Baptist Medical System

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1988

288 N.L.R.B. 882 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

882 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Baptist Medical System and Southern Missouri-Ar-
kansas District Council, International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case 26-
CA-9538
May 10, 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
CRACRAFT
On July 15, 1983, Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision.
The Respondent and the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and supporting briefs, and the Respondent
filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
We agree with the judge that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by ordering nonemployee
union organizers Griffiths and Bolden to leave its
public cafeteria. The Respondent operates the cafe-
teria for use by the general public as well as by
employees for their meals and breaks. At the time
they were ejected, union organizers Griffiths and
Bolden were using the cafeteria in a manner con-
sistent with its purpose, meeting with off-duty em-
ployees while eating in the restaurant. The Board
and the courts have traditionally held that solicita-
tion in restaurants cannot be prohibited when, as in
this case, the conduct of the nonemployee union
organizers is consistent with the conduct of other
patrons of the restaurant. Dunes Hotel & Country
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3c1 Cir. 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
2 In adopting the judge's conclusion that the Respondent, through
Nursing Director Dunkerson, coercively interrogated nurse Hobbs m vio-
lation of Sec. 8(a)(1), we note that this finding is consistent with the
Board's standards in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), which de-
cision issued after the judge's decision in this case Thus, notwithstanding
Hobbs' active support for the Union within the hospital, we find that the
lengthy and persistent probing by Dunkerson, the high-level director of
nursing, into Hobbs' union sympathies against Hobbs' will and in the con-
fines of her supervisor's office, went beyond the bounds of any permissi-
ble questioning
Members Babson and Cracraft agree with the judge's dismissal of the
allegation that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(1) by disparately enforc-
ing its no-distribution rule based on the circumstances here involving the
occasional distribution of antiunion literature in patient-care areas by its
supervisors. In so doing, however, they fmd it unnecessary to pass on the
judge's reading of NLRB v United Steelworkers (Nutone, Inc.), 357 U S.
357 (1958).
Club, 284 NLRB 871 (1987); Harold's Club, 267
NLRB 1167 (1983), enfd. 758 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.
1985); Ameron Automotive, 265 NLRB 511(1982);
Montgomery Ward & Co., 263 NLRB 233 (1982),
enfd. as modified 728 F.2d 389 (6th Cir. 1984);
Montgomery Ward & Co., 256 NLRB 800, enfd. 692
F.2d 1115 (7th Cir. 1982); Marshall Field & Co., 98
NLRB 88 (1952), enfd. as modified 200 F.2d 375
(7th Cir. 1952). To hold otherwise would license a
property owner to prohibit a union organizer from
utilizing its restaurant solely because the organizer
was discussing organizational activities. Such a pro-
hibition, which discriminates on the exclusive basis
of the union's organizational activity, flies in the
face of the Supreme Court's admonition against dis-
crimination on this basis when determining the pro-
priety of access restrictions. NLRB v. Babcock &
Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112 (1956). 3 The Re-
spondent could not prevent Griffiths and Bolden
from using its public restaurant in an orderly way,
not disruptive of its business.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Baptist
Medical System, Little Rock, Arkansas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
3 We do not view the majority position in Fatrmont Hotel, 282 NLRB
139 (1986), as conflictmg with this analysis.
William D. Levy, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James W. Moore and Michael S. Moore, Esqs. (Friday, El-
dredge & Clark), of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the Re-
spondent.
Jay Thomas Youngdahl and Kirsten J. Bey, Esqs. (Young-
dahl & Larrison), of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the
Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried at Little Rock, Arkansas, August 26-27,
1982./ The charge was filed by February 1, and the
complaint was issued March 12. After the Union prom-
ised in writing that its staff members would abide 133 the
Company's rules prohibiting nonemployees from solicit-
ing or distributing literature in the hospital's public cafe-
teria, the Company and Union orally agreed on condi-
tions for the nonemployee organizers to discuss union
representation with off-duty employees in the cafeteria.
Later the Company reneged on the agreement and
All dates are from November 1981 until August 1982.
288 NLRB No. 97
BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEM

883
threatened to have two organizers arrested if they did
not leave the cafeteria.
The primary issues are whether the Company, the Re-
spondent, unlawfully (a) prohibited nonemployee orga-
nizers from discussing union representation with off-duty
employees in the public cafeteria, (b) engaged in surveil-
lance of the employees' union activities in the cafeteria,
(c) enforced its no-solicitation, no-distribution rule selec-
tively and disparately in patient care areas, and (d) en-
gaged in coercive interrogation, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Company, and
the Union, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
L JURISDICTION
The Company, a corporation, operates a hospital at
Little Rock, Arkansas, where it annually derives over
$250,000 in gross revenue and receives goods valued
over $50,000 directly from outside the State. The Com-
pany admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
U ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Solicitation and Distribution Rules
The Company operates an 11-floor hospital, with
about 700 patient rooms and from 1800 to 2100 full-time
employees. The ground-floor cafeteria seats 300 or more
persons and is open to the public, including visitors of
patients and employees, and people from surrounding
businesses Employees receive a discount on the food
purchased.
On November 5, Union Organizers Scott Griffiths and
Mary Bolden passed out literature in the payroll line in
the hallway at the hospital and left on the request of Per-
sonnel Director Tom McCamey. On November 19, the
Company revised its rules on solicitation and distribu-
tion. As amended in a settlement agreement at the trial,
the rules permit employees to distribute literature and so-
licit other employees in the dining area of the cafeteria,
employee lounges and restrooms, and parking lots during
breaktime, mealtime, and before and after work.
The revised rules (G.C. Exh. 5), under the heading
"NON-EMPLOYEES," provide that:
Visitors, patients and other non-employees may
not solicit or distribute literature on any hospital
property for any purpose at any time. Solicitation
and/or distribution of matter by non-employees is
prohibited on hospital property including both the
interior of the buildings and the exterior property
including parking lots and driveways.
The nonemployee organizers did not attempt to pass
out union material on the parking lots or on the freeway
ramp leading to the hospital property.
B. Expulsion of Organizers from Cafeteria
1. Agreement on nonemployee organizers
On December 2, Organizer Griffiths wrote Personnel
Director McCarney a letter (G.C. Exh. 3):
This is to inform you that from time to time, staff
members of the Professional and Office Division of
the I.L.G.W.U. will be engaged in verbal discus-
sions with Baptist Medical Center employees in the
hospital cafeteria which, as you know, is open to
the public.
We want you to know that we are aware of, and
will abide by, your solicitation and Distribution
policy revision, dated November 19, 1981.
Distribution of union literature in the cafeteria
will only be done by employees of the Medical
Center.
On December 4 about 8 a.m., Organizers Griffiths and
Bolden went to the cafeteria with two of the Company's
nurses. They sat at a six-person table, with some union
literature on the table in front of them (Tr. 161, 184-185,
312). They talked to nurses who came to the table.
After a short time, Personnel Director McCamey ap-
proached the table. As Organizer Griffiths credibly testi-
fied, he asked if McCamey had received the (December
2) letter, and McCamey acknowledged that he had.
McCamey asked if Griffiths and Bolden were going to
be distributing or soliciting, and Griffiths "said we were
not, that only the nurses would be distributing literature
but that we would be there to answer questions." McCa-
mey responded "that if we did what we said we were
going to do, that that would be all right and he left."
(Tr. 161). According to McCarney, when they answered
that they were not there to solicit and distribute union
literature, he said, "That will be fine. Just see that you
don't. It is not permitted as you know from several
weeks ago when we had another encounter where you
were distributing, and that is not okay, and if you are a
patron of the cafeteria, that is fine; but you cannot dis-
tribute. It is our hospital rule." (Tr. 222.)
Two of the nurses went from table to table, distribut-
ing union leaflets and talking to other nurses, as permit-
ted by the revised rules. When nurses came by the orga-
nizers' table and asked about the Union, the organizers
"preceded what we would say by saying that we will
not and cannot sign you up in the cafeteria . . . that is
prohibited in the cafeteria, but we will answer your ques-
tions here" (Tr. 162).
After Organizers Griffiths and Bolden had talked to a
number of employees, some supervisors sat at their table.
Then, on request, Griffiths would leave the table and go
to other tables to answer questions (Tr. 166).
Sometime before lunch, Personnel Director McCamey
returned and said there were several restrictions he
would like to impose. As credibly testified by Griffiths
(who impressed me most favorably as an honest, forth-
right witness), McCamey first stated he would like for
the organizers to notify him when they came into the
cafeteria on future occasions, "and I told him that I
didn't think that we would do that, that I thought that
884 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we could come into the cafeteria like any other citizens"
(Tr. 166-167). McCamey next requested that the organiz-
ers "remain at one table in the cafeteria and not to go
from table to table." Griffiths asked that if they would
agree to remain at one table, "would he then institute
something so that supervisors would not come over and
sit at that table, and Mr. McCamey agreed that he would
do that" (Tr. 167). McCarney "thanked us for not solicit-
ing. . . and sticking by what he had said, and we con-
cluded the conversation . . . with a handshake" (Tr.
167-168). Griffiths and Bolden continued to talk to
nurses under these guidelines, had lunch, and left about 1
or 1:30 (after being there between 4-1/2 and 5-1/2
hours). McCamey acknowledged knowing that the orga-
nizers had been there about 4 hours (Tr. 243) while em-
ployees were distributing the union literature (Tr. 242),
but he denied having the second conversation with Grif-
fiths (Tr. 255), denied reaching an agreement on restric-
tions applying to the nonemployees, denied having au-
thority to reach such an agreement (Tr. 230), and denied
there was any union literature on the table (Tr. 242). He
impressed me, by his demeanor, as not being entirely
candid. I discredit his denials.
2. Threat of arrest
On December 10, at the request of some of the hospi-
tal nurses (Tr. 136, 141), Union Organizers Griffiths and
Bolden went to the hospital cafeteria with union litera-
ture for the nurses to distribute. They arrived shortly
before 11 a.m., intending to remain there during the
lunchtime until 1 o'clock (Tr. 307) to talk with any em-
ployees who came to their table. During the half hour or
so they were there, Griffiths purchased two cups of
coffee and Bolden had one (Tr. 298).
Shirley Laster, one of the nurses who invited the orga-
nizers to bring the union literature, had told them that
she would meet them in the cafeteria for lunch. After
going through the line and paying for her meal, she had
difficulty finding their table (Tr. 130). They were in the
first section of the cafeteria, but away from the aisle, and
Griffiths had his back to the cashier (Tr. 195).
Griffiths had brought a letter-size stationery box con-
taining literature used in the hospital campaign (Tr. 313).
When nurse Carolyn Hobbs arrived, she took some of
one of the union leaflets from the bottom of the stack
and placed the other leaflets to the side of the box, with
some union authorization cards on top (Tr. 173, 305-
306). She and another employee were distributing the lit-
erature in the cafeteria.
When Personnel Director McCamey arrived about
11:20 a.m., nurse Laster was eating her meal (Tr. 120)
and Griffiths' and Bolden's cups were on the table (Tr.
304). The union literature was between Laster and the
nurse sitting next to Griffiths (Tr. 3001.
As Griffiths credibly testified, McCamey announced
that he was changing the rules. He said that in the
future, the two union organizers could remain in the caf-
eteria only 15 minutes while having a drink and only half
an hour to eat a meal. Griffiths asked if that rule applied
to other citizens and McCamey answered no, it applied
to them. Griffiths asked what happened, and McCarney
responded that he was just changing the rules, that he
thought they were soliciting. Griffiths assured him that
they were not. McCamey then said he thought they
were distributing literature, but Griffiths assured him
they were not, that only the nurses were doing so. (Tr.
172.) Griffiths said he did not intend to abide by the
changes in the rules (Tr. 201) and, after further discus-
sion McCamey said, "I want you out now." Griffiths
asked, "This means we don't even get our 15 minutes to
drink our coffee?" and McCamey answered, "No, I want
you out now." (Tr. 172.) McCamey "said if we didn't
get out of there that we were going to be arrested" (Tr.
173-174). McCamey left to alert the security police.
After finishing his coffee (Tr. 304), Griffiths as well as
Bolden prepared to leave.
Thus, when threatened with arrest if they did not
leave the public cafeteria, Organizers Griffiths and
Bolden were complying with both the Union's written
promises (that they would abide by the Company's re-
vised rules and that only the employees would distribute
union literature there) and their oral agreement with Per-
sonnel Director McCamey that they would neither solic-
it or distribute literature, but would remain at one table
to merely answer questions.
When McCamey returned to the table, Organizers
Griffiths and Bolden had already gone. It is undisputed,
as nurse Laster credibly testified (Tr. 121), that
[McCamey] apologized to me for interrupting my
lunch, and I said that that is okay but that I didn't
feel that he had the right to ask Scott and Mary to
leave because they were our guests and I thought
we had the right to have our union material in the
cafeteria.
It is also undisputed, as nurse Laster credibly testified,
that her daughter often comes and waits 2 hours or
longer in the cafeteria to have lunch with Laster, that
the daughter never purchases food but brings her college
books and studies while waiting, and that nobody has at-
tempted to take her books away from her or asked her to
leave (Tr. 134-35).
McCamey admitted that he had never informed any-
body that the public could stay in the cafeteria only 15
minutes for a cup of coffee or 30 minutes for a meal (Tr.
242). He also admitted that he had never "thrown people
out of the cafeteria before who were not creating a
ruckus" (Tr. 257).
I discredit McCamey's claim that he directed the orga-
nizers to leave the cafeteria because he believed they
were there to distribute the union literature (Tr. 256-
257). He admitted that he had not seen them handing out
anything (Tr. 245, 256), that he did not see them ask any
employee to sign a card (Tr. 239-240), and that he did
not have any report that they were handing out litera-
ture, signing up employees, or going from table to table
talking to employees (Tr. 240, 245-246). I find instead
that he reneged on his December 4 oral agreement with
the organizers on conditions for their sitting at a cafete-
ria table and answering employee questions, and ordered
them to leave, to limit their access to hospital employees
during the organizing drive.
BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEM 885
3. Contentions of the parties
The General Counsel contends that the peaceful ques-
tion-and-answer sessions between employees and nonem-
ployee organizers in the hospital's public cafeteria, for
the purpose of communicating to employees the advan-
tages of union representation, were a protected activity.
He contends that the union organizers were utilizing the
cafeteria in a manner consistent with its normal use,
without interfering with patient care. "Indeed, on the or-
ganizers' first visit to the hospital on December 4, [Per-
sonnel Director] McCarney recognized that there was no
danger of disruption by allowing the organizers to remain
in the facility for a minimum of four hours. McCamey's
'change of heart' on December 11 can only be attributed
to his desire to thwart the Union's organizing effort and
can in no way be attributed to any belief that the orga-
nizers' presence would be disruptive of any business or
medical functions."
The Union contends that "the hospital cannot prohibit
union organizers from meeting by appointment with off-
duty employees in the public cafeteria, even for union
purposes, unless there is clear evidence that the nonem-
ployees are using the facility in a manner inconsistent
with its purpose." "Even if hospitals can enforce stricter
regulations on union activity, because of the particular
nature of their business—provision of health care—the
employer presented no evidence that the activities of the
union organizers interfered with health care delivery." It
contends, "The employees of Baptist Medical System
were engaged in protected activity when they invited
union organizers to meet with them in a public cafete-
ria." Asserting that the union organizers did not violate
the hospital's rule against nonemployee solicitation and
distribution, the Union argues that "To deny access to
premises open to the public solely because of a disagree-
ment over the message denies employees their statutory
self-organizational rights."
In its brief, the Company advanced a theory under
which it could contend that Union Organizers Griffiths
and Bolden were violating the rule against nonemployees
soliciting and distributing literature in the cafeteria. Ig-
noring the undisputed evidence that the organizers were
invited by the employees and requested to bring the
union literature, which the employees voluntarily distrib-
uted (Tr. 136, 141), the Company goes outside the record
and asserts that the organizers "had employee supporters
circulate through the cafeteria and distribute literature to
other employees"; Respondent contends that the union
organizers by design 'set up shop' in the cafeteria in
order to solicit and distribute through employee messen-
gers." It then argues that this case should be analyzed
under the law as set out in NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox
Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1956), in which "the Supreme Court
held that an employer could validly prohibit nonem-
ployee distribution of literature on the employer's prop-
erty, so long as the Union still had reasonable means
through 'which to take its message to employees"; and in
Meier & Frank Co., 198 NLRB 491 (1972), in which "the
Board recognized that an employer can prohibit nonem-
ployee solicitation or distribution on its premises" under
the Babcock & Wilcox rule, "even if such premises are
open to the public." I disagree and find the two deci-
sions, involving nonemployee solicitation and distribu-
tion, are not controlling.
4. Concluding findings
On December 2, the Union promised in writing that its
staff members, when engaged in discussions with em-
ployees in the hospital's public cafeteria, would abide by
the Company's revised policy against nonemployee solic-
itation and distribution, and that only employees would
distribute union literature in the cafeteria. On December
4, when Union Organizers Griffiths and Bolden visited
the cafeteria for about 5 hours and ate lunch before leav-
ing, Personnel Director McCamey interpreted the Com-
pany's own rules and reached an oral agreement with the
two organizers that their presence in the public cafeteria
was permitted if they would remain at one table while
answering employee questions and if only employees dis-
tributed the union literature.
On December 10, at the request of some of the hospi-
tal nurses, Griffiths and Bolden again took some union
literature to the cafeteria for the nurses to distribute.
They sat at a table, drinking coffee and talking to off-
duty nurses who came to the table. Two of the nurses
took some of the literature and were distributing it to
others in the cafeteria. Griffiths and Bolden abided by
their agreement not to solicit or distribute any literature.
They remained at the one table and did not speak to caf-
eteria employees or other employees who were on duty,
did not solicit or distribute any literature to anyone, and
did not do anything to attract attention or create a dis-
turbance.
After the two nonemployee organizers were there
about 30 minutes, Personnel Director McCamey went to
the table; advised them that they could remain only 15
minutes while having a drink and 30 minutes to eat a
meal; stated that the changed rule applied only to them,
not to other citizens; ordered them to leave the cafeteria;
and threatened to have them arrested if they did not get
out. After Griffiths finished his coffee, the two organiz-
ers left.
Recently in Montgomery Ward & Co., 263 NLRB 233
(1982), the Board found that the employer violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by causing the arrest and removal
of nonemployee union representatives from its public
snackbar. The representatives had purchased beverages,
sat at a table, and spoken to employees who approached
them or sat at their table. The Board found that "the
union representatives were not attempting to use the
public snackbar in a manner inconsistent with its pur-
pose."
In the present case, hospital nurses were engaging in
self-organization when soliciting and distributing union
literature in the hospital's public cafeteria during break-
time and mealtime, as permitted by the Company's solici-
tation and distribution rules. When expelled from the caf-
eteria, Union Organizers Griffiths and Bolden were the
nurses' lawfully invited guests, assisting the nurses in
their organizational efforts by answering any employee
questions regarding union representation. The organizers
were not soliciting or distributing any literature and,
while remaining seated at one table, were utilizing the
886 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cafeteria in a manner consistent with its normal use,
without interfering with patient care. I find that the
nurses were engaged in protected activity when they in-
vited the union organizers and referred other employees
to them for answers to any questions concerning union
representation. Under these circumstances, I fmd that the
Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, violating
Section 8(a)(1) by ordering the union organizers to leave
the public cafeteria on threat of arrest.
C. Surveillance
Both on December 4 and 10, when Union Organizers
Griffiths and Bolden were sitting at a table in the cafete-
ria and employees were going from table to table, distrib-
uting union literature, the hospital's security guards were
present in the cafeteria and observing the union activity.
Also on December 4, some supervisors sat and ate at the
table where the two organizers were seated, apparently
not realizing that they were union representatives. When
this was called to Personnel Director McCamey's atten-
tion, he agreed to prevent a recurrence.
I agree with the Company's contention that it had a
legitimate right to have its security personnel present to
ensure that nonemployees did not violate the no-solicita-
tion, no-distribution rule. There is no showing that the
presence of the security guards tended to inhibit employ-
ee interest or participation in unionization, or that the su-
pervisors on the one occasion intentionally sat at the or-
ganizers' table to inhibit any union activity. I therefore
find no violation of the employees' Section 7 rights and
dismiss the allegation.
D. Disparate Enforcement of Rule
The Company's November 19 rule prohibits employees
from distributing literature in working areas at any time.
Although supervisors have been instructed not to dis-
tribute the Company's antiunion literature in patient-care
areas (Tr. 262), nurses Hobbs and Laster credibly testi-
fied that supervisors have done so on occasion (Tr.58-62,
123-126). The complaint alleges that this is selective and
disparate enforcement of the no-distribution rule.
The Supreme Court has held, however, that no-solici-
tation, no-distribution rules are not binding on employ-
ers. As the Court held in NLRB v. Steelworkers (Nutone,
Inc.), 357 U.S. 357, 362 (1958), an employer's right to
engage in noncoercive, antiunion solicitation is "protect-
ed by the. . . 'employer free speech' provision of § 8(c)
of the Act." I therefore find that the allegation must be
dismissed.
E. Interrogation
On December 14, nurse Hobbs was sent by Supervisor
Ruthie Miller to Miller's office for Director of Nursing
Ann Dunkerson to speak to her (Tr. 65). As Hobbs (who
impressed me as being a careful, conscientious witness)
credibly testified, Dunkerson began by stating, , "I under-
stand that you are prounion and that you have passed
out protmion material in the cafeteria" (Tr. 66). After
Hobbs admitted this to be correct and Dunkerson stated
that Hobbs was within her rights, but cautioned her
about doing so only on her free time, Dunkerson "said
that several nurses had complained to [Personnel Direc-
tor] McCamey that I had infringed on their time in the
cafeteria . . . and that the hospital has a right to protect
the time of these nurses and their rights." Although
Hobbs assured Dunkerson that she would not "force my
views upon these nurses" and they could speak up if
they did not want to listen, Dunkerson said she would
report back to McCamey, that McCamey would be
watching this, and that "the hospital would enforce its
right to protect the nurses against prounion people who
infringed on their time such as myself?' (Tr. 66.) Dun-
kerson thus ignored Hobb's comment that nurses could
speak up if they did not want to listen about the Union,
and her promise not to force her views on the nurses. He
did not explain what she meant by "protecting" nurses
against Hobbs and other union supporters.
Then Nursing Director Dunkerson began interrogating
nurse Hobbs about her union support, first asking her
why she was prounion. Hobbs indicated that she did not
want to discuss it (Tr. 107) by stating that she would not
debate the issue with her, but Dunkerson persisted, stat-
ing that she did not want to debate, but "was interested
in my views as a personal interest" (Tr. 67). After Hobbs
answered, Dunkerson asked "why I had decided to go
prounion," "what my dissatisfactions with the hospital
were," "if I felt that my needs were heard whenever I
expressed them to my supervisor and to her," "if I felt
like the nurses had unity," "if I had any problems with
her leadership or the leadership of my supervisor," and
"what the union could do for me that the hospital could
not do" (Tr. 67-68). After Hobbs gave frank, truthful an-
swers, Dunkerson said "the hospital would enforce its
rights to protect the nurses [again without stating how],
that it was their responsibility, that I should watch my
time. . . and be aware of my actions." This was the first
time Dunkerson or any other supervisor had asked
Hobbs to express her grievances or complaints. When
asked on cross-examination if the Company had taken
any disciplinary action against her for supporting the
Union, Hobbs indicated her current concern about
whether she would receive her customary raise, or lose
from receiving it late, after a delay of 4 or 6 weeks in
receiving her evaluation (Tr. 90-91, 93).
Dunkerson gave a different version of the conversation
and denied interrogating Hobbs (Tr. 287-291). Hobbs im-
pressed me as being the more trustworthy witness; I
credit her version and discredit Dunkerson's denials. (I
also reject as hearsay C.P. Exh. 1, Hobb's notes of the
conversation.)
I find that the lengthy interrogation of this active
union supporter—against her will in her supervisor's
office, by the high-level director of nursing—tended to
coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights. The interrogation was in the context of repeated
ambiguous statements by Nursing Director Dunkerson
that the Company would "protect" nurses against Hobbs
and other prounion nurses—indicating the Company's
strong displeasure with Hobbs' union activity, despite
Hobbs' promise not to force her views on the nurses.
Durtkerson persisted with the probing into her union sen-
BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEM 887
timents after she indicated that she did not want to dis-
cuss the matter, and gave her no assurances against com-
pany reprisals, even after she admitted her strong proun-
ion feelings. Dunkerson gave no valid reason for a
person in her position conducting such a probe into
Hobbs' union sympathies and reasons for supporting the
Union. I therefore find that the interrogation violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By ordering the union organizers to leave the hospi-
tal's public cafeteria on threat of arrest, interfering with,
restraining„ and coercing employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights, the Company engaged in an unfair
labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Company's security guards and supervisors did
not engage in unlawful surveillance of the employees'
union activities.
3. The Company did not unlawfully enforce its no-so-
licitation, no-distribution rule selectively and disparately
in the patient-care areas.
4. By engaging in coercive interrogation, the Company
violated Section 8(a)(1).
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2
ORDER
The Respondent, Baptist Medical System, Little Rock,
Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unlawfully ordering union organizers to leave the
hospital's public cafeteria on threat of arrest.
(b) Coercively interrogating any employee about union
support or sympathy.
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its facility in Little Rock, Arkansas, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 26, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
specifically found.
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has Or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully order union organizers to
leave the hospital's public cafeteria upon threat of arrest.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your
union support or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 a the Act.
BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEM