Associated Cleaning Consultants & Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 1066 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Associated Cleaning Consultants & Services, Inc. and
District 1199P , National Union of Hospital and
Health Care Employees , Division of RWDSU,
AFL-CIO. Cases 6-CA-8584 and 6-CA-8778
November 19, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On August 19, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
Respondent on September 3, 1975, violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating and threatening
employees with respect to union activities. Inasmuch
as the Respondent embarked on a clear course of
unlawful conduct on September 3, 1975, and the
Union's demand for recognition was made and re-
fused on that date, we find that the Respondent un-
lawfully failed to recognize and to bargain with the
Union as of September 3, 1975.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Associated Cleaning
Consultants & Service, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylva-
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d (CA 3, 1951) We have carefully exam-
ined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings
2 Member Fanning agrees with this result but does so for the reasons set
forth in his concurrence in Trading Port Inc, 219 NLRB 298 (1975)
In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's Conclusion of Law number
6, we hereby modify it by inserting the words "since September 3, 1975,"
after "failing and refusing"
n:a, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
NANCY M. SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
consolidated proceeding was heard at Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania, on February 3, 4, and 5, 1976. In Case 6-CA-8584,
the charge was filed on September 5, 1975,' and amended
on September 25 and 27 and November 7; the complaint
was issued on November 24. In Case 6-CA-8778, the
charge was filed on November 7 and amended on January
5, 1976; the complaint was issued on January 5, 1976. The
issues presented are whether Respondent Associated
Cleaning Consultants & Services, Inc. (a) interrogated and
threatened its employees about activity on behalf of Dis-
trict 1199P, National Union of Hospital and Health Care
Employees, Division of RWDSU, AFL-CIO (the Union),
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended (the Act); (b) discharged employees
Joseph Santavicca and Sandra McLaughlin because of
their union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act; (c) discharged employees Roberta Turner and
Ethel Turner because of their protected concerted and/or
union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act; and (d) refused to bargain with the Union under cir-
cumstances calling for a bargaining order, in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
Respondent and by counsel for the General Counsel, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in
providing janitorial and housekeeping services, with its
principal office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. During the re-
spective years preceding the issuance of the complaints,
Respondent provided services to its customers valued in
excess of $1 million of which services valued at more than
$50,000 were provided to customers such as the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania and Saint Francis Hospital, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, which customers annually each pur-
chase from outside Pennsylvania goods and materials
valued at more than $50,000. I find that, as Respondent
admits, Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that exercise of jurisdiction over
its operations will effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
i Unless otherwise stated, all dates hereafter are 1975
226 NLRB No. 173
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS 1067
11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent provides its services to, inter alia, Woodville
State Hospital (the Hospital), which consists of several
buildings. Respondent's office and the timecards of all its
employees at the Hospital are located on the first floor of
the geriatrics building, which is at the top of a hill. The
other hospital buildings serviced by Respondent are below
this hill and about a mile from the geriatrics building. After
punching in at the geriatrics building, employees of Re-
spondent who are not assigned to that building customarily
drive to the building where they work.
About mid-August 1975, employees Joseph Santavicca
and Ethel Turner discussed working conditions at the Hos-
pital, where both were then working for Respondent as
housekeeping personnel. Santavicca, at least, believed that
Respondent employed too few employees at the Hospital
to perform all the housekeeping work there Santavicca
and Ethel Turner decided to try to get a union to improve
their working conditions. About August 23 or 24, Santavic-
ca telephoned Union Representative David Paul, advised
him that some employees in the hospital housekeeping de-
partment were interested in a union, and arranged for a
meeting on August 26.
As set forth in greater detail infra, meetings were subse-
quently held on August 26 and September 2, at which a
number of employees signed union cards. Ethel Turner
signed a card at the first meeting, urged others (including
her mother, employee Roberta Turner) to attend the sec-
ond meeting, and herself attended that meeting. Owing to
illness, Joseph Santavicca did not attend the first meeting.
He urged others to attend the second meeting, and he
signed a card at that meeting.
B. Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. The September 3 incident in the office
Employee Mary Krawczynski is the mother of employee
Santavicca and the sister-in-law of employee Frank
Krawczynski. She and her brother-in-law attended the Au-
gust 26 union meeting arranged by Santavicca and Ethel
Turner, and signed cards there. As previously noted, Ethel
Turner also signed a card at that meeting. Mary
Krawczynski also attended the September 2 meeting, at
which was formed a four-employee organizing committee
which included Frank Krawczynski, Santavicca, and Ethel
Turner.2
On September 3, Mary Krawczynski opened up the of-
fice, which, as noted, is on the first floor of the geriatrics
building. Before working hours began, she saw Frank
Krawczynski go up to the second floor of the building. He
then came down and told his sister-in-law that employee
Pauline King had told him that she was going to tell Super-
visor Richard Kelly that they were trying to start a union.
Thereafter, and still before working hours, Mary
2 This meeting was also attended by Patricia Bonkowski. who is
Santavicca 's aunt and Mary Krawczynski's sister
Krawczynski saw employees Santavicca and Ethel Turner
go to the second floor of the geriatrics building. After
reaching this floor, Santavicca asked employee Bob Fife to
sign a union card. Fife replied that he was not too sure
about signing one. Then, and still before working hours,
Santavicca joined employees Ethel Turner, Christine Aras-
niewicz, and King in another ward on that same floor He
and Turner explained the Union to the others and asked
them to sign union cards. They replied that they would sign
if Assistant Supervisor Wayne Sewell (admittedly a super-
visor under the Act) gave them permission to sign, that
their job meant too much for them to lose it. At 8:05 a.m.,
5 minutes after working hours began, Mary Krawczynski
sent employee Raymond Anthony up after Santavicca and
Ethel Turner to tell them to come down. Anthony and
employee Thomas Cavey both went upstairs When Cavey
came down, he told Mary Krawczynski that, according to
employee King, Santavicca and Ethel Turner had asked
King and Arasniewicz to sign union cards, and that the
latter two employees had said they were not going to sign
anything until they talked to Supervisor Richard J. Kelly
(admittedly a supervisor under the Act) or Sewell Santa-
vicca and Ethel Turner then went to the buildings where
they worked.
A little later, Kelly and Sewell came in to the office.
Mary Krawczynski told them that there was a rumor going
around that someone was trying to start a union. Kelly
asked who was doing this. She replied that she did not
know but "you know how it is when one starts something,
they all follow." Then, Sewell received a telephone call,
which (he told Mary Krawczynski) was from employee
King. Thereafter, King came down to the office and told
Kelly, in Sewell's presence, that Santavicca was trying to
get her to sign a union card, and she and Arasniewicz
could not get their work done because Santavicca was
bothering them.
The foregoing findings as to the events in the office are
based on the testimony of Mary Krawczynski, a reluctant
witness who initially refused to comply with the General
Counsel's subpena, and whom he examined without objec-
tion as a hostile witness under Rule 611(c) of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. I have accepted the version of her testi-
mony which was admittedly supported by her prehearing
affidavit. Sewell corroborated much of her testimony by
testifying that before Santavicca's September 4 discharge,
King and (perhaps) Arasniewicz came downstairs into the
office and said that while they were working, Santavicca,
Ethel Turner, and Frank Krawczynski were "harassing"
them to "sign some cards for a union." Kelly testified that
on September 5, the day after Santavicca was terminated,
King told him that Santavicca and Ethel Turner had tried
to talk King and Arasniewicz into signing union cards. Al-
though still in Respondent's employ at the time of the hear-
ing, Arasniewicz and King did not testify, nor was their
absence explained.3 On the basis of the witnesses' de-
3 See Golden State Bottling Compam, Inc, d/b/a Pepsi-Cola Bottling Com-
pany of Sacramento v NLRB B. 414 U S 168 (1973), N L R B v Sam Wal-
lick and Sam K Schwalm, d/b/a Wallick and Schwalm Company, et a!, 198
F 2d 477, 483.(C A 3. 1952), International Union, United Automobile Aero-
space, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UA W) [Gyrodyne
Company of America] v N L R B, 459 F 2d 1329, 1335-45 (C A D C, 1972)
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meanor and Sewell 's partial corroboration of Mary
Krawczynski's testimony, I credit her.
2. The September 3 conversation between Sewell, Cavey,
and Vogel
Later that same day, September 3, employee Vogel ap-
proached Assistant Supervisor Sewell outside the Hillcrest
East building and asked permission to leave the building to
obtain a squeegee . Almost simultaneously , Sewell told em-
ployee Cavey to go to the Hillcrest West building to get a
vacuum cleaner . Both employees had attended the union
meeting the previous day and had signed cards there. Se-
well accompanied both employees as they went to fetch
their cleaning equipment from Hillcrest West . During this
walk, Sewell said that "Ethel" and "Joey" had laid their
jobs on the line by trying to bring in a union, that they
were "troublemakers" and "instigators ," that Supervisor
Kelly was not going to "put up" with this, and that Re-
spondent could not afford a union.4 At that time, Ethel
Turner was the only "Ethel" in the unit, and the only
"Joey" other than Santavicca was Joe Vogel. The record
fails to show whether Vogel or Cavey reported their con-
versation with Sewell to any other employees.
C. The Union's Bargaining Demand and Respondent's
Refusal
Respondent's December 3 answer concedes that the
Union "since September 3, 1975, has demanded and has
continued to demand that it be recognized as the bargain-
ing agent for the employees ." The Union 's written demand
was initially received by Respondent 's secretary -treasurer,
Reems. Kelly testified that he learned about this letter on
September 5. Respondent's December 3 answer further
concedes that Respondent "has failed and refused and
continues to refuse to recognize and bargain collectively
with the Union."
D. The Alleged Unlawful Discharges
1. Santavicca
a. Santavicca's discharge and rehire
Joseph Santavicca was first hired by Respondent in Feb-
ruary 1974 on a part-time basis, while he was still in high
school. Upon graduating in June 1974, he became a regu-
lar, full-time employee . He worked at the Hospital until
November 1974; was then transferred at his own request to
another location serviced by Respondent, referred to in the
record as Interstate 79; and , upon the expiration of the
Interstate 79 contract at the end of June 1975 , was trans-
ferred back to the Hospital. Kelly testified that up to this
My findings as to this incident are based on Cavey's and Vogel's mutu-
ally corroborative testimony Sewell testified that the only matters discussed
were the squeegee and the vacuum cleaner On the basis of the witnesses'
demeanor and Sewell's unreliability as to other matters , I credit the employ-
ees
point Santavicca's work was "very satisfactory." In July
1975, when the state employees were on strike at the Hos-
pital, Kelly told Respondent's employees that if they
worked during the strike they would receive a bonus. San-
tavicca worked during the strike and received the bonus.
Between Santavicca's early July 1975 transfer back to
the Hospital and August 11, 1975, he was shifted around to
various jobs in various buildings as the need arose. Kelly
testified that Santavicca did some of this work "very well."
Kelly further testified , "Mr. Santavicca 's performance for
me, from the time he started until the time he left, other
than the periods just prior to his [September 4] leaving, he
did a very excellent job." Sewell testified that Santavicca
was an "extremely good worker" before his early July 1975
return from Interstate 79, at which time his attitude
"changed overnight... . I couldn 't say nothing to him.
He'd get riled up very quick ." Because Santavicca had ex-
pressed preference for a regular assignment to a single
building , on August II he was permanently assigned to
Hillcrest East.
As previously noted , Santavicca and Ethel Turner were
the employees who initiated the union drive and arranged
for the first union meeting, on August 26. Santavicca urged
other employees to attend the September 2 meeting, the
first one his health permitted him to attend . At that meet-
ing, he signed a union card and volunteered to become one
of a four-employee organizing committee. Thereafter, on
September 3 and 4 , he successfully solicited four employees
to sign union cards. Moreover , as previously found, on
September 3 he unsuccessfully solicited the signatures of
three more employees.
As previously found, on September 3 employee Mary
Krawczynski (Santavicca 's mother) told Supervisors Kelly
and Sewell that there was a rumor going around that some-
one was trying to start a union ; and Kelly asked who was
doing this. Although well aware of her son's union activity,
Mary Krawczynski replied that she did not know. How-
ever, employee King then told Kelly and Sewell that San-
tavicca had been soliciting for the Union . Further , Sewell
remarked that Santavicca and Ethel Turner had laid their
jobs on the line by trying to bring in a union, that they
were "troublemakers" and "instigators ," that Kelly was not
going to "put up" with this, and that Respondent could not
afford a union.
On the following morning , employees Ralph and Sandra
McLaughlin, who are husband and wife , came to the office
to punch their timecards. Sandra McLaughlin asked if her
husband should nde with others to his usual building. Se-
well told Ralph McLaughlin to stay in the office, because
he might be taking the place of Santavicca , whom Sewell
had summoned to come to the office from the Hillcrest
East Building, where Santavicca worked.
When Santavicca came into the office , Sewell said that
he had heard Santavicca was "talking about " Sewell. San-
tavicca replied that Sewell sounded as if he was trying to
start an argument with Santavicca , but he was not going to
get into an argument. Sewell said that if he wanted to fire
Santavicca, Sewell had "enough stuff," pointed to a file
cabinet, and said he had "enough stuff in there to fire him
right now." (Kelly testified, however, that prior to Septem-
ber 3 there were "probably" no written complaints in Re-
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS
spondent's file personally directed to Santavicca.) Sewell
further told Santavicca that Kelly wanted to see him when
he came in. Sewell then sent Santavicca and Ralph Mc-
Laughlin to work at Hillcrest East, which at that time was
not McLaughlin's regular duty post. They went to the
building and started to operate the wet vacuum in the cafe-
teria.
About 20 minutes later, Santavicca received a telephone
call at the Hillcrest East building, stating that Kelly wanted
to see him. Santavicca then returned to the office, where he
confronted Kelly and Sewell. Kelly gave Santavicca "dis-
charge papers" stating that he was not doing his work. Kel-
ly told this to Santavicca orally, and further said that he
was not running the wet vacuum in the cafeteria. Santavic-
ca replied that the machine was broken, and "this is all
being done because of the union and [Kelly] would see him
in court." 5 Santavicca then returned to the Hillcrest East
building and reported his discharge to Ralph McLaughlin,
who thereafter did the work which Santavicca had been
doing.
Respondent's December 3 answer to the first complaint
states that Santavicca had not been reinstated "for the rea-
son that he has a substantially better job with another em-
ployer which pays him substantially higher wages than
with [Respondent], and, further, the said Joseph Santavicca
does not desire to be reinstated to his position of employ-
ment." 6 Later that month, Santavicca talked to Kelly
about being rehired. Santavicca told Kelly that he thought
he had been fired for union activity, and Kelly denied this.
Santavicca further said that he wanted the Board proceed-
ings discontinued. Thereafter, Kelly told Santavicca that
he was "an excellent worker, [Kelly] could use someone of
his caliber because he is a good machine man and [Kelly]
would be very happy to have him back" if he could prove
during a trial period that he would "continue doing the
work as required." After consulting Sewell, Kelly rehired
Santavicca, effective January 11, 1976, to work on week-
ends only. He was still working this schedule at the time of
the February 1976 hearing. Before being discharged, San-
tavicca had worked a 5-day-per-week schedule, which
sometimes included weekend days and sometimes did not.
Kelly denied taking him back on any condition that he
would drop his complaint against Respondent, or any simi-
lar consideration.? There is no evidence or contention
otherwise.
5 My findings as to the substance of this conversation are based on a
composite of Santavicca's testimony and credible portions of Kelly 's testi-
mony Sewell was not asked about this conversation . I discuss infra (fns 10
and 17 ) Kelly's testimony that after August 15 , Santavicca never com-
plained to him about the operation of the wet vacuum machine , and that
during the discharge interview Kelly said that Santavicca was being dis-
charged partly for failure to fill out work reports
6 At the hearing before me , Respondent sought to ask Santavicca ques-
tions about the wages he received from the firm where he worked after
Respondent discharged him. Upon Respondent 's representation that this
line of questioning was directed toward determining the amount of backpay
due Santavicca should it be determined that his discharge was unlawful, I
sustained the General Counsel's objection thereto on the ground of relevan-
cy See N L R B v Deena Artware, Inc, 361 U S 398, 411 (1960) (concur-
ring opinion ), Heinrich Motors, Inc, 153 NLRB 1575 (1965) and 166 NLRB
783, 785-786 (1967) (supplemental ), enfd 403 F 2d 145, 149-150 (C A 2,
1968)
7 The charges herein were filed by the Union, not Santavicca
1069
b. Evidence bearing on Respondent's explanation for
Santavicca s discharge
At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel as-
serted that Santavicca was discharged partly because Re-
spondent thought that he had deliberately damaged the
wet vacuum machine so as to make it "not workable."
Kelly's testimony about Respondent's difficulties with this
machine contains no allegation that anyone had deliber-
ately damaged it. Sewell testified that he believed the ma-
chine to have been deliberately jammed, but that this dam-
age had nothing to do with Santavicca's discharge.8
At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel stated
that Santavicca was discharged partly for failure to fill out
certain forms. This reason for Santavicca's discharge was
relied on by Kelly, but not Sewell. Among Santavicca's
duties between August 11 and his September 4 discharge
was the cleaning of food service areas in the Hillcrest East
building areas. With respect to the cleaning of such areas,
Respondent's employees are required to fill out food-ser-
vice-areas "work checkout list" forms for Virginia Simon,
who is an employee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and is the Hospital assistant food manager in the dietary
department. These forms list certain cleaning operations
and contain spaces for the signatures of the employees who
performed such operations. Respondent's housekeeping
employees are expected to enter the appropriate check-
marks and signatures on these forms, which are then
picked up by the Hospital's dietary employees. At least one
form a day (plus a carbon copy) is supposed to be forward-
ed to Simon, and under some circumstances, she should
receive two.' During the 24-day period between
Santavicca's August 11 transfer to the Hillcrest East build-
ing and the day before his September 4 discharge, he
worked a total of 18 days but submitted only one form-
for September 1, the second from the last full day he actu-
ally worked However, because these forms are initially
sent to the Hospital dietary department rather than to Re-
spondent, because assistant dietary department manager
Simon testified that she usually accumulated these forms
for at least a week before forwarding them to Respondent,
and because none of Respondent's witnesses testified in
terms that he was aware before Santavicca's discharge
about any failure by Santavicca to send in forms after Au-
gust 26, I infer that at the time of Santavicca's September 4
discharge, Respondent was not aware of his post-August
26 conduct with respect to such forms.10 As to the 6 days
during this August 11-September 3 period when Santavicca
did not work, a form was submitted by other employees-
Joseph Vogel (Santavicca's replacement) and night shift
8 Sewell's testimony indicates that the machine broke down between Au-
gust 1 and 8 Santavicca did not start working at Hillcrest East, where the
machine was used, until August II At all relevant times several employees
were responsible for cleaning the areas where the machine was supposed to
be used
v Sometimes a form which has been filled out by the day shift is turned in
by the Hospital employees before the start of Respondent's night shift
")Accordingly, I do not credit Kelly's testimony that on the morning of
September 4 he told Santavicca that he was being discharged partly for
failure to fill out these forms For similar reasons, I do not credit Kelly's
testimony that he reproved Santavicca about the matter on the morning of
September 3 As previously noted, Santavicca did fill out a form at the end
of his September I shift
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee Robert Washington-for 2 days, August 26 and
27. During this period, Vogel replaced Santavicca on 3 ad-
ditional days, for which no forms were submitted. Respon-
dent retained Vogel in its employ until November 17, when
he was discharged for reasons unrelated to his failure to fill
out forms. Simon testified that she did not receive these
forms "all the time." On August 26, she sent a memoran-
dum to Respondent complaining that, inter aha, "Reports
are not coming in from H. C. West nor regularly from
H. C. East." Respondent never replied to this memoran-
dum. However, on August 26 Sewell and Kelly complained
to Santavicca about his failure to fill out these forms,
which, if completely filled out, would require Santavicca to
insert about 39 checkmarks and three signatures. Santavic-
ca replied that he had no time. Kelly initially testified that
he had never terminated anyone but Santavicca in whole
or in part for failing to fill out these forms. However, Kelly
later testified that the November 7 discharge of Ralph Mc-
Laughlin, who replaced Santavicca and signed all but two
of the Hillcreast East forms submitted to Simon between
September 4 and 20, was partly due to his failure to fill out
these forms
At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel stated
that Santavicca was discharged partly because "Kitchens
were not swept under the counters. Lavatories were being
neglected." Sewell testified that he had "been getting re-
ports from Mrs. Simon in dietary, when Joe was working
there, that he wasn't doing his work," and was using only
one mop and one bucket, rather than the two (one clean
mop with detergent water, and one clean mop with clear
water) which were required when the wet vaccum was not
used.l i Sewell dated these complaints as having been made
before August 15. Santavicca did not begin his regular tour
of duty at the Hillcrest East building until August 11, and
between then and September 1 failed to fill out any report
forms, which Simon testified were her only basis for know-
ing who had done particular work.
Sewell further testified that at about 9 a.m. on Septem-
ber 4, the day of Santavicca's discharge, Simon and "the
people in dietary" called him to his office and complained
to him about the condition of the Hillcrest East dietary
department, that he then inspected the area, and that it was
"really dirty." Neither Simon nor any other "people in di-
etary" corroborated his testimony about this September 4
incident,12 Sewell testified that the conditions he allegedly
found on September 4 were "a constant thing. It never
improved." Respondent offered into evidence Santavicca's
September 1 work report form with the following notation,
11 Simon, Kelly, and Sewell all testified that such were the requirements
which the Hospital imposed on Respondent, and their testimony in this
respect is corroborated by the work report forms which Respondent's em-
ployees were required to submit to Simon However, Respondent's contract
with the State requires that after each meal, the dining rooms are (1) to be
"dry mopped with a treated mop or vacuumed Then a detergent disinfec-
tant shall be applied by the spray technique and the area shall be wet
vacuumed" or else "(2) dry mopped with a treated mop or vacuumed and
damp mopped, flooded and wet vacuumed after the evening meal "
12 The record strongly suggests that Santavicca was discharged before 9
a in The McLaughlins were supposed to clock in before 8 a in, and Ralph
McLaughlin testified that Santavicca was summoned to his discharge inter-
view about 20 minutes after he and McLaughlin had started to work in
Hillcrest East
added by Simon after she received the form as prepared by
Santavicca, "Lavatories not cleaned. Wet vaccum not
being used one bucket." 13 Simon testified that Kelly and
Sewell may have received the report with her notation as
late as a month after September 1 (Santavicca was dis-
charged on September 4), and there is no evidence about
when Respondent's management received this document.
Kelly credibly testified that between August 18 and 21
he told Santavicca that his work was not satisfactory be-
cause, inter alia, Simon had been complaining that the lav-
atories had not been cleaned."' Simon testified that she
complained to Respondent's management about the clean-
ing in the Hillcrest East and Hillcrest West dietary sections
before, during, and after Santavicca's tour of duty at Hill-
crest East.ts Her credible testimony in this respect is cor-
roborated by her comments on the employees' report
forms, by Kelly, and to some extent by Sewell. Kelly testi-
fied that he had talked to every one of the employees about
bad work. Sewell testified that Ethel Turner and Mary
Krawczynski were also responsible for the allegedly poor
cleaning of Hillcrest East. Mary Krawczynski was still
working for Respondent at the time of the hearing, 5
months after Santavicca's discharge.
At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel stated
that Santavicca was discharged partly because the wet vac-
uum was not being used. Sewell initially testified that
Santavicca's failure to run this machine had nothing to do
with his termination, and then that his failure to run this
machine was "part of it." Kelly testified that Santavicca
was discharged partly because he was cleaning the dietary
area with only one mop and one bucket, although he was
supposed to use either the wet vacuum cleaner or two mops
and two buckets-one with detergent and one with clear
water. A few days before August 15, Kelly reproached San-
tavicca for this practice. Santavicca replied that the wet
vacuum was broken; that if he used two mops and two
buckets he could not complete his work tasks during his
workday, and that he could not complete his work tasks
within his workday even if the wet vacuum was operating
properly.16 Kelly replied, in effect, that Santavicca would
somehow have to manage completing his assigned tasks
while still using either the wet vacuum or two buckets and
two mops. However, Kelly said that he would have the
machine repaired. On August 15, a repairman worked on
the machine while on Respondent's premises. Later, Sewell
checked the machine and decided that it had in fact been
restored to good operating condition. However, the ma-
13 The form states that two mops and two buckets had been used I infer
that Simon's notation otherwise was based on oral reports to her from the
dietary employees, who, unlike her, were in a position to observe the clean-
inp techniques in fact used
l accept Kelly's testimony about the date, in view of Santavicca's un-
certainty in this respect Nor do I accept Santavicca's testimony that there-
after he cleaned the lavatories, in view of his failure to make any such claim
on his September I report
15 Simon testified, inter alia , "it's repeatedly that they don't clean the
lavatories It just isn't now and then they don't clean them It isn't just now
and then that they don't use the [wet vacuum] machine , it's all the time, and
it gets a little boring to call [Respondent' s management ] on the phone ev-
eryday, so I just-we have meetings and we discuss it It's just over and
over and over again, the same complaints "
16 If the machine is used, all the furniture must be moved out of and then
back into the area
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS
chine thereafter left puddles on the floor.l" A month later,
about early October 1975, Respondent brought a different
machine into the Hillcrest East building and moved the old
machine to another job situs, where it was replaced before
the hearing in early February 1976. The record is ambigu-
ous about the extent to which the machine was used be-
tween the repairman's August 15 visit and the machine's
October 1975 removal.18
Kelly testified that, about 2 weeks before Santavicca's
September 4 discharge, he and Sewell decided that unless
Santavicca began to do the work required and to improve
his "attitude" he would have to be terminated. Sewell testi-
fied on direct examination, and initially on cross-examina-
tion, that Respondent decided to discharge Santavicca
about 2 or 3 weeks before his September 4 discharge-that
is, between August 14 and 21. Later on cross-examination,
when asked to explain why he had allegedly given three
warnings to Santavicca after deciding in mid-August to ter-
minate him, Sewell testified:
A. I hadn't decided I was going to terminate him; I
said he was possibly being terminated. I don't decide
no one's terminated.
Q. Well, I thought-
A. I mean, I give 'em a warning, yes. I don't decide
when anyone's terminated. I don't have no reason to
decide anyone on his job is terminated. I give him a
warning, telling him that are gonna be, they will possi-
bly be terminated. I don't try to fire anyone, if I can
get around it
17 Santavicca's testimony in this respect is corroborated by Ralph Mc-
Laughlin and Ethel Turner Ralph McLaughlin, who operated the wet vacu-
um the day Santavicca was discharged, testified without contradiction that
Kelly and Sewell saw the puddles that same day and Kelly told McLaughlin
to clean them up I note, moreover, that when asked whether the wet vacu-
um was leaving puddles on August 26, Kelly replied, "No sir, not at that
time " (Emphasis supplied )
Because of Kelly's testimony in this respect and demeanor considerations,
I do not accept Kelly's generalized testimony that after the repairman's visit
the machine was working properly, which, testimony was based on alleged
periodic checks by Kelly Further, in view of his testimony that he made
these periodic checks, I do not credit his testimony that, after the
repairman's visit, Kelly received no complaints about the machine I am
inclined to believe Kelly's testimony that on August 26 he checked the
machine by running it with water in it However, the amount of puddling
might well have been affected by the length of time and the size of the area
in which the machine was operated It seems unlikely that Kelly checked the
machine by cleaning the entire dietary area
18 Kelly testified, in effect, that he did not know whether the machine was
operated by anyone after August 15 Sewell testified that he saw this ma-
chine run "Everyday of the week Night and daytime" later in the same
week after the repairman's visit , but this visit occurred on a Friday Sewell
credibly testified, with some corroboration from Santavicca, that the date of
his discharge was the only occasion after August 15 on which he used the
machine
Each of the 18 Hillcrest East work reports submitted to the dietary de-
partment between August I i and September 20 states that two buckets and
two mops were used, a procedure required only if the wet vacuum is not
used However, I I also aver that the wet vacuum was used Moreover, such
forms were filled out by Ralph McLaughlin on September 9-13 and 18-20,
notwithstanding his testimony that after September 4 he cleaned up the area
"With a mop and bucket" In view of McLaughlin's testimony in this re-
spect and Simon's testimony quoted supra, In 15, I regard these forms as
having virtually no probative value as to the cleaning techniques in fact
used Kelly testified that mops and buckets could be usefully employed with
the machine (cf supra, In 11) Presumably, although his testimony was not
clearly directed to this consideration, mops could be used to get rid of
puddles left by the machine
1071
s
Q. (By Mr. Surprenant) Then, it's not your testi-
mony that you and Mr. Kelly decided about two
weeks before he was discharged, that you were going
to discharge him?
A. If he didn't do his job, and what he was expect-
ed to do, then we would have to get rid of him.
Q. So, it depended on what kind of work he did in
the next few weeks?
A. In other words, he was on a trial basis.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Santavicca that he was on a
trial basis during that period?
A. I didn't tell him in these words, but I told him in
so many words that he'd have to keep up with his
work, or else, I'd have to get rid of him.
Q. And, when did you tell him that?
A. Oh, that was the week before That week I told
him twice in one week that he wasn't doing the work
and I couldn't keep up with him, and I couldn't talk to
him.
In addition, Sewell (but not Kelly) testified that Respon-
dent discharged Santavicca partly because he was out of
his work area for long periods of time. In this connection,
Sewell referred to the September 3 incident, the day before
Santavicca's discharge, when Santavicca was soliciting em-
ployees to sign union cards in the geriatrics building.
Santavicca admitted that he was warned on several occa-
sions that his work was not satisfactory. He testified, in
effect, that he received the last such warning during the
interview described above regarding the wet vacuum,
which conversation occurred shortly before August 15.
Kelly testified that, about 10 days after this conversation,
he reproved Santavicca for his "attitude" and for his fail-
ure to clean the dietary area in the manner required. In
view of Kelly's inaccurate statement about another reproof
allegedly given Santavicca (supra, In. 10), and for de-
meanor reasons, I discredit Kelly's testimony about this
alleged late August conversation. Sewell testified that, on
two occasions during the last week in August, he warned
Santavicca that he was not cleaning the baseboards and
that he would be discharged if he did not do his work a
little better. Sewell testified that Santavicca "never did
them." In addition, Sewell testified that on September 3,
the day when to Sewell's knowledge Santavicca was solicit-
ing for the Union in the geriatrics building, Sewell told
Santavicca "he's going to have to start doing his work;
otherwise, we're going to have to get rid of him." In view of
Sewell's testimony that he gave these warnings to Santavic-
ca after deciding to discharge him, and after considering
the witnesses' demeanor, I credit Santavicca's testimony
that he received no such warnings and discredit Sewell's
testimony regarding the alleged warnings during the last
week in August and on September 3
2. The Turners
Employee Roberta Turner is the mother of employees
Ethel Turner and Sandra McLaughlin. Sandra McLaugh-
lin and Ralph McLaughlin are husband and wife Until
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
November 7, 1975, Ralph McLaughlin was also in Respon-
dent's employ.
The Hospital was to undergo a special state inspection
over a 4-day period between about November 11 and 14.
About late October , management asked some of the house-
keeping employees if, during their regular days off the next
2 weeks, they would come to work in order to prepare for
the inspection . Ethel Turner (whose regular days off were
Thursday and Friday) and Roberta Turner (whose regular
days off were Friday and Saturday) both agreed to work
on Friday, November 7.
On that day , the Turners and the McLaughlins all drove
to the facility in the same car . All three women worked in
buildings about a mile from the geriatrics building, where
Respondent 's office and all the timecards were located.
When the car reached the geriatrics building , the Mc-
Laughlins entered Respondent 's office . The Turners waited
in the car in the expectation that Sandra McLaughlin
would punch in all three women and would then return to
the car , after which Ethel Turner would drive all three to
their respective work areas . Sandra McLaughlin did punch
in herself and the Turners . However , while Sandra Mc-
Laughlin was still in the office , and before Ralph Mc-
Laughlin could punch himself in, Assistant Supervisor Se-
well handed him a paper telling him that he was
discharged . Sandra McLaughlin looked at the paper and
started to weep. The McLaughlins then went out to the car,
where the Turners were waiting . While Sandra McLaughlin
continued to weep , Ralph McLaughlin told the Turners
that he had been discharged . Ethel Turner said that she
was not doing Sewell any favors, she was not working her
day off , Sewell had no reason to terminate Ralph Mc-
Laughlin . Roberta Turner then remarked that she was not
working her day off either , that if Sewell could afford to
fire Ralph McLaughlin, Sewell did not need the Turners to
work their days off . Roberta Turner told Ethel Turner to
tell management that the Turners were not working their
days off.
Ralph McLaughlin and Ethel Turner then went together
into the office . McLaughlin crumpled his discharge notice
and threw it at Sewell . Ethel Turner told Sewell that she
would not work her days off for him , that if he had to "do"
people the way he did she was not going to do him any
favors. She further stated that she and her mother were
refusing to work their "off days" because of Ralph Mc-
Laughlin 's discharge . Ethel Turner then crossed out the
"in" entry on her timecard and returned to the car. The
Turners drove Sandra McLaughlin to her building, and
then drove home . No contention is made that Ralph Mc-
Laughlin was discharged for unlawful reasons.
After Sandra McLaughlin reached her building , an indi-
vidual identified in the record as "a girl " told her that Se-
well had said that Sandra McLaughlin had quit. Sandra
McLaughlin thereupon telephoned Sewell and told him
that she was up there at her building . A short while later,
Sewell came to the building and told her to tell Ethel
Turner not to bother coming back to work. Sandra Mc-
Laughlin relayed this message to Ethel Turner by tele-
phone.
Later that morning , Ethel Turner went with her mother
(Roberta Turner) and her sister (Sandra McLaughlin) to a
restaurant on the hospital grounds called "The Little Dip-
per." While the three women were eating lunch there, some
hospital guards came in and asked whether they were em-
ployed there. Ethel Turner replied that so far as she knew
she was not. The record fails to show what, if anything,
Roberta Turner said. The guards then told the Turners to
leave the grounds, and they did so. Supervisor Kelly,
Sewell's immediate superior, testified that he had heard
that Ethel Turner was at the Little Dipper talking with
Respondent's employees, and that he had asked "security
to have her removed from the grounds." Kelly testified that
he told "security" that "she was not to be in the building at
that time [b]ecause she was not permitted on the grounds at
that time. She had not reported for work, and therefore,
she had no reason to be there." He testified that "the peo-
ple" had been told not to be on hospital grounds on their
days off, and that this was hospital policy "because they
have no reason to be there. This again is for security rea-
sons." Kelly further testified that the Little Dipper is open
to the general public, "but really not too many people,
other than the people from the grounds, usually go into it."
That afternoon, Supervisor Kelly received a memoran-
dum from Sewell which read in part as follows:
Subject: Resigned
Miss Ethel Turner and Mrs. Roberta Turner in-
formed myself & Mr. Kelly they would work the
whole week of 11/3/75 to 11/9/75. When Ralph Mc-
Laughlin was terminated both ladies informed me
they would not work today and walked off the job. 19
The foregoing incident occurred on Friday, November 7.
Fridays and Saturdays were Roberta Turner 's regular days
off. Through Ethel Turner, Roberta Turner had previously
advised management that she would work on Saturday,
November 8, to prepare for the inspection; but she did not
work that day. On November 7 or 8 , Sewell removed her
timecard from the rack. Roberta Turner 's next regular
workday was Sunday, November 9, and she reported to
work on that day. She asked Mary Krawczynski where Ro-
berta Turner's timecard was, and Krawczynski replied that
she did not know anything about it. Turner asked
Krawczynski for the telephone number of Sewell, who was
not at work that Sunday, so Turner could find out about
her missing timecard, but Krawczynski refused. Turner
then went up to her building, obtained Sewell 's telephone
number from employee Vogel, telephoned Sewell, and
asked him why her timecard was not in the rack . Sewell
replied that it was not in the rack because she did not have
a job. Turner asked why. Sewell replied , ". . . because I
don't have to give you a reason ," and hung up on her.
Turner then telephoned her husband and asked him to pick
19 In view of this memorandum, I do not credit either Kelly's testimony
that he told Sewell to pull the Turners ' timecards "because I wanted to find
out why they didn't come to work that day and why they left," or Sewell's
testimony that he pulled Roberta Turner's timecard on November 7 or S
"Because I wanted to know why she didn't want to work , I wanted her to
explain it to me"
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS 1073
her up. While she was waiting for him, two security guards
came up and told her to get off of state property, she did
not belong there. Kelly testified that he was told she came
to Associated Cleaning that day.
Between November 16 and 19, Kelly entered the nota-
tion "Resigned 11/7/75" on the timecards of both Turners
for the week ending November 9. When asked when it was
decided that the Turners were terminated, Kelly testified,
"At the time that I filled out my timecards, and they had
never returned to work, and never discussed it with me. It
was reverted back to November 7, because that was the last
day that they had showed up for work. They were on the
premises."
Thereafter, Respondent's attorney filed with the Board's
Regional Office a document entitled "Answer to Charges
Against Employer," which was sworn to on November 21,
1975, by Kenneth Kushner, Respondent's executive direc-
tor of operations. This document states, inter alia, that the
Turners were terminated because they failed to report for
work on November 7, that November 7 was the "effective
termination date" of Ethel Turner, and that "as of Novem-
ber 7," Roberta Turner was "terminated with" Ethel
Turner. Respondent's answer to amended charges against
Employer, sworn to by Supervisor Kelly on January 12,
1976, asserts that the Turners "were terminated on Novem-
ber 7, 1975, in that they quit their jobs." Respondent's an-
swer to the complaint and notice of hearing, likewise sworn
to by Kelly on January 12, states that the Turners were
"terminated . . . because of the unsatisfactory nature of
[their] services." In ccounsel's opening statements at the
beginning of the hearing on February 3, 1976, Respon-
dent's counsel alleged, inter alia, that the Turners were
"terminated for just cause." Respondent's March 1976
brief asserts, "The facts indicate . . . that employees Ethel
Turner [and] Roberta Turner . . . were terminated by
[Respondent] on November 7th [and] November 9th .. .
respectively . . . Respondent . . . denies that the termina-
tions of . . . Ethel Turner on November 7, 1975, [and] Ro-
berta Turner on November 9, 1975, [were] motivated by
anything other than poor work records, and in the case of
Roberta Turner, that she resigned her position." Sewell tes-
tified at the hearing that the Turners quit and he did not
discharge them. Thereafter, Respondent's counsel stated
on the record that the Turners had "quit."
My findings as to the circumstances which led to the
Turners' separation are based on the mutually corrobora-
tive testimony of the Turners, the McLaughlins, and Super-
visor Kelly. Sewell to a large extent corroborated their tes-
timony. However, he denied telling Sandra McLaughlin to
tell Ethel Turner not to report to work. In addition, Sewell
testified that he removed Roberta Turner's card from the
rack because he wanted to talk to her about her November
7 failure to report to work (cf. supra, In. 19); that he did not
expect her to actually perform work on Sunday, November
9, or Monday, November 10, which latter date would have
been his first opportunity after November 7 to discuss the
November 7 incident with her in person; that she obtained
his home telephone number from "unauthorized person-
nel"; and that when she telephoned him on Sunday, No-
vember 9, "she asked me why she wasn't working, and
then-I don't remember what I said to her, I know she got
very nasty about it. So then I told her, wait a minute. I
don't have to go through this. I don't have to explain any-
thing to you . . . I said you want to find out, come in
Monday morning, I'll explain it to you . . . . She got into
a hang-up, an attitude. She started using all kinds of foul
language, so I decided I didn't even want to talk to her, at
all. I don't have to explain anything to you. I said, I don't
have to go through this. So, I hung up." In view of the
witnesses ' demeanor, Sewell's unrehabihty as a witness in
other respects, Kelly's testimony, and the representations
made by Respondent's counsel, I do not credit the testi-
mony by Sewell set forth in this paragraph.
Although the opening statement by Respondent's coun-
sel did not refer to any breach of rules regarding time-
clocks, during the hearing counsel seemed to rely on a
company rule, posted on October 13, which provided,
"Each employee will punch his or her own card. This is a
must. If the card isn't punched you will not get paid. Also
you could be discharged." Both Ethel Turner and Sandra
McLaughlin credibly testified that employees frequently
punched others' timecards. Sewell testified that punching
one's own card was not required where "it was too far for
them girls to travel from down below without transporta-
tion to get up to the top of the hill." He did not clearly
distinguish between "girls" in cars or (like the Turners) in
car pools, and those (if any) who would have had to walk
the mile to their own buildings. I do not credit his testi-
mony that on two occasions, which dates he did not recall,
he complained to the Turners about having all their cards
punched by one of the family, in view of their continuance
of this practice and the absence of evidence that he men-
tioned this practice to the Turners on the date of their
termination or at any time thereafter.
Sewell testified that, at the time Roberta Turner was sep-
arated from Respondent's employ, she had been slacking
off in her housekeeping work. On September 4, more than
2 months before her separation, Sewell reproved her for
failure to perform certain cleaning work 20 On October 22,
about 2 weeks before the Turners' separation, a state em-
ployee inspected all of the areas cleaned by Respondent
and sent reports to her superior, Custodial Service Manag-
er Lou Ferrari, regarding Roberta Turner and Ethel
Turner. The report about Roberta Turner contains no
checkmarks in any of the 36 blanks after the listing, "The
following areas need attention"; but contains the notation,
"Kitchen area dirty. Stairways, water fountain. Take cart,
chairs and sofa out basement." The report about Ethel
Turner contains eight checkmarks and the comment,
"Handrails under counter in dayhall. Entire area dirty."
Sewell testified that he and Kelly told Roberta Turner
about this October 22 document, that she had "access to
it," and in effect, that Sewell made known its substance to
20 Roberta Turner dated the incident as sometime in October My finding
as to the date is based on the "special request" slip (infra, fn 26), which she
refused to sign Respondent asserted at the outset of the hearing that the
Turners were discharged partly for failure to comply with "posted rules"
requiring them to turn in "work sheets" So far as the record shows, the
"special request" forms were the only forms which were required from per-
sons performing the Turners ' work , and there is no evidence that any "post-
ed rules" mentioned this requirement The September 4 slip was the only
"special request" form offered into evidence regarding Roberta Turner, and
none was offered regarding Ethel Turner
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her, although she was not given a copy. However, Kelly
was not asked about this matter, and Sewell's testimony
indicates that she was given the substance of the October
22 document in her September 4 "special request" form.
Accordingly, and in view of the witnesses' demeanor, I
credit her testimony that the September 4 complaint about
her work was the only one she ever received, and that no-
body ever complained to her about the matters mentioned
in the October 22 report 21 Sewell testified that Ethel
Turner "had access to see" the report about her, although
she was not given a copy. In view of the absence of specific
evidence that she was told about this document, and in
view of the witnesses' demeanor, I credit Ethel Turner's
testimony that the substance of the October 22 report was
never relayed to her. There is no evidence about how many
reports were made to Ferrari in consequence of this Octo-
ber 22 inspection. He testified that he received between 10
and 20 such adverse reports a week, out of a theoretical
maximum of 60 per inspection.22
In addition, the record contains evidence regarding Eth-
el Turner's August 1975 difficulties in working with head
nurse Mary Hughes, which difficulties they themselves
eventually resolved, and about Ethel Turner's signing a
September 25, 1975, patient-abuse complaint to the hospi-
tal nursing office 10 days after the incident occurred and
without getting in touch with her own supervisor.23 Also,
Kelly testified that, during a period established as early
August by Ethel Turner's testimony, she failed to perform
as much cleaning work as she should have. He tacitly ad-
mitted, however, that during this period she did not have
enough time to complete her assigned duties, because of
special cleaning problems caused by the nurses' permitting
patients to use tobacco during prohibited periods. In addi-
tion, Ethel Turner advised her superiors, and credibly testi-
fied without contradiction, that her work was further inter-
fered with by the presence of urine and feces which the
nurses aides were supposed to clean up.24
In any event, Sewell testified that the Turners' alleged
bad work had nothing to do with their termination, Sewell
and Kelly testified that Ethel Turner's difficulties with
Hughes (which included disputes about the responsibility
for cleaning up urine and feces) had nothing to do with
Ethel Turner's termination, and, as previously noted, Re-
spondent contended before me that the Turners were not
discharged but, rather, quit
3. Sandra McLaughlin
Sandra McLaughlin was hired by Respondent on July
12, 1975, as a housekeeper. As previously noted, she is the
21 From the testimony of Roberta Turner, Simon , Sewell , and Ferrari, I
infer that it was unclear whether Respondent was still responsible for clean-
in ¢ the Hillcrest South kitchen , which was no longer being used
2 Such inspections were not made every day Their frequency varied
23 On September 30, Respondent suspended Ethel Turner for 3 working
days on the asserted ground that she had failed to report the incident to her
superior Kelly's and Ferrari 's testimony that she had reported the incident
(to hospital management ) shows that Respondent 's November 1975 answer
to charges against Employer erred in averring that she "completely ignored
the incident "
24 Although Respondent 's counsel stated at the hearing that she was re-
sponsible for such cleaning , there is no record evidence to this effect
sister of employee Ethel Turner, who with employee San-
tavicca initiated the union campaign. Sandra McLaughlin
attended the first union meeting, on August 26, and signed
a card there. She also attended the September 2 meeting,
where her husband (Ralph McLaughlin) and her mother
(Roberta Turner) signed union cards. Between then and
October 15, the Union held a meeting almost every week,
and she attended all of them. On October 15, just before
going to the last union meeting, Sandra McLaughlin and
Union Representative Paul went to the home of employee
Mary Krawczynski. Some days later, Krawczynski told Su-
pervisor Kelly that Sandra McLaughlin had come to her
house with Union Representative Paul.25
It is undisputed that because of illness, McLaughlin did
not work on December 1. Both McLaughlin and Sewell
testified that he gave her a discharge notice on December
2. This notice is dated December 1, is in Sewell 's handwrit-
ing, bears Sewell's and Kelly's signatures, and states: "Toi-
let. Nurses areas, shou [?] rooms garbage neither emptied
like it should be. Toilets are terrible. You have been told
about this before. [Too] much loafing, personality terrible.
[Too] many complaints from State Supervision. [Leaving]
your area going into another without permission. Which
you were warned about before." Sewell made no remarks
to her on this occasion. On December 15, Supervisor Kelly
prepared, and sent to Respondent's payroll department
and to the city of Pittsburgh, a form reciting that Mc-
Laughlin had been discharged effective December 1 be-
cause "Work not satisfactory, warned several times." Re-
spondent's answer to amended charges against Employer,
sworn to by Kelly on January 12, 1976, asserts, inter alia,
"Sandy McLaughlin was terminated on December 2, 1975
... because on November 7, 1975 Ethel Turner and Ro-
berta Turner quit because of what they considered the un-
lawful termination of Ralph McLaughlin . . . . As a result
of the said quit . . . . Sandy McLaughlin, wife of Ralph
McLaughlin subsequently was terminated on December 2,
1975 because of unsatisfactory work having been warned
on several occasions that her work was of an unsatisfactory
nature."
McLaughlin was responsible for the "male" section of
the Hillcrest West building She was responsible for the
mopping of the floors and the cleaning of the lavatories,
dayhalls, patient dormitories, and all the partitions and
glass within that area.
Sewell testified that he discharged Sandra McLaughlin
partly because she failed to perform certain work specified
in Respondent's Exhibit 2A, which is the original and car-
bon copy of a "special request" form relating to the
"Dorms" area of the "Hillcrest" (whether East or West is
not specified).26 The form contains McLaughlin' s name af-
25 My finding in this sentence is based on Krawczynski's testimony For
demeanor reasons , I do not credit Kelly's testimony that she did not men-
tion Sandra McLaughlin
26 An employee is normally given a white top copy and at least one yellow
carbon copy of the "special request" form relating to each incident , inferen-
tially with the carbon paper still remaining between the sheets The forms
call for entries after "Date to be Completed," "Date Completed," and "Sig-
nature " Upon receiving such a set of forms, the employee is expected to
perform the work specified, to fill in the "Date Completed" and "Signature"
blanks, and to return the white top copy and a yellow carbon copy to the
office
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS
ter the printed entry "Referred to"; the handwritten entry
"Terrible" after restroom sinks, floor, mirrors, commode,
and partitions; the handwritten entry "Dirty" after rest-
room walls and waste container; and, after the printed en-
try "Other Remarks," the handwritten comment, "[It]
seems as though she doesn't want to get her hand dirty.
Because this is her worst area (toilets)." The blanks follow-
ing the printed entries "Date Completed" and "Signature"
are empty. Sewell testified that he prepared these docu-
ments, and gave both of them to Sandra McLaughlin, on
December 1, a date on which (by her uncontradicted testi-
mony) she was out sick. After the printed entry, "Date to
be completed," these forms set forth the date "12/3/75." It
is uncontradicted that the last day on which McLaughlin
actually worked for Respondent was November 30, and
that she was advised of her discharge when she reported to
work on December 2. Moreover, a slip subsequently pre-
pared by Supervisor Kelly, and forwarded by him to Re-
spondent's payroll department, states that she was dis-
charged effective December 1, the date on which Sewell
allegedly prepared Respondent's Exhibit 2A. Respondent
did not explain how it retrieved Respondent's Exhibit 2A
from her, and she testified that she had never seen these
documents In view of the foregoing (especially the incon-
sistencies between Sewell's testimony and the dates on
Resp. Exh. 2A) and the witnesses' demeanor, I credit Mc-
Laughlin.
Sewell further testified that on December 1 he prepared
a set of "special request" forms whose yellow carbon copy
is Respondent's Exhibit 2B. This document is substantially
the same as Respondent's Exhibit 2A, except for the entries
after "Other Remarks," "Date Completed," and "Signa-
ture." He did not explain why he chose to make out both
Respondent's Exhibit 2A and the set of forms including
Respondent's Exhibit 2B. Sewell further testified that he
took Respondent's Exhibit 2B to Sandra McLaughlin's
building, was unable to find her,27 and gave the document
to employee Shirley Costello, who actually performed the
work called for by the document. Sewell also testified that
Costello signed "the slip." Respondent's Exhibit 2B, all of
which appears to be a carbon copy, contains Shirley
Costello's purported signature after the printed entry "Sig-
nature ," the entry "12/2/75" after the printed entry "Date
Completed," and the following entry in Sewell's handwrit-
ing after the printed entry "Other Remarks:" "Shirley Cos-
tello cleaned commodes & sinks, which [McLaughlin] was
suppose [sic] to do. Garbage was a disgrace ." 28 Sewell tes-
tified that he saw Sandra McLaughlin read this form, with-
out, however, specifying a date. In view of the witnesses'
demeanor and the fact that McLaughlin did not actually
work for Respondent on or after the date on which Re-
spondent's Exhibit 2B was allegedly prepared, I credit Mc-
Laughlin's denial that she ever saw Respondent's Exhibit
2B.z
27
As previously, noted, she was out sick on December 1
ie
Certain portions of Sewell's testimony suggest that he left the top copy
of this slip in his office and brought only the carbon copy to Hillcrest West
However, I regard such testimony as too vague to squarely raise the issue of
why Costello's signature is a carbon copy Respondent's counsel indicated
that top copies of such slips are retained in Respondent 's office files
1075
Sewell testified that in his presence Supervisor Kelly pre-
pared two memoranda (Resp. Exhs. 14A and 14B) about
Sandra McLaughlin. Kelly was not asked about these doc-
uments, and there is no evidence that either was ever
shown to her.
Respondent's Exhibit 14B bears the date October 28 at
8:15 a.m., and states, "On this date Mr. Wayne Sewell ob-
served Sandy McLaughlin, Gail Scott and Lisa Ann Ru-
pich sitting in the lobby of [Hillcrest West] when in fact
they should have already started working. Their starting
time is 8:00 AM." Sewell testified that Kelly prepared this
memorandum on the basis of information supplied by Se-
well. However, Sewell initially testified that this incident
occurred "before quitting time. Way before quitting time.
They had almost an hour or an hour and a half to finish
their work, yet." 30 Sewell testified that when he observed
this incident, he told all three employees, "You're not sup-
posed to be sitting. You're supposed to be working. What
are you doing sitting here9" He further testified that Ru-
pich later quit, and that Scott was later terminated for rea-
sons unrelated to this incident.
Respondent's Exhibit 14A is dated October 27 at 12:20
p.m. and states that Sewell observed McLaughlin and Vo-
gel "sitting in the [Hillcrest West] Dayroom on Female side
watching television . . . . They are to be working at that
time and had no reason to be sitting there." Sewell testified
that Kelly prepared this document on the basis of informa-
tion supplied by Sewell. Sewell was not asked what, if any-
thing, he said to McLaughlin and Vogel on this occasion.
Vogel testified for the General Counsel, but was not asked
about this incident. Vogel was discharged about 3 weeks
later , but there is no claim or evidence that this alleged
incident played any part in his discharge.
McLaughlin testified about an incident, which she
thought occurred on October 28 but was not sure, when
Sewell saw her and employee Jackie Washington "just sit-
ting" in the lobby of the building. When asked, "How
about Gail Scott and Lisa Ann Ruben [sic]?" she replied,
"I don't know." McLaughlin further testified that, on Oc-
tober 27, Sewell came to the dayroom; that two other, uni-
dentified people were sitting there, that he "said something
about sitting"; that she accurately stated that she was not
sitting, she was dust mopping; that he said "something
about he better not ever come back and catch it again";
and that Sewell never mentioned the incident again.
In view of the discrepancies between the October 28 in-
cident as described in Respondent's Exhibit 14B, as de-
scribed by Sewell (who allegedly provided the information
which underlay that document), and as described by Mc-
Laughlin; Kelly's failure to testify about Respondent's Ex-
hibit 14B (which he drafted); and the witnesses ' demeanor,
I conclude that the incident occurred as described by Mc-
Laughlin and that Respondent's Exhibit 14B was not in
fact drafted as a good-faith effort accurately to describe an
29 At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel averred that Sandra
McLaughlin was discharged partly for failure to comply with "posted rules"
requiring her to turn in "work sheets " There is no evidence that Respon-
dent had any posted rules to this effect McLaughlin credibly testified with-
out contradiction that the "special request" forms were the only forms
which she was required to fill out
30 Sandra McLaughlin's quitting hour was 2 30 p m
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
incident which genuinely disturbed management. How-
ever, particularly in view of Vogel's failure to testify about
the matter, I find that the October 27 incident occurred
substantially as described in Respondent's Exhibit 14A. I
conclude that McLaughlin erred in dating the dust-mop
incident as having occurred on October 27, and that this
incident occurred on a different date.
It is undisputed that, on three occasions between Sep-
tember 8 and Sandra McLaughlin's December 2 discharge,
Respondent gave her documents relating to her work. On
September 8, Sewell prepared and gave to her two "special
request" forms, each in duplicate, which stated that certain
portions of the front nurses' office in her building (Hillcrest
West) needed attention-more specifically, that the desk
top needed washing, that the waste basket was not emp-
tied, and that attention was also required to the bathroom
window sills and the restroom sinks, floor, mirrors, waste
container, and partitions. 1 About a week later, on Septem-
ber 16, on the basis of a personal inspection, Sewell gave
McLaughlin another set of "special request" forms sharply
criticizing the condition of the "male" area in Hillcrest
West.32 Sewell admitted that she corrected these conditions
in connection with the November 11-14 state inspection,
and she testified without contradiction that during the in-
spection Sewell told her that her building "looked good."
On October 17, Sewell prepared and gave to McLaugh-
lin a memorandum stating "you are being warned for the
last time. Stay in your own building." Sewell testified that,
both before and after he wrote this October 17 memoran-
dum, he found her leaving her building and warned her
about this. McLaughlin testified that, on occasion before
October 17, she left her building during working hours
without permission, that October 17 was the only time that
she was ever told or warned not to leave her work area, and
that thereafter she stayed in her building. I credit Mc-
Laughlin, in view of the witnesses' demeanor and Sewell's
statement that she was leaving the building to talk to her
husband, who was discharged on November 7.33 Moreover,
3i The record fails to show why McLaughlin received two sets of Septem-
ber 8 "special request" forms reciting the same work to be done She signed
only one set of these forms At the hearing, she explained that she failed to
sign the other set because a fellow employee who was supposed to help her
perform the work had been transferred out of the building and, in conse-
quence, McLaughlin had to do all the work herself
32 The forms stated that the front rug needed vacuuming , the wastebasket
and door frames needed washing, the door glass, window sills, and restroom
sinks, floor, mirrors, waste container, and partitions needed attention, the
commode was "V Dirty B M ", and the floor was sloppy and dusty, the
building had a bad odor, there were food stains on the rails in the halls, the
night stands were dirty, the garbage can should be emptied and washed, and
"rooms never been dust or mopped "
33 The testimony is as follows
Q [By Mr Surprenant]
After 10-17, did you find her leaving her building after that'[
A She had, yeah, and I told her about it
Q You didn't give her another written statement'
A No, I didn't write it, I told her
Q How many times did you tell her'
A I told her all the time about it It got to be sickening, I mean, her
husband was on one side and she was on the other-
Q Yes, but her husband-
A She was always going to visit him
Q Her husband left on November 7th
Sewell testified that on her discharge paper he did not refer
to her leaving her job place.
The foregoing establishes that on September 8 and 16
McLaughlin received written complaints about her work,
and that on October 17 she was warned in writing to stay
in her building. McLaughlin testified that while she was
working for Respondent she thought there were three or
four complaints about her work, but there may have been
more, she was not "sure." She further testified that she
thought, but was not sure, that all but one of these were
made before the first union meeting on August 26. She
described one of the pre-August 26 complaints as relating
to "offices I had to clean. They said they weren't cleaned
right ." As previously noted , the September 8 "special re-
quest" slip related to this matter. Supervisor Kelly testified
that, on three different occasions during Sandra Mc-
Laughlin's 5-month tenure of employment, he inspected
her area in response to complaints by a Hillcrest West
Nurses aide identified in the record merely as Sylvia, and
then talked to McLaughlin about her area's being dirty. At
one point, Kelly testified that these conversations occurred
in June (before McLaughlin was hired), July, and August
(at least 3 months before she was fired), but he then testi-
fied that he could not remember when such conversations
occurred. Sewell's testimony implies that he repeatedly re-
proved her about her work, but his testimony is exceeding-
ly vague about dates, subjects, and other specifics. On the
basis of the testimony recited in this paragraph, the wit-
nesses' demeanor, and the probabilities of the situation, I
conclude that McLaughlin was somewhat understating the
number of complaints she received, that Kelly was some-
what overstating them, and that Sewell was trying to ob-
scure his conclusion that she had not received an above-
average number of complaints. I conclude that she re-
ceived three or four complaints about her work before
August 26, and about three (including the two written
complaints) between August 26 and September 16. On the
basis of the witnesses' demeanor and Sewell's unreliability
as to other matters, I credit McLaughlin's testimony that
after September 16 she received no more complaints about
her work and discredit Sewell's testimony that he com-
plained to her about her work shortly after the November
11-14 inspection. Further, in view of the credited testi-
mony about the absence of complaints and Sewell's de-
meanor, I discredit his wholly uncorroborated testimony
that after the November 11-14 inspection he received
complaints about her work from the nursing staff and the
"higher" staff. Kelly testified that he had talked to every
one of Respondent's employees about bad work "ever
since the first day."
Sewell testified that during an unspecified period (possi-
bly after the November 11-14 inspection), McLaughlin
was the "main one" of a group of employees, whose num-
ber and identity he did not specify, who left early and over-
A She still was over there running back and forth when he was
there, that's what I'm talking about
Q When he was there After he left, was she running back and forth,
then"
A Oh, yeah
Q Who did she go to see then'
A She went over Who she went to see , I have no idea , what went
on I don't know who she talked to
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS 1077
stayed their lunch and break periods. The October 28 inci-
dent aside , he did not testify that he ever mentioned any of
these matters to McLaughlin before discharging her; her
timecards were not produced ; and she testified that after
the inspection she was never reprimanded for loafing. For
these reasons , and on the basis of Sewell 's demeanor, I do
not credit his testimony in this respect.
Kelly testified that he received a telephoned report from
executive housekeeper Ferrari that McLaughlin and four
other employees , including Costello, had been making a lot
of noise at the Little Dipper , a restaurant on hospital
grounds. Kelly further testified that on November 24, he
warned all five employees about this conduct , and put a
memorandum about the matter into the personnel file of
each . Sewell to some extent corroborated Kelly's testimony
in this respect , and McLaughlin was not asked about it.
Accordingly , I accept Kelly's testimony in this respect,
even though Respondent 's witness Ferran was not asked
about the matter and Respondent produced only the mem-
orandum in McLaughlin 's file . Respondent did not termi-
nate any of the other employees involved in this incident.
Kelly testified that on three occasions when nurses aide
Sylvia complained about the condition of McLaughlin's
area , he reported these complaints to Sewell and asked him
to check the area. Kelly could not recall the dates of any of
these conversations . Sewell testified that he received com-
plaints about McLaughlin from an unspecified source or
sources when she had "just started" to work for Respon-
dent in July , more than 4 months before her discharge. I
conclude that the foregoing testimony by Kelly and by Se-
well relates to the same time period.
During the hearing , counsel seemed to be relying on Mc-
Laughlin 's action in punching in her sister's and her
mother 's timecards , in violation of company rules. Mc-
Laughlin's husband , sister , and mother were separated
from Respondent 3 weeks before her discharge , punching
others' timecards was common practice , and there is no
evidence that her conduct in this respect had anything to
do with her discharge.
E. The Union's Majority Status
As previously noted, Respondent concedes that. since
September 3, the Union has demanded and continues to
demand recognition and that Respondent has failed and
refused and continues to refuse to bargain. The General
Counsel and Respondent agreed that, as of September 3,
26 named individuals constituted the bargaining unit,
which appropriateness is conceded in Respondent's answer
to the first complaint.34 The General Counsel contends
that, by September 3, 19 of these employees signed opera-
tive cards and that another employee signed an operative
card on September 4. Respondent contends that most of
these cards were insufficiently authenticated and that
many were not operative because of representations made
to the employees before they signed and/or the employees'
subjective understanding of what such cards meant.
34 "All housekeeping employees employed by the Respondent at its
Woodville State Hospital, Woodville, Pennsylvania, location, excluding all
other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act"
The printed portions of each of these cards are substan-
tially identical. The cards are headed: "District 1199P Na-
tional Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees a
Division of RWDSU/AFL-CIO," with the words "District
1199P" in print heavier and much larger than any other
printing on the cards. Underneath, the cards are headed
"Application for Membership" in capital letters. Then, the
cards call for the employee's name, social sucurity number,
address, telephone number, employer, job title, date of
hire, hourly rate, hours worked per week, shift, and date
the card was signed. The cards also state, in the smallest
type used on the cards, "I hereby apply for membership
and designate the National Union of Hospital and Health
Care Employees of RWDSU/AFL-CIO to represent me in
collective-bargaining negotiations on wages, hours and
working conditions." Then, blanks call for the employee's
signature. Although all of these cards are self-addressed
with postage prepaid, there is no indication thereon or else-
where in the record that any was mailed to the Union.
Each of them contains a Region 6 date-stamp of Septem-
ber 11, 1975, at 8:46 am. Almost all of them are almost
completely filled out. As to each card, all the respective
entries appear to be in the same handwriting and (except
the card bearing Joe Vogel's purported signature) the same
pen as the signatures.
1. Cards bearing the purported signatures of Nancy
Cascio, Frank Krawczynski, Mary Krawczynski, Sandra
McLaughlin, and Ethel Turner
The first union meeting was held in Union Representa-
tive Paul's office on August 26, after the employees' regular
working hours. Paul passed out authorization cards to the
five employees present, explained that the cards were ap-
plications for membership in the Union, and stated that
there would be no financial obligations until they had a
contract. He gave them copies of a union magazine show-
ing the types of improved benefits (such as vacations, holi-
days, and health care) that union employees had won, and
stated that he could not promise his audience what they
themselves would obtain because "I don't produce any
paychecks." He did not tell them the disadvantages of
union membership, because he did not see any. He told
them that, in order to get a union, a majority of the em-
ployees would have to sign cards, that "then you have to
set up for an election," and that "if we won the election
... we would have to negotiate . . . to settle for an agree-
ment for things that we wanted, and things that they want-
ed." 35 He did not tell them that getting a union in was
conditioned on an election.36 Paul had the employees read
the cards, and asked if there were any questions. There
were none.
35 My findings in this sentence are based on a composite of the testimony
of Ethel Turner and Sandra McLaughlin.
36 He testified
Q. [By Mr Acker ] Then they told you it was conditioned upon an
election , is that right?
A. [By Sandra McLaughlin ] Not when we signed the cards, we
weren't sure we'd have an election or not, because we weren't sure how
many people were going to go for it
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Paul credibly testified without contradiction that em-
ployees Mary Krawczynski, Frank Krawczynski, Ethel
Turner, Sandra McLaughlin, and Nancy Cascio thereupon
signed cards in his presence and gave them to him. Sandra
McLaughlin credibly testified that she signed a card on this
occasion; that she believed the card meant "if you want to
go for a union for better benefits and the union will back
you up, stand behind you"; that she did not know what the
word "collective bargaining" means; and that she believed
"negotiations" means "meeting." When asked whether she
signed her card "so you could get an election," she credibly
testified, "That was the reason. That was for the Union. To
go for the union." Ethel Turner credibly testified that she
and the four others at the meeting, whom she named, all
signed cards at the meeting. Mary Krawczynski credibly
testified that she had signed the card bearing her purported
signature, that she had given it to Paul, and that Paul ex-
plained the meaning of the card to her. She impressed me
as being an intelligent woman, and I do not credit her
further testimony that she did not understand the card.37
Nancy Cascio and Frank Krawczynski did not testify.
Frank Krawczynski's purported signature is dated August
24. The other four are all dated August 26. All five employ-
ees who signed cards at the first meeting also attended the
second meeting.
2. Cards bearing the purported signatures of Patricia
Bonkowski, Thomas Cavey, Ralph McLaughlin, Sara
Olszewski, Joseph Santavicca, Toni Talmonti, Roberta
Turner, and Joe Vogel
At the second meeting, held on September 2, Paul re-
lated the advantages of union membership and passed
around union magazines. Those present discussed what a
union could and could not do, how much interest there was
in a union, and why they wanted a union. Paul also stated
that "we would at least have to have a couple meetings in
order to get things organized, and then he would have to
send in the union cards to see if we would be recognized
... if the union went through . . . we would have an elec-
tion." Paul passed out union cards to those who had not
already signed cards. He credibly testified without contra-
diction that, in his presence, cards were signed by Patricia
Bonkowski, Thomas Cavey, Ralph McLaughlin, Sara Olsz-
ewski, Joseph Santavicca, Toni Talmonti, Roberta Turner,
and Joe Vogel. Inferentially, these employees returned
such cards to him. Joe Vogel's card is dated August 2, but
he and Paul credibly testified that Vogel signed in on Sep-
tember 2. The meeting, which lasted about an hour and a
half, was held at a tavern because employees who under-
Q Well, let's assume that you got a majority of the cards, then is it
your understanding that you would have an election1
A If you got a majority of the people, yes
Q I see That's what was told you9
A Yes
37 As previously noted, Mary Krawczynski, who was still in Respondent's
employ at the time of the hearing, initially refused to comply with a subpena
issued at the General Counsel's instance Without objection, the General
Counsel was permitted to examine her as a hostile witness under Rule 611
(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence
took to arrange for a firehouse could not obtain it. Santav-
icca had one beer after signing his application. Frank
Krawczynski, who had signed a card at the first meeting,
also drank beer. So far as the record shows, none of the
others, most of whom were under the legal drinking age,
consumed any alcoholic beverages.
Ralph McLaughlin, Santavicca, Roberta Turner, and
Vogel each credibly testified to signing a union card at that
meeting. Cavey testified for the General Counsel, but was
not asked about this matter. None of the other September
2 card-signers testified. When Ralph McLaughlin was
asked whether he understood what he signed, he credibly
testified, "I signed a card that, to have that union back us
up. To try to get the union in there. . . . They were going
to represent us... As a union. To try to get the union.
They would back us up." Santavicca credibly testified to a
belief that the language on the card "means that the union
would back you up if anything happened . . . the union
would negotiate for better-with the management, better
conditions to work with and maybe higher wages if possi-
ble." Roberta Turner credibly testified that she did not
understand every word on the card, "But, to me it means
better working conditions, better benefits," and that they
have a collective-bargaining election. Vogel credibly testi-
fied that he "signed an application for membership in the
union" but that he did not know what was meant by the
language "to represent me in collective-bargaining negotia-
tions on wages, hours and working conditions."
3. Cards bearing the purported signatures of Raymond
Anthony, Vonnette Reynolds, Judy Haines, Emily
Mullens, Lula Fitzgerald, Sheila Higgins, and Jacqueline
Washington
At the September 2 meeting, four employees, including
Santavicca and Ethel Turner, volunteered to form an orga-
nizing committee. Paul gave them blank authorization
cards and told the committee members to show them to
their fellow employees, to have the employees read them,
to answer any questions, and then to see if the employees
would be willing to join the Union.
Santavicca credibly testified as follows: On September 3,
he gave blank authorization cards to Raymond Anthony,
Vonnette Reynolds, and Judy Haines. Most if not all these
employees filled out their cards in Santavicca's presence,
and all of them signed their cards in his presence. When
giving out cards, Santavicca "explained" them by stating
that "if the union went through, that we would probably
get better wages, better working conditions, and more peo-
ple to work with us. . . . That the union would back you
up if anything would happen, and . . . not to worrry about
anything if you got fired, cause the union would try to help
you get your job back." Haines "was a little hysterical
about it at first. Like she didn't know if she wanted to sign
it or not " He had to explain to her about how to fill out
her card The same day he procured these September 3
cards, Santavicca gave them to Ethel Turner. On Septem-
ber 4, at Santavicca's solicitation, employee Jacqueline
Washington signed a card in his presence and returned it
to him. Santavicca did not recall what he told her.
Ethel Turner credibly testified as follows: Also on Sep-
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS
tember 3, during lunchbreak, she gave blank cards to Emi-
ly Mullens, Lula Fitzgerald, and Sheila Higgins, and each
of them signed her card in Ethel Turner's presence.38 Ethel
Turner "explained" the meaning of an application for
membership by telling Fitzgerald "that you needed so
many people for an election, to win an election," that a
majority was needed. Turner did not explain the last
phrase on the card to Fitzgerald, nor the meaning of the
card to Sheila Higgins.
That same afternoon, Ethel Turner gave Paul the cards
signed by Anthony, Reynolds, Haines, Mullens, Fitzgerald,
and Higgins. Paul received Jacqueline Washington's card
at a September 9 union meeting. The record fails to show
who gave it to him. None of these seven card-signers testi-
fied at the hearing. While attending a union meeting some-
time after September 2, Haines and Reynolds told Paul
they had signed union cards.
F. The Representation Proceeding
As previously noted, Respondent received the Union's
bargaining demand on September 3, the day before
Santavicca's discharge. The Union's charge based on
Santavicca's termination was filed on September 5. On
September 11, the Union filed a representation petition
with the Board's Regional Office. A stipulation for a con-
sent election to be held on October 20 was executed by the
parties on September 25 and approved by the Acting Re-
gional Director on September 29. Between September 3
and October 15, the Union held various meetings of Re-
spondent's employees. Paul testified that at the October 15
meeting "we had also found out that another person had
been fired or laid off that previous week, and with the
amount of firings [for union activity] that were going on,
we didn't feel that we could proceed with a fair election on
the date that had been set for it." 39 On October 17, the
Union requested withdrawal of its petition and such with-
drawal was approved by the Regional Director on October
20.
G. Analysis and Conclusions
1. Interrogation and threat
I agree with the General Counsel that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Supervisor Kelly
asked employee Mary Krawczynski who was trying to start
a union, and when Supervisor Sewell told employees Cavey
38 Fitzgerald's card does not contain her social security number, which
she could not remember Higgins' card is undated and contains only her
name , street address, social security number , telephone number, and signa-
ture
39 The record fails to show what October discharge Paul was referring to
Cavey was discharged on October H, but so far as the record shows no
contention was ever made that his discharge was motivated by his having
signed a union card The Union's amended charge in Case 6-CA-8584
alleged that on September 19 Respondent discriminatorily discharged Nan-
cy Cascio; but no such allegation as to Casico appears in the second
amended charge in that case, or in the complaint. The Union's charge in
Case 6-CA-8778 alleged that Respondent discriminatonly suspended Eth-
el Turner on September 30, but no such allegation appears in the complaint
(see supra, fn 23).
1079
and Vogel that Ethel and Joey (by whom he clearly meant
Ethel Turner and Joseph Santavicca) had "laid their jobs
on the line" by trying to bring in a Union. In finding
Kelly's interrogation of Krawczynski to be unlawful, I note
that she untruthfully said that she did not know who the
union activists were (although she knew that they included
her own son, Joseph Santavicca, and her brother-in-law,
and although she herself had attended both prior union
meetings); that later that same day Sewell threatened San-
tavicca and union activist Ethel Turner with discharge for
their union activity; that (as found infra) Santavicca was
discharged the next morning for that reason; that (as found
infra) Ethel Turner was discharged partly for that reason
about 2 months later; and that no legitimate reason ap-
pears for Kelly's inquiry.
2. The alleged unlawful discharges
a The Turners
Friday, November 7, was the last regular day off which
Ethel Turner (whose regular days off were Thursday and
Friday) agreed to work in contemplation of the November
11 inspection. November 7 and 8 the last regular days off
which her mother, Roberta Turner (whose regular days off
were Friday and Saturday) agreed to work in contempla-
tion of the inspection. Both of them reported to work on
November 7. However, because of the discharge of Ralph
McLaughlin (Roberta Turner's son-in-law and Ethel
Turner's brother-in-law) that same morning, the Turners
jointly decided that they would not work their days off.
Supervisors Sewell and Kelly were advised of this decision
and the reason for it. Although both of them from time to
time referred to the Turner's walkout as a resignation or
"quit," Sewell's testimony 40 and his November 7 memo-
randum to Kelly 41 establish that they knew the Turners'
refusal to work was limited to November 7 and (as to Ro-
berta Turner) November 8, and that Sewell and Kelly did
not entertain the erroneous belief that the Turners intend-
ed to abandon their jobs. Management's awareness that
the Turners intended to absent themselves only tempo-
rarily is further shown by Sewell's November 7 instructions
to Sandra McLaughlin, to tell Ethel Turner not'to bother
coming back to work-a message which Sewell would have
regarded as wholly unnecessary if he had really thought
she quit. Moreover, in a November 21 affidavit, Respon-
dent's executive director of 'operations stated that the
Turners were "terminated" because df their November 7
failure to report for work.
The foregoing circumstances persuade me, and I find,
that Respondent discharged the Turners because of their
joint refusal to work on their days off (November 7 and, as
to Roberta Turner, November 8 too) in protest against em-
ployee Ralph McLaughlin's discharge. I agree with the
40 "They found out Ralph was fired and Sandy went out to the car and
told them about it Well Ethel came in and said that they weren't
going to work anymore Her and her mother, Mrs Roberta Turner
They said they refused to work anymore on their off days" (Emphasis sup-
plied )
41 "[The Turners said] they would work the whole week 11 /3/75 to
11/9/75 When Ralph McLaughlin was terminated both ladies informed me
they would not work today and walked off the fob " (Emphasis supplied )
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel that this point refusal by the Turners to
report to work for this reason was protected by Section 7 of
the Act , and, therefore , that their discharge for engaging in
such conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Their
point refusal to work enjoyed statutory protection even
though Ralph McLaughlin was discharged for lawful rea-
sons.42 Nor was the Turners ' joint refusal to work rendered
unprotected by the fact that it encompassed days which
were their regular days off and which they had agreed to
work in preparation for the forthcoming inspection . Florida
Steel Corporation, 221 NLRB 554 (1975). The cases cited
by Respondent 43 involve employees who repeatedly
worked part but not all of the hours which the employer
had scheduled the employees to work for the respective
days in question . In the instant case , Ethel Turner refused
to work at all on November 7, and Roberta Turner refused
to work at all on November 7 and 8 . Moreover , because
the Turners were refusing to work on their last regular days
off before the forthcoming inspection which had caused
Respondent to request such work , there is no basis for any
inference that they planned to continue refusing company
requests or orders to work on their regular off days. Cf.
First National Bank of Omaha , 171 NLRB 1145, 1149-1151
(1968), enfd . 413 F.2d 921, 923-925 (C.A. 8, 1969); Poly-
tech, Incorporated, 195 NLRB 695 (1972)
I also agree with the General Counsel that the Turners
were discharged partly to discourage union activity and,
therefore , that their discharge also violated Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act .44 Ethel Turner and Santavicca introduced the
Union into Respondent 's operation . So far as the record
shows, they were the only employees who were successful
in soliciting union cards from their fellow workers . About 2
months before the Turners' discharge , Sewell remarked
that Ethel Turner and Santavicca had "laid their jobs on
the line" by trying to bring in a union 45 The day after this
remark , Respondent discharged Santavicca because of his
union activity (infra, sec. II ,G,2,b). Respondent had found
out by late October about the union sympathies of Sandra
McLaughlin , who was Ethel Turner's sister and Roberta
Turner's daughter, and because of such sympathies dis-
42 Eagle International, Inc, 221 NLRB 1291 (1975), 223 NLRB 29 (1976),
NLRB v J Mitchko, Inc, 284 F 2d 573, 576 (C A 3, 1960), NLRB v
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Miami, Inc, 449 F 2d 824, 830, In 5 (C A 5,
1971), cert denied 407 U S 910 (1972); see also Houston Insulation Contrac-
tors Association v N L R B, 386 U S 664, 668-669 (1967), Roemer Indus-
tries, Inc, 205 NLRB 63, 64-65 (1973)
47 Prince Lithograph Co, Inc, 205 NLRB 110 (1973), Lodge 76, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists v Wisconsin Employment Relations Commis-
sion (Kearney and Trecker), 67 Wis 2d 13, 226 N W 2nd 203 After Respon-
dent filed its brief, Kearney and Trecker was reversed by the Supreme Court
of the United States (44 U S Law Week 5026 92 LRRM 2881) on grounds
irrelevant here
44 Dilene Answering Service, inc, 222 NLRB 462 (1976), N L R B v West
Side Carpet Cleaning Co, 329 F 2d 758, 761 (C A 6, 1964), Hugh H Wilson
Corporation v N L R B, 414 F 2d 1345, 1353, In 17 (C A 3, 1969), cert
denied 397 U S 935 (1970)
45 In view of this remark, the credited testimony that employee King told
Sewell and Kelly that same day about Santavicca's union solicitation, and
Sewell's admission that King also named Ethel Turner, I do not credit
Kelly's testimony that he did not know about Santavicca's union activity, or
Sewell's and Kelly's testimony that they did not know about Ethel Turner's
union activity, before the respective discharges Indeed, Kelly admitted that
before Ethel Turner's termination he had heard "rumors" from King and
others about Ethel Turner's union activity
charged her less than a month after the Turners ' discharge
(infra, sec. II ,G,2,c). Also, Kelly admitted that before their
discharge he had heard "rumors" about the union activity
of Roberta Turner, who attended all the union meetings
held after she signed a card at the second meeting .46 Fur-
thermore , the very fact that Respondent discharged two
employees who (it knew ) intended to return to work after a
day or two indicates that the absence which led to their
discharge did not substantially inconvenience Respondent.
I conclude that the Turners ' discharge was motivated in
part by their union activities and, therefore , violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act as well as Section 8 (a)(1).47 While
the Turners may have given Respondent lawful cause to
dismiss them , "The concurrent existence of an otherwise
valid reason for the discharge of an employee does not
preclude a factual inference that his discharge was discrim-
inatory, if it appears from a preponderance of evidence,
and the reasonable inference drawn therefrom , that the dis-
charge was in fact motivated by the employer 's opposition
to the employee 's union activities ." N.L.R.B v. Buitoni
Foods Corporation , 298 F .2d 169 , 174 (C.A. 3, 1962).48 In
any event , my 8(a)(3) finding as to the Turners does not
affect the remedial order.
b. Santavicca
Santavicca was the employee who first contacted the
Union. He urged employees to attend the second meeting
(the first his health allowed him to attend), when he signed
a card and volunteered to become a member of the em-
ployee organizing committee. He obtained more executed
union authorization cards than did any other employee;
indeed, so far as the record shows, he and Ethel Turner
were the only employees who ever obtained such signa-
tures.
On the morning of September 3, employee King told
Supervisors Sewell and Kelly that Santavicca had been
trying to induce her and another employee to sign a union
card. Later that same day, Supervisor Sewell remarked that
Santavicca had laid his job on the line by trying to bring in
a union. On the following morning, he was discharged.
This sequence of events provides a strong prima facie case
that Santavicca's discharge was motivated by his union ac-
tivity. "The abruptness of a discharge and its timing are
persuasive evidence as to motivation." N.L.R.B. v. Mont-
gomery Ward & Co., 242 F.2d 497, 502 (C.A. 2, 1957), cert.
denied 355 U.S. 829 (1957).
46 In view of this testimony and demeanor considerations, I do not credit
Sewell's testimony that before Roberta Turners' discharge he did not know
of her union activity
47 Certain statements made by the General Counsel toward the end of the
first day of the hearing suggest that he was making no 8(a)(3 ) contention as
to Roberta Turner However, both the complaint and the General Counsel's
opening statement advance such a contention , and the issue has been
briefed by both parties
My conclusions herein in no respect rely on Ethel Turner's testimony that
in late October, in Roberta Turner's presence, Ethel Turner advised Kelly
and Sewell that she herself and others were involved in union activity and
these supervisors replied that they were well aware of who was involved in
the Union. Roberta Turner denied that any such conversation occurred
48 See also McDonald v Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co, 12 EPD
110,997 44 U.S Law Week 5070, 12 FEP Cases 1577, 1581 (June 25, 1976),
Wilson, supra, 414 F 2d at 1352-53
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS
Moreover, the evidence establishes that at least some of
the reasons tendered by Respondent for the discharge
could not be real reasons . Thus, although Respondent's
counsel asserted that Santavicca was discharged partly be-
cause Respondent thought he had deliberately rendered
the wet vacuum machine inoperable, Sewell testified that
this damage had nothing to do with Santavicca's discharge.
Further, although Kelly and Respondent's counsel (but not
Sewell) stated that Santavicca was discharged partly for
failure to fill out certain forms, other employees who were
at least equally guilty of this omission were not discharged
for this reason. Similarly, although Sewell and Kelly testi-
fied that Santavicca was discharged partly because the
Hospital dietary personnel complained about his work, As-
sistant Dietary Department Supervisor Simon testified that
she had complained about the work of Respondent's em-
ployees in the Hillcrest East and West dietary areas before
and after (as well as while) Santavicca was cleaning the
Hillcrest East dietary area ; and Respondent retained in its
employ other personnel responsible for the allegedly poor
cleaning of the facility. Moreover, although Sewell testified
that Simon had complained before August 15 that Santa-
vicca was not doing his work in the Hillcrest East area (to
which he was not transferred until August 11), Simon testi-
fied that her only basis for knowing who did particular
work was the daily reports, which Santavicca was not fill-
ing out dunng this period. Nor did Simon or anyone else
corroborate Sewell's testimony that on September 4 the di-
etary department complained about the Hillcrest East area.
As to Santavicca's failure to use the wet vacuum, Sewell
initially testified that this had nothing to do with his dis-
charge, and the credible evidence shows that at no material
time was this machine working properly. Further impugn-
ing Respondent's contention that Santavicca was dis-
charged for lawful reasons on the day after Sewell threat-
ened that Santavicca would be discharged for union
activity are the inconsistencies in the testimony of Respon-
dent's witnesses as to when his admittedly good work alleg-
edly deteriorated and as to when the discharge decision
was made. While Respondent may have had lawful cause
to discharge Santavicca, such a circumstance did not per-
mit Respondent to discharge him wholly or in part for
union activity 49
49 Santavicca 's solicitation activity consumed about 5 minutes of the
working time of Santavicca and (perhaps ) two others whom he unsuccess-
fully solicited in the geriatrics building, and also ( in effect) an undisclosed
period of time which he spent going from that building to his Hillcrest East
work station Sewell testified, in effect , that Santavicca was discharged part-
ly for being outside his area during working hours and using part of this
time to prevent two other employees from working by soliciting them to sign
union cards Respondent could likely have lawfully discharged Santavtcca
for this working hours activity, provided that the timing of such activity was
really Respondent 's sole objection thereto and that Respondent would have
discharged Santavicca for engaging during such periods in solicitation unre-
lated to union or protected activity However, Respondent's objection to
Santavicca 's union activity was not limited to its timing Sewell's threat to
discharge Santavicca and Ethel Turner did not refer to the timing of their
union activity, Sandra McLaughlin and (in part) Roberta Turner were dis-
charged for union activity which did not occur during working hours, and
there is no evidence that Respondent mentioned the timing of Santavicca's
union activity (or, for that matter, his failure to stay in his area during
working hours) when discharging him
1081
c. Sandra McLaughlin
Sandra McLaughlin signed a union card at the first
union meeting and attended all of the subsequent meet-
ings. Her sister, Ethel Turner, was one of the two employ-
ees who introduced the Union into the plant and success-
fully solicited other employees to sign union cards.
Respondent threatened to discharge Ethel Turner for such
activity, and thereafter discharged her and Roberta Turner
(the mother of Ethel Turner and Sandra McLaughlin) part-
ly to discourage union activity. Moreover, in late October
Kelly learned that Sandra McLaughlin had come to anoth-
er employee's house with Union Representative Paul.50 On
December 2, Sewell gave her a discharge slip dated Decem-
ber 1, when she had been out sick.
I conclude that Sandra McLaughlin was discharged at
least in part because of her union activities, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Thus, prior to the hear-
ing Kelly swore that Sandra McLaughlin was discharged
"as a result of [the Turners'] quit," referring to their dis-
criminatory discharge. Further pointing to a similar moti-
vation for McLaughlin's discharge is the untruthfulness, to
some extent established by Respondent's own records, of
Respondent's tendered explanations for her discharge.5t
Thus, Respondent contends that she was discharged, ad-
mittedly before beginning work on December 2, partly be-
cause she had failed to complete by December 3 certain
work specified in a complaint form which (according to
Sewell) he gave her on December 1, a day when (on the
uncontradicted evidence) she was out sick. Moreover, a
memorandum of an alleged "loafing" incident, which
memorandum was allegedly in McLaughlin's personnel file
although there is no evidence she ever saw it, differs in
significant respects from the testimonial account given by
Sewell, on whose oral report the memorandum was assert-
edly based. Furthermore, the only evidence even tending to
support the contention that she was discharged partly be-
cause she breached Respondent's rule against punching
others' timecards is that she did so on the last day her
relatives worked there-that is, November 7, several weeks
before her December 2 termination. Also indicating that
Sandra McLaughlin was not really discharged for lawful
reasons are (1) her discharge slip's reference to her going
outside her area without permission, although she had not
done this after being warned about it 6 weeks before her
discharge and, indeed, Sewell testified that the discharge
slip did not mention her leaving her job place; (2) Respon-
dent's failure to take any action against the other partici-
pants in the October 27 television-watching incident; (3)
Respondent's admission that more than 2 weeks before her
discharge she corrected the conditions complained of on
September 8 and 16; and (4) the absence of any subsequent
complaints about her work. As previously stated, the fact
that she may have given Respondent lawful reasons to dis-
charge her did not privilege Respondent to discharge her
for union activity.
50 In view of the facts set forth in this paragraph, I do not credit Sewell's
and Kelly's testimony that they did not know about Sandra McLaughlin's
union sympathies before her December 2 discharge
51 Shattuck Deno Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch) v N L R B, 362
F 2d 466, 470 (C A 9, 1966)
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The refusal to bargain
a. The Union's majority status
It is undisputed that the appropriate unit consisted of 26
employees as of September 3. I conclude that all of the 20
cards signed between August 26 and September 4, inclu-
sive , were operative designations of the Union as bargain-
ing representative. Contrary to Respondent's contention at
the hearing, I find that the cards were sufficiently authenti-
cated by the testimony of witnesses who saw such employ-
ees sign their cards.52 Independent Sprinkler & Fire Protec-
tion Co., 220 NLRB 941 (1975) and cases cited. Nor do I
regard the operative effect of any of these cards as negated
by either the representations made when they were solic-
ited, or the signers' testimony about what such cards
meant . See generally N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc.,
395 U.S. 575, 584, 601-609 (1969); Hedstrom Co., a subsid-
iary of Brown Group, Inc., 223 NLRB 1409 (1976).
b. The 8(a)(5) allegations and the requested bargaining
order
Respondent's answer concedes that it received but failed
to honor the Union's September 3 bargaining demand. The
principles declared in Gissel, supra, 395 U.S. at 610-616,
call for a finding of an 8(a)(5) violation and a remedial
bargaining order. Respondent has discharged a fifth of the
Union's supporters (and almost a sixth of the unit) to dis-
courage their union activity. Included among these dis-
criminatees were the Union's two most active supporters,
who between them obtained the authorization cards signed
by seven other employees (more than a third of the Union's
supporters, and more than a fourth of the bargaining unit),
and the mother and sister of one of them. Moreover, before
embarking on the discriminatory discharges, Respondent
unsuccessfully tried to learn the union activists' identity
from another employee who not only was well aware of the
Union's progress but also was the mother of the Union's
most active supporter; and, after obtaining this informa-
tion from another source, Respondent stated that they had
thereby "laid their jobs on the line" to two other card-
signers. Further, at the time of the hearing three of the
discriminatees had never been rehired and the fourth had
been rehired for weekends only. I conclude that these un-
fair labor practices are so serious, pervasive, and extensive
as to make a bargaining order the only effective, available
remedy therefor.
At the very least, they fall within the Gissel middle cate-
gory of "less pervasive practices which nonetheless still
have a tendency to undermine union strength and impede
the election process." As unfair labor practices within that
category, they would justify under Gissel a bargaining or-
der based upon the Union's majority card showing and
52 These employees are Anthony, Bonkowski, Cascio, Cavey, Fitzgerald,
Haines, Higgins, Frank Krawczynski, Mullens, Olszewski, Reynolds, Tal-
monti, and Jacqueline Washington Although Respondent's personnel files
presumably contain specimens of all these employees' signatures on with-
holding forms or other documents, Respondent made no effort to show that
such signatures differed from those on the cards
Respondent's failure to honor the Union's bargaining de-
mand if other relevant considerations confirm "that the
possibility of ensuring a fair election by the use of tradi-
tional remedies, though present, is slight, and that employ-
ee sentiment once expressed through cards would, on bal-
ance, be better protected by a bargaining order." Such
confirmation in the instant case is provided by the inherent
lingering tendency of discriminatory terminations persis-
tently to discourage continued union activity not only by
the immediate victims, but also by their fellows, particu-
larly where, as here, the immediate victims include the em-
ployees who had been the most active and successful in
inducing others to join.53 Further confirmation is provided
by the fact that by continuing to discharge employees for
union activity after the Union had withdrawn its petition,
Respondent has indicated that its misconduct is likely to
recur. A bargaining order would remain appropriate even
assuming that the Turners were discharged solely because
of their protected concerted activity, particularly because
of Respondent's prior threat to discharge Ethel Turner for
union activity. See Elling Halvorson, Inc., 222 NLRB 534
(1976).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating an employee about employees' union activity,
and by threatening to discharge employees because of their
union activity.
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by discharging Ethel Turner and Roberta Turner be-
cause of their union and other protected concerted activity.
5. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by discharging Joseph Santavicca and Sandra Mc-
Laughlin to discourage union activity.
6. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
failing and refusing to bargain with the Union as the repre-
sentative under Section 9(a) of the following unit which is
appropriate for such purposes:
All housekeeping employees employed by the Respon-
dent at its Woodville State Hospital, Woodville, Penn-
sylvania, location; excluding all other employees, of-
fice clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
7 The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
53 Superior Microfilm Systems, Inc and/or Wilfred W Burgart and Jessee
Guido, Partners, etc v N L R B, 485 F 2d 681 (C A 3, 1973), enfg per
curtain 201 NLRB 555, 563 (1972), N L R B v Sition Tank Company, 467
F 2d 1371 (C A 8, 1972 ), enfg 193 NLRB 209 (1971), N L R B v Rollins
Telecasting, Inc, 494 F 2d 80, 81 (C A 2), cert denied 419 U S . 964, enfg in
relevant part 199 NLRB 613, 628 (1972), Motel 6, Inc, 207 NLRB 473
(1973). N L R B v Henry Colder Company, 447 F 2d 629, 631 (C A 7,
1971), Joseph J Lachniet d/b/a Honda of Hastert, 201 NLRB 855 (1973),
enfd 490 F 2d 1382 (C A 2, 1974)
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated the Act in
certain respects, I shall recommend that Respondent be
required to cease and desist therefrom. Because the unfair
labor practices found include the discharge of four employ-
ees because of their protected and/or union acitvity, Board
precedent calls for a broad order. SKRL Die Casting, Inc.,
222 NLRB 85 (1976); Brom Machine and Foundry Co., 222
NLRB 74 (1976). Accordingly, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent be required to cease and desist from infringing
on employee rights in any other manner. Further, I shall
recommend that Respondent be required to offer each of
the four unlawfully discharged employees immediate rein-
statement to the job of which he was unlawfully deprived,
or, in the event such job no longer exists , a substantially
equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of his
unlawful discharge, from the date of his discharge to the
date of a valid offer of reinstatement, to be computed in
the manner described in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as described in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).54 In addition, for
the reasons previously indicated, I shall recommend that
Respondent be required to bargain with the Union, on re-
quest. Also, I shall recommend that Respondent be re-
quired to post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec-
ommended:
ORDER 55
Respondent Associated Cleaning Consultants & Ser-
vices, Inc., Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania , its officers agent, suc-
cessors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about union activity in a
manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion.
(b) Threatening to discharge employees for union activi-
ty.
(c) Discharging or otherwise interfering with , restrain-
ing, or coercing employees , because they have engaged in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection
(d) Discouraging membership in District 1199P, Na-
tional Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees,
Division of RWDSU , AFL-CIO, or any other labor orga-
nization , by discharging employees , or otherwise discrimi-
nating in any manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any terms or condition of employment.
(e) Refusing to bargain in good faith with District 1199P
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the following
unit which is appropriate for such purposes:
All housekeeping employees employed by the Respon-
dent at its Woodville State Hospital, Woodville, Penn-
1083
sylvania, location; excluding all other employees, of-
fice clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer the following employees immediate reinstate-
ment to their formerjobs or, if their former jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, and make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of their unlawful discharge, in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy:" Joseph
Santavicca, Ethel Turner, Roberta Turner, Sandra Mc-
Laughlin.
(b) On request, bargain with District 1199P as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed written agreement.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary or useful to analysis of the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Woodville, Pennsylva-
nia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 56
Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's representative, shall be posted by it in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that the said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writ-
ing, within 20 days after the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
54 As to Ethel Turner, see Polytech, supra However, the Turners will not
be entitled to backpay for the days on which they refused to work in protest
against Ralph McLaughlin ' s discharge-that is , November 7 as to both
Turners , and November 8 as to Roberta Turner Board precedent indicates
that Santavicca ' s wages from Respondent for weekend work after his dis-
criminatory discharge are to be considered as interim earnings even though
he may also have concomitantly received interim earnings from a 5-day
workweek for another employer See East Texas Steel Castings Co. Inc. 116
NLRB 1336. 1358 (1956), enfd 255 F 2d 284 (C A 5, 1958), clarified 281
F 2d 686 (C A 5)
55 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings.
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations . be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions, and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
56 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated
the law in certain respects. We have been ordered to post
this notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the Board
and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about union
activity in a manner constituting interference, restraint
or coercion.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees for
union activity.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees because they have en-
gaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employee to discourage membership in
District 1199P, National Union of Hospital and
Health Care Employees, Division of RWDSU, AFL-
CIO, or any other Union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with District 1 I99P as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
following unit:
All housekeeping employees employed by us at our
Woodville State Hospital, Woodville, Pennsylvania,
location; excluding all other employees, office cleri-
cal employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL offer the following employees reinstate-
ment to their old jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent jobs, and make them
whole, with interest, for loss of pay resulting from
their discharge.
Joseph Santavicca
Ethel Turner
Roberta Turner
Sandra McLaughlin
WE WILL, on request, bargain with District 1199P as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
above unit, and embody in a signed written agreement
any understanding reached.
The National Labor Relations Act gives the following
rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing
To engage in activities together for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To refrain from any such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights.
Our employees are free to exercise any or all of these
rights, including the right tojoin or assist District 1199P or
any other union. Our employees are also free to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
union membership may be required by a collective-bar-
gaining agreement as a condition of continued employ-
ment as permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act
ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS & SERVICES,
INC.