Alta Vista Regional Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 27, 2009

28-CA-022280 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 27, 2009)

JD(SF)–44–09
Las Vegas, Nevada
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORP. d/b/a
ALTA VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL
and Case 28-CA-22280
DISTRICT 1199NM, NATIONAL UNION OF
HOSPITAL AND HEALTHCARE EMPLOYEES
Lisa Walker-McBride, Esquire,
of Albuquerque, New Mexico,
for the General Counsel.
Shane Charles Youtz, Esquire,
of Albuquerque, New Mexico,
for the Charging Party.
Donald T. Carmody, Esquire,
of Brentwood, Tennessee,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried in Las Vegas,
New Mexico on August 19, 2009, upon the complaint, issued on March 31, 2009 by the
Regional Director for Region 28.
The complaint alleges that San Miguel Hospital Corp. d/b/a Alta Vista Regional Hospital
(Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by denying the request of its employee to be
represented by the District 1199NM, National Union of Hospital and Healthcare Employees
(Union) during an interview that could reasonably lead to discipline and by threatening
employees that they could not have representation during an investigatory interview. The
Complaint also alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by, by refusing to
provide information to the Union necessary and relevant to its duties as collective-bargaining
representive, by unilaterally changing its practice with regard to Fit tests, by terminating an
employee as a result of its changed practice concerning Fit tests, by unilaterally changing its
practice with regard to allowing employees to have representation during investigative or
disciplinary interviews and by bypassing the Union and dealing directly with unit employees by
meeting with them to resolve grievances and discipline. In its answer, as amended,
Respondent admitted most of the operative allegations of the complaint but denied it had
violated the Act.
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact
Upon the entire record herein1, including the briefs from the General Counsel2 and
Respondent, I make the following findings of fact.
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent admitted it is a New Mexico corporation with an office and place of business
located in Las Vegas, New Mexico, where it is engaged in the operation of an acute care
hospital. Annually, Respondent in the course of its business operations derived gross
revenues in excess of $250,000 and purchased and received at its facility goods valued in
excess of $50,000 in directly from points outside the State of New Mexico.
Based upon the above, Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. Labor Organization
Respondent admitted and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III.The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Facts
On March 4, 2008, the Board issued its Decision in San Miguel Hospital Corp. d/b/a Alta
Vista Regional Hospital, Case 28-RC-6518 where it certified the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the following unit of employees of Respondent (the Unit):
All full-time and regular part-time professional employees, including registered
nurses, registered nurse rotating team leaders, registered nurse case manager,
licensed practical nurse case manager, cardiac catheterization laboratory
supervisors, medical technologists, nuclear medicine technicians, pharmacists,
registered pharmacists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, registered
respiratory therapists, speech pathologists, and non professional employees,
including all technical employees, skilled maintenance employees, business
office employees, and other nonprofessional employees, and per diem
employees averaging four or more hours of work per week for the last quarter
prior to the eligibility date, employed by the [Respondent] at its hospital located in
Las Vegas, New Mexico; excluding all employees employed at clinics,
physicians, registered nurse permanent team leaders, house supervisors, human
resource assistants, executive assistants, medical staff coordinator, staffing
coordinator, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.

1 On September 30, 2009, counsel for the General Counsel filed a “Motion to Correct the
Record”. Good cause having been shown and no opposition filed, the motion is granted.
2 On October 14, 2009, counsel for the General Counsel filed an “Errata to the Post Hearing
Brief”. As the errata correct a clerical error and there is no opposition, I accept the errata.
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
After the Union was certified, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union. Thereafter,
on June 30, 2008, the Board issued its decision in San Miguel Hospital Corp. d/b/a Alta Vista
Regional Hospital, 352 NLRB 809 (2008) in which it held that since March 4, 2008, the Union
has been the exclusive representative under Section 9(a) of the Act of the employees in the Unit
described above, and since March 12, 2008, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Unit employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) the Act.
Respondent has requested review of this decision and the Board has filed a cross-application
for enforcement of this decision in the District of Columbia Circuit Court. (D.C. Cir. No. 08-1245).
On March 31, 2009, the Regional Director for Region 28 issued the complaint herein,
alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
On August 7, 2009, Counsel for the General Counsel filed a “Motion to Strike Portions of
Respondent’s Answer to Complaint and For Partial Summary Judgment.” On August 12, 2009,
Respondent filed a “Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Notice of Hearing, Alternatively,
Respondent’s Motion to Stay.”
In its amended answer, Respondent admitted the Board’s jurisdiction, the Union’s labor
status, the supervisory status of Respondent’s agents as alleged in complaint paragraph 4, that
the Board issued its certification of the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the
Unit on March 4, 2008, that the Union, by its January 12 written request, requested from
Respondent a list of Unit employees and a list of employees separated since the Union was
certified, that since January 12, Respondent has refused to provide the requested information
to the Union, that Respondent has required employees to take Fit Tests, fired Abeyta, changed
its practice by denying employees requests to have employees present during investigative or
disciplinary meetings, and bypassed the Union and dealt directly with Unit employees by
meeting with them to resolve grievances and discipline without notice to or bargaining with the
Union.
On August 14, 2009, Respondent filed an “Opposition to Counsel for the General
Counsel’s Motion to Strike Portions of Respondent’s Answer to Complaint and for Partial
Summary Judgment”, and Counsel for the General Counsel filed “General Counsel’s
Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Notice of Hearing, Alternatively
Respondent’s Motion to Stay”.
On August 19, 2009, I issued an “Order Granting Counsel for the General Counsel’s
Motion to Strike Portions of Respondent’s Answer to Complaint and for Partial Summary
Judgment” in which I found that Respondent could not herein raise the appropriateness of the
Unit or the Union’s certification as the representative of Unit employees. I also found that the
Union’s January 12, 2009, request for employee names is necessary and relevant to the
Union’s duty as collective-bargaining representive and that no factual issue concerning
complaint paragraphs 7(a) through (c) remain. I also found that employee testing, employee
discipline, employer work rules, and grievance resolution are related to wages, hours and other
terms and conditions of employment and are mandatory subjects of bargaining as alleged in
complaint paragraph 7(h). In addition, I ruled that neither Respondent’s first nor the second
affirmative defense would be considered in the instant hearing. (Attacking the Board’s
certification of the Union as the collective-bargaining representive of the Unit in Case 28-RC-
6518 and attacking the authority of the General Counsel’s authority to issue, serve, and
prosecute the complaint.)
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Also on August 19, 2009, I issued my “Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint and Notice of Hearing, Alternatively Respondent’s Motion to Stay”. In addition, at the
start of the hearing on August 19, 2009, Respondent amended its amended Answer to admit
complaint paragraph 1(a) and (b) regarding the filing and service of the charge and amended
charge in this matter.
At the hearing, the parties entered into stipulations of fact that made the taking of
testimony unnecessary. The stipulations are:
1. In October 2008, Respondent changed its policy regarding Fit Testing3 without
providing notice and an opportunity to bargain to the Union. Prior to October 2008
employees were not required to pass the Fit Test to continue their employment with
Respondent. After October 2008 Respondent’s employees were required to pass the Fit
Test to continue employment.
2. Fit Testing is governed by Federal OSHA regulations.
3. On about November 14, 2008, Respondent discharged Abeyta as a result of its
change in policy regarding Fit Testing.
4. On about November 19, 2008, Respondent and Abeyta had a meeting discuss a
grievance regarding her dismissal.
5. Prior to the November 19, 2008 meeting, Abeyta requested employee Regina
Gutierrez (Gutierrez) be present at the meeting as her witness.
6. Respondent denied Abeyta’s request for the presence of Gutierrez.
7. Since Respondent refuses to recognize the Union, Respondent would have refused
Abeyta’s request for a Union representative at the grievance meeting scheduled on
November 19, 2008.
8. On about November 19, 2009, Respondent dealt directly with Abeyta, regarding her
grievance that she filed over her dismissal.
9. On about November 19, 2008, Respondent told Abeyta and Gutierrez that their
Weingarten rights were being denied.
B. The Analysis
Having previously resolved in my order of August 19, 20094, that complaint allegations
paragraphs 7(a)-(c) and (h) were not in issue and that the information the Union sought is
presumptively relevant5, I find that in refusing to provide the Union with the requested
information, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. I will discuss the
remaining complaint allegations in the order they are set forth in the complaint.

3 The parties stipulated that the Fit Test consists of testing a mask over an employee’s face
to ensure that the mask seals out airborne disease.
4 ALJ Exh. 1.
5 River Oak Center for Children, 345 NLRB 1335 (2005).
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
1. The Denial of Abeyta’s Request to be Represented
It is alleged in complaint paragraphs 6(a) and (b) that on or about November 19, 2008,
the Respondent denied employee Abeyta’s request to be represented by the Union during an
interview that Abeyta had reasonable cause to believe would result in disciplinary action being
taken against her.
Counsel for the General Counsel argues that Abeyta was entitled to the presence of a
representative at the grievance interview dealing with her discharge under Weingarten.
Respondent contends that since Abeyta was no longer an employee and since the grievance
meeting was not an investigative interview, she was not entitled to representation.
In NLRB v. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251, 260 (1975), the Supreme Court held that Section
8(a)(1) of the Act provides employees the right to be accompanied and assisted by their union
representative at investigatory meetings that the employee reasonably believes may result in
disciplinary action.
In Party Cookies, Inc., 237 NLRB 612, 619 (1978), the Board affirmed the administrative
law judge who found that Weingarten did not apply to a post discharge interview that was not
investigative in nature. In dicta, in Seattle First National Bank, 268 NLRB 1479, 1481 (1984),
the administrative law judge suggested that a post discharge internal review hearing could
constitute a Weingarten type interview since the internal review committee did more than merely
rubber stamp terminations and that the employee could reasonably believe that her employment
status could be affected. Respondent’s citation to IBM Corp., 341 NLRB 1288 (2004) is
misplaced as IBM stands only for the proposition that unrepresented employees have no right to
a representative at an investigatory interview. Polson Industries, Inc., 242 NLRB 1210, 1211
(1979) is also distinguishable as the employee there had voluntarily resigned and was not an
employee. Here it is alleged that Abeyta was unlawfully fired and thus retained her rights as an
employee.
In this case Abeyta had been terminated at the time of the November 19, 2008, post-
discharge disciplinary grievance interview. The record is silent as to whether the grievance
process was investigative or merely pro forma or whether the Respondent’s grievance
procedure had authority to rescind the discipline. Accordingly, I find that Weingarten does not
apply to the Respondent’s grievance procedure that occurred after Abeyta’s discharge and I will
dismiss this Complaint allegation. Party Cookies, Inc., supra.
2. The Threats to Employees that Respondent would not Permit Representation During
Investigatory Interviews.
In complaint paragraph 6(c) it is alleged that on or about November 19, 2008, the
Respondent threatened employees by informing them that the Respondent would not allow
them to have representation during investigatory interviews.
Statements to employees that they are not entitled to representation under Weingarten
because Respondent does not recognize the Union as the employees’ collective-bargaining
representative violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In re: Dish Network Service Corp., 339 NLRB
1126 (2003); In re: Fruehauf Trailer Services, Inc., 335 NLRB 393 (2001).
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Respondent stipulated that when Abeyta requested that Gutierrez be present as her
witness at the November 19, 2008, grievance meeting, it told Abeyta and Gutierrez that their
Weingarten rights were being denied. This statement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Respondent’s Change in Practice Concerning Fit Tests.
It is alleged in paragraph 7(d) that between about June 16, 2008, to November 14, 2008,
the Respondent changed its practice regarding Fit Tests by requiring Unit employees having
direct contact with patients to take and pass a Fit Test or be discharged.
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Respondent’s unilateral change in
requiring employees, a condition of employment to take Fit tests violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act. Respondent argues that it was required by Federal Law to require employees take
the Fit test and it is not, therefore, obligated to bargain with the Union.
An employer who refuses to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees during a test of certification does so at its own risk and may
violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In re United Food and Commercial Workers, Local No. 1996,
336 NLRB 421 (2001); Hankins Lumber Co., 316 NLRB 837, 861 (1995); Proof Co., 115 NLRB
309 (1956). Thus, an employer’s obligation to bargain attaches at the time the union wins the
election, and the employer acts at its peril when it makes unilateral changes while post-election
proceedings are pending. In re: United Food and Commercial Workers, supra; Proof Co., supra.
The parties stipulated that in October 2008, Respondent changed its policy regarding Fit
Testing without providing notice and an opportunity to bargain to the Union. Prior to October
2008 employees were not required to pass the Fit Test to continue their employment with
Respondent. After October 2008 Respondent’s employees were required to pass the Fit Test to
continue employment. Such conduct constitutes an unlawful unilateral change.
However, Respondent contends that Federal regulations dealing with protective masks
privilege its unilateral acts.
Under the OSHA regulations it is stated that, “[a] respirator shall be provided to each
employee when such equipment is necessary to protect the health of such employee.”
29 C.F.R. § 1910.134 (a) (2); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132 (a) (“[p]rotective equipment,
including respiratory devices shall be provided whenever it is necessary by reason of hazards of
environment capable of causing injury ”).
In Quality House of Graphics, Inc., 336 NLRB 497, 498 (2001) the Board held that there
are circumstances where an employer may act unilaterally if the employer can establish
extraordinary events which are an unforeseen occurrence that require the company to take
immediate action. The requirements of complying with other Federal Statutes do not fall within
this exception. There is also another category of exigency identified in Quality House of
Graphics that are not sufficiently compelling to excuse bargaining altogether but that require
prompt action and cannot await final agreement or impasse on the collective-bargaining
agreement as a whole. In such cases the Board still requires notice to and bargaining with the
union.
The first category of circumstances of Quality House of Graphics does not apply in this
case since there was no extraordinary event that was unforeseen by Respondent that required
implementing the rule that employees pass the Fit test as a requirement of employment. Rather
the OSHA regulation only mandates that employees be provided with protective masks. There
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
is nothing in the record that the OSHA regulation required Respondent to take immediate action.
Indeed it appears that prior to October 2008, Respondent administered the Fit Test but did not
condition employment upon passing the test. Even assuming, arguendo, that this case might
fall under the second set of Quality House of Graphics exigencies, in the absence of notice to
and bargaining with the Union concerning the new rule requiring passing the Fit test as a
condition of employment, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act in unilaterally
implementing such a requirement.
4. The discharge of Abeyta.
It is alleged in paragraph 7(e) that on or about November 14, 2008, as a result of
Respondent’s conduct described above in paragraph 7(d), the Respondent discharged Abeyta.
If it is found that an employer unilaterally changes terms and conditions of employment
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, the discharge of employees pursuant to such unlawfully
imposed rules also violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Great Western Produce, Inc.,
299 NLRB 1004, 1005 (1990). In Great Western at 1005, the Board said:
We shall continue to apply the following test for analyzing discharges and other
discipline alleged to violate Section 8(a)(5) If the Respondent's unlawfully
imposed rules or policies were a factor in the discipline or discharge, then the
discipline or discharge violates Section 8(a)(5).
It was stipulated that Respondent unilaterally implemented the change to its Fit testing
rules and that Abeyta was discharged for violation of the rule. Having found that the rule was
implemented unlawfully, I find that Abeyta’s discharge violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
5. The Change in Practice Regarding Employee Representation at Investigative Meetings.
It is alleged in paragraph 7(f) that on or about November 19, 2008, the Respondent
changed its practice by denying employees’ requests to have employees present during
investigative or discipline meetings.
In its answer Respondent admitted that it changed its practice concerning employees’
rights to be represented at investigative meetings that could result in discipline. Since this
policy affects terms and conditions of employment, it is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Failure to accord the Union notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain violates Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. I find Respondent in unilaterally changing its practice regarding
employee representation at a Weingarten type meeting violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
6. Bypassing the Union.
Paragraph 7(g) alleges that on or about November 19, 2008, the Respondent bypassed
the Union and dealt directly with Unit employees by meeting with them to resolve grievances
and discipline.
The Board has continued to hold that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by
dealing directly with its employees. Dayton Newspapers, Inc., 339 NLRB 650 (2003).
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
It was stipulated that on about November 19, 2009, Respondent dealt directly with
Abeyta, regarding her grievance that she filed over her dismissal. I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act in dealing directly with Abeyta concerning her
grievance.
Conclusions of Law
Respondent has engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by,
(a) refusing to provide information to the Union necessary and relevant to its duties as
collective-bargaining representive, (b) threatening employees that they could not have
representation during an investigatory interview, (c) unilaterally changing its practice with regard
to the right of employees to be represented in Weingarten type meetings, (d) unilaterally
changing its practice with regard to Fit tests, (e) terminating an employee as a result of its
changed practice concerning Fit tests and by bypassing the Union and, (f) dealing directly with
unit employees by meeting with them to resolve grievances and discipline. Respondent has not
otherwise violated the Act and the remaining allegations of the complaint are dismissed.
The above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
2(6), (7) and (8) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended.6
ORDER
The Respondent, San Miguel Hospital Corp. d/b/a Alta Vista Regional Hospital, its
officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with National Union of
Hospital and Health Care Employees District 1199NM, Union, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representive in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time professional employees, including
registered nurses, registered nurse rotating team leaders, registered nurse
case manager, licensed practical nurse case manager, cardiac
catheritization laboratory supervisors, medical technologists, nuclear
medicine technicians, pharmacists, registered pharmacists, occupational
therapists, physical therapists, registered respiratory therapists, speech

6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
pathologists, and nonprofessional employees, including all technical
employees, skilled maintenance employees, business office employees, and
other nonprofessional employees, and per diem employees averaging four
or more hours of work per week for the last quarter prior to the eligibility
date, employed by us at our hospital in Las Vegas, New Mexico; excluding
all employees employed at clinics, physicians, registered nurse permanent
team leaders, house supervisors, human resource assistants, executive
assistants, medical staff coordinator, staffing coordinator, confidential
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide information to the Union that it needs to perform its
duties as the exclusive bargaining representative of the current bargaining Unit described
above.
(c) Unilaterally changing the wages, hours, or working conditions of Unit employees
without first notifying the Union of planned changes and providing the Union with a meaningful
opportunity to bargain over these changes and the effects of the changes.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement
reached on terms and conditions of employment for our employees in the above described unit.
(b) Provide the Union with the information it requested of us on January 12, 2009,
and any other information the Union requests that it needs to represent you.
(c) Reinstate Bernice Abeyta to her former position with full seniority and all other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed by her.
(d) Make Bernice Abeyta whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings or benefits
resulting from her discharge.
(e) Expunge and physically remove from our files any references to the discharge of
Bernice Abeyta and notify her, in writing, that such action has been accomplished and that the
expunged material will not be used as a basis for any future personnel action against her or
made reference to in any response to any inquiry from any employer, prospective employer,
employment agency, unemployment insurance office, or reference-seeker.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Las Vegas, New
Mexico, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” 7 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the Company’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Company immediately on receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to

7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted Pursuant to an Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read
“Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(SF)–44–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that,
during the pendancy of these proceedings, the Company have gone out of business, closed a
facility involved in these proceedings, or has laid off employees, Respondents shall duplicate
and mail, at their own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Company at any time since October 1, 2008.
(g) 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 Respondents have taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 27, 2009.
____________________
John J. McCarrick
Administrative Law Judge
JD(SF)–44–09
Las Vegas, Nevada
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. More particularly:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that they have no right to Union representation at an
investigatory meeting that may reasonably lead to disciplinary action.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with National Union of Hospital and Health Care
Employees District 1199NM as the exclusive bargaining representative, of the following
collective-bargaining unit (the Unit):
All full-time and regular part-time professional employees, including registered
nurses, registered nurse rotating team leaders, registered nurse case manager,
licensed practical nurse case manager, cardiac catheritization laboratory
supervisors, medical technologists, nuclear medicine technicians, pharmacists,
registered pharmacists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, registered
respiratory therapists, speech pathologists, and nonprofessional employees,
including all technical employees, skilled maintenance employees, business
office employees, and other nonprofessional employees, and per diem
employees averaging four or more hours of work per week for the last quarter
prior to the eligibility date, employed by us at our hospital in Las Vegas, New
Mexico; excluding all employees employed at clinics, physicians, registered
nurse permanent team leaders, house supervisors, human resource assistants,
executive assistants, medical staff coordinator, staffing coordinator, confidential
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide information to the Union that it needs to perform its duties as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the current bargaining Unit described above.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the wages, hours, or working conditions of Unit employees
without first notifying the Union of planned changes and providing the Union with a meaningful
opportunity to bargain over these changes and the effects of the changes.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
JD(SF)–44–09
Las Vegas, Nevada
WE WILL recognize and bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement
reached on terms and conditions of employment for our employees in the Unit.
WE WILL immediately provide the Union with the information it requested of us on
January 12, 2009, and any other information the Union requests that it needs to represent you.
WE WILL immediately reinstate Bernice Abeyta to her former position with full seniority and all
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by her.
WE WILL make Bernice Abeyta whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings or benefits
resulting from her discharge.
WE WILL expunge and physically remove from our files any references to the discharge of
Bernice Abeyta and notify her, in writing, that such action has been accomplished and that the
expunged material will not be used as a basis for any future personnel action against her or
made reference to in any response to any inquiry from any employer, prospective employer,
employment agency, unemployment insurance office, or reference-seeker.
SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORP. d/b/a ALTA VISTA
REGIONAL HOSPITAL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
602-640-2160.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 602-640-2146.
Si quiere, se puede hablar con un agente de la Junta Nacional de Relaciones del Trabajo en confianza. [a Board
agent who speaks Spanish can be made available to speak with you in confidence.] Pagina electronica de red de la
Junta Nacional de Relaciones del Trabajo tambien tiene informacion en espanol” www.nlrb.gov
[Information in Spanish is also available on the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov]