to work the day after the strike ended.
Castle Hill argues that its striking employees were not entitled to
reinstatement because they engaged in an economic rather than
unfair labor practice strike.
Strikes may be categorized as either economic or unfair labor
practice strikes. Spurlino Materials, LLC, et al. v. NLRB, 805
F.3d 1131, 1136–1137 (D.C. Cir. 2015), citing General. Indus-
tries Employees Local 42 v. NLRB, 951 F.2d 1308, 1311 (D.C.
Cir. 1991). That categorization carries significant consequences.
Economic strikers run the risk of replacement if, during the
strike, the employer takes on permanent new hires. NLRB v. In-
ternational Van Lines, 409 U.S. 48, 50, 93 S.Ct. 74, 34 L.Ed.2d
201 (1972); General. Industries Employees Union, 951 F.2d at
1311. Economic strikers are nevertheless, entitled, upon their un-
conditional offers to return to work, to reinstatement to their for-
mer or substantially equivalent positions, if no permanent re-
placements have been hired to replace them and the positions re-
main open. NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 378–
379, 88 S.Ct. 543, 19 L.Ed.2d 614 (1967).
In the case of an unfair labor practice strike, employees are
entitled to immediate reinstatement to their former positions
upon their unconditional offers to return to work, even if the em-
ployer has hired replacements. See International Van Lines, 409
U.S. at 50–51, 93 S.Ct. 74; Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350
U.S. 270, 278, 76 S.Ct. 349, 100 L.Ed. 309 (1956); General In-
dustries Employees Union, 951 F.2d at 1311; Hajoca Corp. v.
NLRB, 872 F.2d 1169, 1177 (3d Cir.1989). Accordingly, an em-
ployer violates the Act if it fails to reinstate unfair labor practice
strikers once they have made an unconditional offer to return to
work. See Alwin Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 192 F.3d 133, 141–142
(D.C. Cir.1999).
In determining whether the General Counsel has met his bur-
den of establishing that an employer’s unfair labor practices
caused the employee’s decision to go on strike, the Board looks
to the employees’ motivations for striking, considering both ob-
jective and subjective evidence. See General Industries Em-
ployee. Union, 951 F.2d at 1312; Spurlino Materials, 357 NLRB
1510, 1524–152516 (2011); Executive Management Services,
355 NLRB 185, 194–196 (2010); Chicago Beef Co. v. Food and
Commercial Workers Local 26, 298 NLRB 1039 (1990). A strike
wholly driven by the desire of employees to obtain favorable em-
ployment terms is an economic strike. When employees strike as
a result of an employer's unfair labor practices, the strike is an
unfair labor practice strike. See International Van Lines, 409
U.S. at 50–51, 93 S.Ct. 74; General Industries Employees Un-
ion, 951 F.2d at 1311.
In this case, there is undisputed evidence of statements by the
Union and employee-members during the months leading up to
the strike indicating that it was attributable to Castle Hill’s unfair
labor practices in refusing to bargain and provide the Union with
requested information relevant to the bargaining process. They
expressed these sentiments in public statements, which were fol-
lowed up with the filing of unfair labor practice charges and con-
firmed during testimony that they acquiesced to the Union’s
recommendation to strike because of unfair labor practices and
for better wages, health insurance coverage and pension plan,
i.e., economic reasons. See Citizens Publishing & Printing Co.,
263 F.3d 224, 235 (3d Cir. 2001) (facts supported finding that
Board’s decision to issue a complaint “galvanized bargaining
unit members’ belief that an unfair labor practice had been com-
mitted and served as the flashpoint for discussion about calling a
strike”).
Much of the testimony essentially reiterated what Ozual, Mas-
sey, and other union representatives told employees as the reason
for their recommendations to strike. They were educated about
the distinctions and ramifications between an economic strike
and an unfair labor practice strike. Clearly, much of the testi-
mony insisting that the strike was attributable to unfair labor
practice charges was self-serving. In determining causation or
motivation for a strike, however, “the Board will not ‘calculate
the degree of importance, or weight to be attached to the employ-
er's unfair labor practices in characterizing the nature of a strike.”
Executive Management Services, 355 NLRB at 193 (citing Cal
Spas, 322 NLRB 41, 60 (1996)). Additionally, although the strik-
ers’ characterization of their motives for the strike may be given
substantial weight, the Board is supposed to examine the factual
context of the strike and be wary of inconsistencies between the
facts and any self-serving rhetoric by strikers. Executive Man-
agement Services, supra at 194. The factual context of the strike
and ULPs needs to be examined regardless of the strikers’ testi-
mony. Id.
It is evident that meaningful collective bargaining was ham-
strung at the outset by Castle Hill’s failure to provide responsive
information prior to March 27 and then refusing to commence
bargaining with Castle Hill’s chosen bargaining committee.
While certainly not dispositive of the reasons for an eventual
strike nearly 6 months later, it set the tone for a ragged path of
trickling information and resistance in providing relevant work
schedule information.
Under Board law, the motivation of Castle Hill employees to
strike in order to improve their bargaining position and assail
Castle Hill’s unfair labor practices means that the strike must be
characterized as an unfair labor practice strike. See Executive
Management Services, supra at 193; Domsey Trading Corp., 310
NLRB 777, 791 (1993); General Drivers & Helpers Local 662
v. NLRB, 302 F.2d 908, 911 (D.C.Cir.1962). “The employer's
unfair labor practice need not be the sole or even the major cause
or aggravating factor of the strike; it need only be a contributing
factor.” Teamsters Local 515 v. NLRB, 906 F.2d 719, 723
(D.C.Cir.1990); Alwin Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d at 141; Gen. Indus.
Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311. See also Struthers Wells Corp.
v. NLRB, 721 F.2d 465, 471 (3d Cir.1983); NLRB v. Cast Optics
Corp., 458 F.2d 398, 407 (3d Cir.1972).
The Union, on behalf of the striking workers, gave Castle Hill
a 10-day notice prior to the strike that employees would strike on
September 16, 17, and 18. On September 18, the Union notified
Castle Hill that the striking employees would return to work the
next day. Under the circumstances, Castle Hill’s refusal to rein-
state the following 15 employees on September 19 violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act: Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana,
Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santiago,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD26
Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriquez, Angeline
Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alex-
andre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin, and Komi Anakpa
VII. REDUCTION IN WORK HOURS OF TWO EMPLOYEES
The complaint alleges that Castle Hill reduced Mota-Lopes
and Crawford’s hours because they engaged in a protected strike
earlier that year. Castle Hill contends that neither employees’
work hours were reduced after the strike and denies that any re-
duction is attributable to union animus.
In determining whether adverse employment action is attribut-
able to unlawful discrimination, the Board applies the analysis
set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
The Wright Line framework requires proof that an employee's
union or other protected activity was a motivating factor in the
employer's action against the employee. 251 NLRB at 1089. The
elements required to support such a showing are union or pro-
tected concerted activity, employer knowledge of that activity,
and union animus on the part of the employer. Amglo Kemlite
Laboratories, 360 NLRB 319. 325 (2014); Consolidated Bus
Transit, 350 NLRB 1064, 1065 (2007), enfd. 577 F.3d 467 (2d
Cir. 2009). Proof of animus and discriminatory motivation may
be based on direct evidence or inferred from circumstantial evi-
dence. Robert Orr/Sysco Food Services, 343 NLRB 1183, 1184
(2004); Purolator Armored, Inc. v. NLRB, 764 F.2d 1423,
1428–1429 (11th Cir. 1985). Factors which may support an in-
ference of antiunion motivation include employer hostility to-
ward unionization, other unfair labor practices committed by the
employer contemporaneous with the adverse action, the timing
of the adverse action in relation to union activity, the employer's
reliance on pretextual reasons to justify the adverse action, dis-
parate treatment of employees based on union affiliation, and an
employer's deviation from past practice. 764 F.2d at 1429.
Although Brenda Mota-Lopes was reinstated after returning
to work after the strike, her work hours were significantly re-
duced after the strike from an average before the strike of 5–6
days per week, plus overtime. Similarly, upon her reinstatement
on October 27, Leanne Crawford’s work schedule was reduced
from an average of 8–10 days per pay period to 5–6 days per pay
period. Before the strike, Mota-Lopes worked 5–6 days each
week and earned about 16–24 hours of overtime each pay period.
After the strike, Mota-Lopes worked 24 hours per week for 3
weeks and worked between 16 and 32 hours for the rest of Octo-
ber with no overtime. Similarly, Crawford went from working 8-
10 days per pay period before the strike to 5–6 days per pay pe-
riod after the strike. As such, the revision to the schedules of
Mota-Lopes and Crawford constituted adverse action.
The evidence clearly establishes that Mota-Lopes and Craw-
ford engaged in a protected strike activity. Equally clear is the
fact that Castle Hill had knowledge of both employees’ protected
strike activity. There is also sufficient evidence of animus to sup-
port a prima facie case in view of its 8(a)(1) violations found in
this case. Furthermore, the timing of certain actions showed that
union activity was a factor in the reduction of hours, where Mota-
Lopes’ staffing coordinator told her, prior to the strike, that if she
went on strike, her hours could be cut.
The General Counsel having established a prima facie case,
the burden shifted to Castle Hill to prove that union activity was
not a motivating factor in Mota-Lopes and Crawford’s hour re-
ductions. Wright Line, supra; approved in NLRB v. Transporta-
tion Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). None of the ex-
planations offered by Castle Hill meets this burden. Castle Hill
did not provide a single witness to testify on the subject of Mota-
Lopes or Crawford’s hour reduction. Therefore, Mota-Lopes'
testimony regarding her hour reduction was not reasonably dis-
puted. Similarly, Crawford’s hour reduction was not explained
sufficient for Castle Hill to meet its burden under the Wright Line
analysis.
Under the circumstances, Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by reducing the work hours of Mota-Lopes and Crawford
upon their reinstatement after the strike. Wright Line, su-
pra; Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12 (1996).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Castle Hill was an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union was a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all relevant times, Nelson Duran, Alexandra Bracea, La-
vonza Jaboiun, and Laura Vartolone were supervisors of Castle
Hill within the meaning of the Act, and David Jasinski, Regina
Figueroa, Ann Taylor, and Fredline Altenor were agents within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
4. Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by:
(a) Refusing on March 27, 2014, to bargain in good faith with
the Union’s chosen bargaining committee.
(b) Delaying for 3 months before producing information re-
quested by the Union which was relevant and necessary to its
role as unit employees’ labor representative prior to the com-
mencement of collective bargaining between the parties on
March 27, 2014.
(c) Refusing to provide health insurance information on May
21, 2014, and daily work schedule information on July 30, 2014,
as requested by the Union which was relevant and necessary to
its role as unit employees’ representative.
5. Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the follow-
ing manner:
(a) Duran’s interrogated Duran in July and Devika Smith in
September 2014 as to whether they planned to go on strike.
(b) Duran threatened Devika Smith in July 2014 by stating
that it would be a shame for Smith and her coworkers to go on
strike and lose their jobs.
(c) Duran threatened Saldana in August 2014 by accusing her
of backstabbing him and implying retaliation after she appealed
successfully for support for the Union City Board of Commis-
sioners.
(d) Jaboiun warned Devika Smith in late August 2014 to be
careful because Duran was mad and wanted to know when eve-
rybody was going on strike.
(e) Duran threatened Diana Lewis in September 2014 by
warning that he knew employees were going on strike, warned
that if they could be fired as a result and told her to think about
it.
(f) Duran threatened Saldana on September 12, 2014, by stat-
ing that she and 17 other employees would lose their jobs if they
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 27
went out on strike.
(g) At group meetings held in late August or early September
2014 in the second-floor conference room, Duran interrogated
employees as to why they were going on strike, threatened them
with termination, and changes in working conditions.
(h) Duran and Bracea engaged in surveillance of employees
as they participated in picketing outside Castle Hill on Septem-
ber 16 and 17, 2014.
6. By failing and refusing, on September 19, 2014, to imme-
diately reinstate fifteen employees who engaged in an unfair la-
bor practice strike and had made an unconditional offer to return
to work, Castle Hill violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Castle Hill has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall order it to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On request, Castle
Hill shall bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative
of the employees concerning terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the under-
standing in a signed agreement. Castle Hill shall also, within 14
days of the Board’s Order, offer the 15 employees who engaged
in an unfair labor practice strike in September 2014, and were
not immediately reinstated on request, recall to their former po-
sitions, terminating, if necessary, any replacements who occupy
those positions, or if those positions no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. In addition, the
two employees whose work hours were reduced after returning
from the strike shall have their previous work hours restored. I
shall also order Castle Hill to make whole the unfair labor prac-
tice strikers who were denied reinstatement or suffered loss of
work hours for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). In addi-
tion, I shall order Castle Hill to expunge from its files any refer-
ence to the failure to reinstate the strikers, and to notify them in
writing that this has been done. Finally, I shall order Castle Hill
to post a notice to all employees in accordance with J. Picini
Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010).
Castle Hill shall file a report with the Social Security Admin-
istration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters.
Castle Hill shall also compensate the discriminatee(s) for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-
sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year. Latino
Express, Inc., 359 NLRB 518 (2012).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire
record, I issue the following recommended84

84 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
ORDER
The Respondent, Alaris Health at Castle Hill, Union City,
New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any em-
ployee for supporting 1199, SEIU United Healthcare Workers
East or any other union.
(b) Coercively interrogating and threatening any employee
about union support or union activities.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of employees participating in
picketing.
(d) Refusing to provide or delaying in providing necessary and
relevant information to the Union.
(e) In any like or related 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 effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the following appropriate unit con-
cerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agree-
ment:
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs,
and all other employees excluding professional employees,
registered nurses, cooks, confidential [employees], office cler-
ical employees, supervisors, watchmen and guards.
(b) On request, furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested concerning daily work schedules and
health insurance on May 21 and July 30, 2014.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer
Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin
Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, An-
gela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu
Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Mar-
tin, Komi Anakpa, and Brenda Mota-Lopes full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(d) Make Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa Smith,
Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne
Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo, Stephanie Gar-
cia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humph-
rey, Janis Martin, Komi Anakpa and Brenda Mota-Lopes 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.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, ex-
punge from its files any reference to the failure to reinstate the
strikers, and to notify them in writing that this has been done and
that such adverse actions will not be used against them in any
way.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD28
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board 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 elec-
tronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due un-
der the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Union City, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix”85 in both English and Spanish. Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
22, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, 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 distrib-
uted 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 ma-
terial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the fa-
cility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since March 27, 2014.
(h) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 3, 2016
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 be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any
of you for supporting 1199, SEIU United Healthcare Workers
East, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question or threaten you concerning
your union support or activities.

85 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
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of your union or other
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to timely provide the Union with neces-
sary and relevant information.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit
concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement:
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs,
and all other employees excluding professional employees,
registered nurses, cooks, confidential [employees], office cler-
ical employees, supervisors, watchmen and guards.
WE WILL, on request, furnish to the Union in a timely manner
the information requested concerning daily work schedules and
health insurance on May 21 and July 30, 2014.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin
Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, An-
gela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu
Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle Humphrey, Janis Mar-
tin, Komi Anakpa, and Brenda Mota-Lopes full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exists, to substan-
tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana, Lakeysa
Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Diana Lewis,
Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Murillo, Steph-
anie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre, Danielle
Humphrey, Janis Martin, Komi Anakpa, and Brenda Mota-
Lopes whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting
our refusal to reinstate them or, upon their reinstatement, reduc-
ing their work hours, less any net interim earnings, plus interest
compounded daily.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration
allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL compensate Devika Smith, Claudia Saldana,
Lakeysa Smith, Cherlie Celestin Valfils, Natasha Santiago, Di-
ana Lewis, Leanne Crawford, Angela Rodriguez, Aneglina Mu-
rillo, Stephanie Garcia, Musuretu Abdulazeez, Jeanie Alexandre,
Danielle Humphrey, Janis Martin, Komi Anakpa, and Brenda
Mota-Lopes for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiv-
ing one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods
longer than 1 year.
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-125034 or by using the QR code
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
ALARIS HEALTH AT CASTLE HILL 29
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273-1940.