Brooklyn Hospital Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1992

309 N.L.R.B. 1163 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1163
309 NLRB No. 174
BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
1 The judge erroneously states that Local 721 did not participate
in the Respondent’s hospitalization, medical, dental, optical, life in-
surance, prescription drug, and disability insurance plans. Local 721
did participate in these plans. We have modified the Order to reflect
this factual correction.
The Brooklyn Hospital Center and James Farmer,
Juan Quiles, Accie Little, Maria Ramos, Leon-
ard Washington, and Iraida Cabrera and Local
144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied
Services Union, Service Employees Inter-
national Union, AFL–CIO, Party to the Con-
tract
The Brooklyn Hospital Center and James Farmer,
Accie Little, Maria Ramos, Leonard Washing-
ton, and Iraida Cabrera and New York State
Nurses Association, Licensed Practical Nurses,
Technicians and Health Care Workers of New
York, Inc., Local 721, Service Employees Inter-
national Union, AFL–CIO and Local Union
No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO, Parties to the Contract
The Brooklyn Hospital Center and James Farmer,
Maria Ramos, Leonard Washington, and
Iraida Cabrera and Local 144, Hotel, Hospital,
Nursing Home and Allied Services Union, Serv-
ice Employees International Union, AFL–CIO,
Party to the Contract. Cases 29–CA–13813, 29–
CA–13842, and 29–CA–13933
December 16, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
The primary issue in this case is whether the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by rec-
ognizing Local 144, NYSNA, Local 721, and Local 3,
and applying the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreements with the Unions covering employees at its
Brooklyn Hospital facility to its previously unrepre-
sented employees at Caledonian Hospital.
On February 24, 1992, Administrative Law Judge
Steven Davis issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and briefs, the General
Counsel filed limited exceptions and a brief in support
of the judge’s decision, the Parties to the Contract,
Local 144 and NYSNA, filed exceptions and briefs,
and the Charging Parties filed a brief in support of the
judge’s decision and in opposition to the exceptions of
Local 144 and NYSNA.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
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 de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modi-
fied.
AMENDED REMEDY
The judge correctly ordered the abrogation of the
collective-bargaining agreements. However, he should
have provided that such abrogation shall be without
prejudice to the insurance coverage provided in those
agreements. See Hartz Mountain Corp., 228 NLRB
492, 563 (1977); Mego Corp., 254 NLRB 300 (1981).
Further, to the extent that such coverage was by or
through a union plan, we shall order the Respondent
to provide an equivalent substitute. See Hartz and
Mego, supra. Finally, we shall order the Respondent to
assure that there is no lapse in coverage.
The collective-bargaining agreements at issue con-
tain union-security and dues-checkoff provisions.
Therefore, we shall order the Respondent to cease and
desist from deducting any union dues, fees, and assess-
ments from the pay of its Caledonian employees pursu-
ant to those provisions in the collective-bargaining
agreements with Local 144, NYSNA, and Local 721,
and to make whole the employees for any fees, dues,
and assessments deducted pursuant to these agree-
ments.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, the Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Encouraging membership in Local 144, Hotel,
Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Service Union,
Service Employees International Union, AFL–CIO
(Local 144), New York State Nurses Association
(NYSNA), Licensed Practical Nurses, Technicians and
Health Care Workers of New York, Inc., Local 721,
Service Employees International Union, AFL–CIO
(Local 721), and Local Union No. 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO (Local
3) and recognizing Local 144, NYSNA, Local 721,
and Local 3 as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentatives of its employees who are employed at its
Caledonian Hospital location.
(b) With respect to its employees employed at its
Caledonian Hospital location, applying, maintaining, or
giving force and effect to the terms of its collective-
bargaining agreements with Local 144, NYSNA, Local
721, and Local 3, which were applied to its employees
who were employed at its Caledonian Hospital location
on or after November 14, 1988, or to any other con-
tract, understanding, extension, renewal, modification,
or superceding agreement, with respect to those em-
ployees, unless or until those labor organizations have
been duly certified by the Board as the exclusive bar-
1164 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
gaining representatives of those unit(s) of employees;
provided, however, that to the extent consistent with
the other terms of this Order, nothing in this Order
shall be construed to require the Respondent to vary or
abandon any wage increase, or other benefits, terms,
and conditions of employment that it has established
for those employees in performance of the aforemen-
tioned agreements.
(c) Deducting union dues, fees, and assessments
from the pay of its employees employed at its Caledo-
nian Hospital location, pursuant to the checkoff provi-
sions in the collective-bargaining agreements of Local
144, NYSNA, and Local 721.
(d) Contributing to joint labor-management trust
funds, as a result of the unlawful application of the
collective-bargaining agreements with Local 144,
NYSNA, and Local 721 at the Caledonian Hospital lo-
cation.
(e) Permitting Local 3 and Local 144 access to its
Caledonian premises for the purpose of engaging in
union business during the worktime of the employees.
(f) 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) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Local 144, NYSNA, Local 721, and Local 3, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees who are employed at its Caledonian Hos-
pital location, unless and until those labor organiza-
tions have been duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representatives of appropriate unit(s) of those employ-
ees.
(b) Reimburse its employees at its Caledonian Hos-
pital location for any dues, fees, and assessments and
other moneys deducted from their wages on behalf of
Local 144, NYSNA, and Local 721 on or after No-
vember 14, 1988.
(c) Provide alternative benefits coverage equivalent
to the coverage that employees enjoyed under the
Unions’ plans including pension, medical hospital, pre-
scription drug, dental, optical, life insurance, and other
insurance benefits and ensure that there be no lapse in
coverage.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of payment
due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its facilities at the Brooklyn Hospital lo-
cation and at the Caledonian Hospital location, copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’2 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 29, 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 Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
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 encourage membership in Local 144,
Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Services
Union, Service Employees International Union, AFL–
CIO (Local 144), New York State Nurses Association
(NYSNA), Licensed Practical Nurses, Technicians and
Health Care Workers of New York, Inc., Local 721,
Service Employees International Union, AFL–CIO
(Local 721), or Local Union No. 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL–CIO (Local
3), by recognizing Local 144, NYSNA, Local 721, and
Local 3 as the exclusive bargaining representatives of
our employees who are employed at our Caledonian
Hospital location.
WE WILL NOT apply the terms of our collective-bar-
gaining agreements with Local 144, NYSNA, Local
721, and Local 3, to our employees who are employed
at our Caledonian Hospital location on or after Novem-
ber 14, 1988, or any other contract, understanding, ex-
tension, renewal, modification, or superceding agree-
ment to our Caledonian employees, unless or until
those labor organizations have been duly certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the representa-
tives of those unit employees.
WE WILL NOT deduct union dues, fees, and assess-
ments from the pay of our Caledonian employees pur-
suant to the checkoff provisions in the collective-bar-
1165BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
gaining agreements of Local 144, NYSNA, and Local
721.
WE WILL NOT contribute to joint labor-management
trust funds as a result of our unlawful application of
the collective-bargaining agreements with Local 144,
NYSNA, and Local 721 to our Caledonian location.
WE WILL NOT permit access to our Caledonian loca-
tion by Local 3 and Local 144 for the purpose of en-
gaging in union business during your worktime.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withhold and withdraw all recognition
from Local 144, NYSNA, Local 721, and Local 3 as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees who are employed at our Caledonian
Hospital location, unless and until those labor organi-
zations have been duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representatives of appropriate units of our Caledonian
Hospital employees.
WE WILL reimburse our employees at our Caledo-
nian Hospital location for any dues, fees, and assess-
ments and other moneys deducted from your wages on
behalf of Local 144, NYSNA, and Local 721 on or
after November 14, 1988.
WE WILL provide you with alternative coverage
equivalent to the coverage which you enjoyed under
the Unions’ plans including pension, medical hospital,
prescription drug, dental, optical, life insurance, and
other insurance benefits and ensure that there be no
lapse in coverage.
THE BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
David S. Cohen, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Allan H. Weitzman, Samuel M. Kaynard, Peter Robb, and
James E. Kellett, Esqs. (Proskauer Rose Goetz &
Mendelsohn, Esqs.), of New York, New York, for the Re-
spondent.
Martin Garfinkel and Walter M. Meginniss, Jr. Esqs.
(Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, Esqs.), of New York, New
York, for the Charging Parties.
James Wasserman, Esq. (Vladeck, Waldman, Elias &
Engelhard, P.C.), of New York, New York, for Local 144.
Richard J. Silber, Esq. (Harder Silber and Bergan, Esqs.), of
Albany, New York, for the New York State Nurses Asso-
ciation.
Mitchell Craner, Esq., of New York, New York, for Local
721.
Norman Rothfeld, Esq., of New York, New York, for Local
3.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge. Based on
charges filed by certain individual charging parties on De-
cember 1, December 30, 1988, and February 22, 1989, in
Cases 29–CA–13813, 29–CA–13842, and 29–CA–13933, a
consolidated complaint was issued by Region 29 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board on March 30, 1989, against the
Brooklyn Hospital–Caledonian Hospital (Respondent).
Essentially, the complaint, as amended at the hearing, al-
leges that on November 14, 1988, Respondent unlawfully (a)
recognized Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and
Allied Services Union, Service Employees International
Union, AFL–CIO (Local 144), New York State Nurses Asso-
ciation (NYSNA), Licensed Practical Nurses, Technicians
and Health Care Workers of New York, Inc., Local 721,
Service Employees International Union, AFL–CIO (Local
721), and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO (Local 3) as the representa-
tives of its Caledonian Hospital employees, notwithstanding
that those unions did not represent a majority of those em-
ployees and (b) applied the collective-bargaining agreements
which those unions had for the Brooklyn Hospital employ-
ees, to the Caledonian employees.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated the
Act by permitting Local 144 and Local 3 to meet with Cal-
edonian Hospital employees on Caledonian property during
worktime for the purpose of soliciting them to join the
unions, and to authorize the deduction of moneys from their
wages on behalf of the unions, and for other union business;
and by permitting NYSNA to meet with Caledonian employ-
ees during such times, for the purpose of conducting a ratifi-
cation vote with respect to a supplemental collective-bargain-
ing agreement, and for other union business. Finally, the
complaint alleges that Sandra Ortega threatened Caledonian
employees with discharge if they refused to join Local 144.
Respondent’s answer denied the material allegations of the
complaint, and set forth the affirmative defense that the Cal-
edonian Hospital employees constituted accretions to the col-
lective-bargaining units represented by the various unions at
Brooklyn Hospital.
A 26-day hearing was held before me in New York City.
Evidence was received as to the allegations set forth above,
and as to another, related complaint, Case 29–CA–13793, in-
volving the discharge of Norman Treyball, and the commis-
sion of certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
During the hearing, I granted a motion by General Counsel
that, upon the close of the hearing, I sever Case 29–CA–
13793 from the rest of the case and issue a decision on that
case. Accordingly, on July 12, 1990, I issued a decision in
that case in which I held that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by (a) threatening its employees with dis-
charge in order to discourage them from giving any support
and assistance to Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health
Care Employees Union, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, AFL–CIO (Local 1199), and (b) confiscating
from its employees’ work areas leaflets and other literature
which expressed support for Local 1199. I also held that Re-
spondent did not violate the Act by discharging employee
Norman Treyball. Thereafter, the Board affirmed my deci-
sion. 302 NLRB 785 (1991).
I also granted another motion of General Counsel, to con-
solidate for hearing the instant proceeding with Case 29–RC–
7143, 29–RC–7148, and 29–RC–7150, which are certain rep-
resentation petitions filed by Local 1199, in which that union
seeks certification as the representative for certain units of
1166 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
Caledonian Hospital employees. Evidence was received con-
cerning the representation cases. Pursuant to the motion, at
the close of the hearing, I severed the representation cases
from the instant unfair labor practice cases, and remanded
the representation cases to the Regional Director for the pur-
pose of forwarding the record to the Board so that it may
decide the representation cases. I retained jurisdiction over
the unfair labor practice cases, and, pursuant to the motion,
stated that I would defer ruling upon those cases, pending a
decision by the Board on the representation proceeding. On
about January 4, 1990, the Regional Director forwarded the
representation cases to the Board.
Thereafter, Respondent moved to reopen the record, and
Local 1199 moved to correct the record.1
On September 12, 1990, the Board issued an Order in
which it remanded the matter to me and directed that I first
decide the unfair labor practice cases, and rule on the two
motions.
On September 18, I granted Respondent’s motion to re-
open the record, and on October 19, the record was reopened
to receive certain evidence pursuant to the motion. The hear-
ing was closed that day.
On the evidence presented in this proceeding, and my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after consid-
eration of the briefs filed by General Counsel, the Charging
Parties, Respondent, Local 144, and the New York State
Nurses Association (NYSNA), I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At the reopened hearing, evidence was received concern-
ing the change of the name of the Respondent. The parties
stipulated that on February 1, 1990, Respondent’s board of
trustees resolved to amend its certificate of incorporation to
rename the corporation ‘‘The Brooklyn Hospital Center,’’
and the subsequent amendment of the certificate of incorpo-
ration changing the corporation’s name was ultimately ap-
proved by the Public Health Council and filed with the De-
partment of State on August 1, 1990. On June 29, 1990, the
Hospital’s Board also approved a new logo and designs for
new building and entrance signs which display the new
name. The new name of Respondent is reflected in the cap-
tion, above.
Respondent, a New York corporation having its principal
office and place of business at 10 St. Paul’s Place, Brooklyn,
New York, has been engaged in the operation of a hospital,
providing health care and related services. During the past
year, Respondent has derived gross revenues in excess of
$250,000 from its operations, and has also purchased and re-
ceived at its facility directly from points located outside New
York State medical supplies valued in excess of $50,000. Re-
spondent 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 a health care institution within the meaning
of Section 2(14) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Respondent admits, and I find that Local 144, Local 1199,
Local 3, NYSNA, and Local 721 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Respondent denied knowledge or information concerning
whether Local 819, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL–
CIO (Local 819) is a statutory labor organization. Pete
Henriquez, a business agent for Local 819, testified that
Local 819 exists for the purpose of dealing with employers
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment and conditions of work, and that it rep-
resents employees with respect to such matters with their
employers. It has collective-bargaining agreements with em-
ployers, and has been certified by the Board. It also has a
constitution and bylaws and maintains an office. I accord-
ingly find and conclude that Local 819 is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. Background
a. History of the two hospitals and their merger
This case involves two physically separate hospitals lo-
cated in Brooklyn, New York, formerly known as Brooklyn
Hospital, founded in 1845, and Caledonian Hospital, founded
in the early 1900s. They are about 3 miles, and a 10-minute
drive from each other.
Each operated continuously and independently until Octo-
ber 1, 1982, when they merged for economic reasons. At the
time of the merger, Brooklyn Hospital had about 444 beds
and was engaged in tertiary care, operating as a teaching
hospital. Caledonian Hospital was a 209-bed acute care hos-
pital. The number of beds in each hospital has not changed
materially since that time.
Respondent alleges that the accretion of the Caledonian
site employees to the Brooklyn Hospital units was prompted,
in part, by the issuance, in 1986, of a letter of tentative non-
accreditation to Respondent, after which intensive efforts
were made to integrate the two facilities.
General Counsel asserts, however, that at the time of the
1982 merger, much of the integration Respondent relies upon
to support the later accretion, had already occurred. It is
therefore necessary to examine the status of the hospitals’
staffs and administrations upon their merger.
Upon or shortly after the merger, certain services offered
by Caledonian, such as inpatient maternity and pediatric
services, which were also provided by Brooklyn Hospital,
were closed, in order to ‘‘maximize the cost effectiveness by
centralizing services at Brooklyn Hospital.’’ In addition, ac-
cording to Respondent president and chief executive officer
Frederick D. Alley, at the time of the merger, certain finan-
cial services provided at Caledonian were closed in order to
centralize them at Brooklyn Hospital, because he wished to
‘‘maintain control’’ of the finances of the hospital. Pursuant
to that plan, a corporate department of finance was created
at about the time of the merger.
In addition, the merger plan provided for cross-
credentialing of physicians. Thus, as soon as practicable after
1167BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
the merger, physicians’ credentials were reviewed, and ad-
mitting privileges were extended to physicians at both sites
so that they could admit patients at either location. This was
designed to enable the hospital to provide better patient care.
At the time of the merger, pursuant to the public health law,
the separate medical staffs at the two sites were unified. Cal-
edonian Hospital, which then became a teaching hospital,
trained residents who rotated from Brooklyn Hospital.
Upon the merger, the staff and management of Caledonian
was retained intact by the new corporation.
Upon the merger of the two institutions in 1982, the sepa-
rate board of trustees of each facility was merged into a sin-
gle ‘‘combined’’ board of trustees. Alley was appointed as
the president and chief executive officer of the merged hos-
pital. A director of corporate planning, and vice presidents
for finance and information systems were also appointed. In
addition, the medical staffs and medical boards of the two
hospitals merged into a single entity. A single chairperson
for each medical department was appointed, all of whom
were responsible to a physician, the newly appointed vice
president for medical affairs.
Respondent’s 1982 annual report, issued after the merger
of October 1, 1982, stated that the ‘‘merger design has
sought to maintain administrative independence at each hos-
pital, while providing the maximum in coordination of medi-
cal and support services.’’ The report further states that the
hospitals are managerially autonomous, with the exception of
financial matters.
Reduction of certain costs was met, upon the merger, in
part, by the performance, by Brooklyn Hospital, of such
services for Caledonian Hospital as data processing, special
laboratory studies, CAT scan examinations, and neonatal in-
tensive care; expanded coordination of in-house printing, and
a common medical liability insurance program. It was esti-
mated that pooling of hospital resources was expected to
save nearly $3 million in the first 3 years of the merger.
Patients move readily between sites for such specialized
testing and treatment which is available at only one of the
two sites. Patients have also been transferred between sites.
About 30 to 40 patients per day are taken by a contract am-
bulance service between sites.
b. Union representation and labor relations
considerations upon the merger
At the time of the merger, Brooklyn Hospital had collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with four unions:
(a) Local 144, which represented about 866 employees in
5 collective-bargaining units, comprising service, clerical,
technical, dietary, and social work duties.
(b) NYSNA, which represented about 360 registered
nurses.
(c) Local 3, which represented about 40 skilled mainte-
nance persons who worked as engineers, carpenters, and
painters.
(d) Local 721, which represented about 50 licensed prac-
tical nurses.
Also at the time of the merger, Caledonian Hospital em-
ployed about 500 workers in job classifications comparable
to those at Brooklyn Hospital who were not represented by
any labor organization.
2. Respondent’s approach and actions concerning
accretion of the two hospitals
Shortly before the merger Respondent’s president, Alley,
asked its labor counsel for an analysis and opinion of its ob-
ligation to the nonunionized Caledonian employees as a re-
sult of the merger. On August 31, 1981, Respondent’s attor-
ney provided a written opinion. After receiving that letter,
Alley asked Respondent’s lawyer to ‘‘prepare a brief check-
list of operational matters that should be considered in an ef-
fort to maximize the likelihood of a non-accretion finding be-
tween The Brooklyn Hospital and Caledonian Hospital.’’ Ac-
cordingly, Respondent’s attorney advised by letter dated No-
vember 24, 1981, that ‘‘particular attention should be di-
rected to the following categories of activities to preserve the
present non-union status of Caledonian employees.’’ Specific
advice was given to ‘‘minimize the possibility of a claim of
accretion.’’ Such advice included that employee hiring and
firing should be performed separately at each facility; em-
ployee schedules, work assignments and discipline should be
locally managed; employee relations policy and other labor
relations matters should be handled separately by each facil-
ity; existing departments and supervisory structures at the
two sites should be maintained to the extent possible; super-
visors at one facility should not be responsible for the direc-
tion of employees at the other; there should be minimal inter-
change of employees; the nature and frequency of contact be-
tween the employees at each site should be minimized; dif-
ferences in working conditions, job classifications and job
descriptions, where they exist, should be maintained; and in-
tegration of the two sites should be kept at a minimum.
Respondent’s attorney noted that his advice related only to
the advice sought, that of maximizing a finding of nonaccre-
tion, and recognized that his suggestions may be ‘‘impos-
sible’’ to carry out, and may, if implemented fully, detract
from the anticipated benefits of the merger.
On December 4, 1981, Alley sent a copy of the November
24 letter to the corporate vice president of finance and the
executive director of Caledonian Hospital with a note that it
related to ‘‘steps we can take to avoid accretion by Local
144 following merger. Please carefully review and take nec-
essary steps to avoid problems in your specific areas.’’
Accordingly, at the time of the merger, Respondent made
a policy decision to attempt to avoid accretion. Alley stated
that policies were kept separate, there was to be no transfer
of personnel, separate staffs were maintained at the two sites,
and separate supervisors and managers were maintained, to
the degree possible.
Alley testified that certain of his goals in avoiding accre-
tion were to honor the right of the Caledonian employees to
decide for themselves whether they wished to be represented
by a labor organization, to maintain an unorganized facility
in the event of a strike by Brooklyn hospital employees, and
to maintain the wages and benefits as they existed at each
site.
With respect to self-determination, Respondent’s attorney’s
letter of August 31, 1981 letter noted that the Caledonian
employees have expressed a preference to remain nonunion
by not supporting or instituting an organizing campaign up
to that time.
Indeed, Caledonian employees were the subject of certain
National Labor Relations Board proceedings from about the
time of the merger, and each time they rejected unionization.
1168 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
President Alley testified that since the time of the merger
in 1982, Peter Ottley, the president of Local 144, had repeat-
edly asked when he (Alley) would permit Local 144 to rep-
resent the Caledonian Hospital employees. Alley’s standard
reply was that it was not appropriate for Local 144 to rep-
resent such employees as that hospital was operating as an
independent site, and that he (Alley) would contact him if
such representation became appropriate. The last such occa-
sion on which Ottley made that request was in early August
1986, when Richard Garber, Respondent’s associate director
and director of human resources at both sites wrote to Ottley,
telling him that Alley and the Board of Trustees ‘‘feel very
strongly that the employees make their own decision about
unionization.’’
On September 2, 1986, Local 819 filed a petition in which
it sought to represent certain service and maintenance em-
ployees employed by Caledonian Hospital. Local 3 and Local
144 were notified of the petition but did not seek to partici-
pate therein. Local 1199 intervened, but did not appear on
the ballot. It was Respondent’s position that any unit found
appropriate should be limited to the Caledonian Hospital. In
its campaign, directed by Caledonian Hospital Executive Di-
rector Jordan, Respondent urged the employees to vote
against Local 819. General Counsel argues that Jordan’s ap-
peal to the ‘‘Caledonian family’’ on April 7, 1988, con-
stitutes evidence, only 7 months prior to its allegedly unlaw-
ful recognition of the unions for the Caledonian employees,
that Respondent believed that Caledonian Hospital employees
constituted a separate community of interest from Brooklyn
Hospital’s employees. On April 21, 1988, employees in a
unit of service and maintenance and business office clerical
employees voted against representation by Local 819, and the
results were certified by the Regional Director.
The Board found, in its decision relating to the Treyball
discharge, Brooklyn Hospital, 302 NLRB 785 (1991), that
Respondent became aware that Local 1199 began organizing
its employees in September 1988. General Counsel argues
that this knowledge, and Respondent’s desire to thwart that
union’s representation of the Caledonian Hospital employees,
prompted it to recognize the Brooklyn Hospital unions for its
Caledonian Hospital employees in November 1988.
Respondent denies this, and President Alley testified that
although he might have been aware of the organizing cam-
paign among the Caledonian Hospital employees in Septem-
ber 1988, such possible knowledge did not play a role in his
decision, in November 1988, to recognize the Brooklyn Hos-
pital unions for Respondent’s employees employed at Cal-
edonian Hospital.
Rather, according to Alley, he believed that accretion had
occurred based on certain circumstances and events, includ-
ing organizational changes in the operation of the hospital in
1986 and 1987, and thereafter.
One of the major factors, according to Respondent, in the
change in the operation of the hospitals, was Respondent’s
response to action taken by the Joint Commission on Accred-
itation of Hospitals in and that, due to such changes, by Oc-
tober 1988, Alley believed that accretion of the Caledonian
Hospital employees into the Brooklyn Hospital’s units had
occurred.
In fact, Alley testified that from 1982 until late 1986, he
believed that accretion had not occurred. However, between
late 1986 and November 1988, his belief concerning whether
an accretion had occurred, changed.
Following an onsite survey of Respondent by the joint
commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, that commission
wrote to Alley on October 14, 1986, informing him that it
had determined to issue a tentative nonaccreditation decision.
The document invited Alley to submit a response which
would be reviewed by the Accreditation Committee. The
committee sent a detailed list of compliance assessment fac-
tors, which it had determined that Respondent had not com-
plied with. Certain factors which were set forth in the report,
where they related to a lack of central organization, included
(a) the lack of an effective, hospitalwide infection control
program (b) inadequate nurse direction and staffing, in which
the two directors of nursing of the decentralized nursing
department/service do not report to the same administrator;
inadequate evidence that the directors of nursing have the au-
thority and responsibility to assure that nursing care objec-
tives are established and met (c) an inadequate quality assur-
ance plan and (d) an inadequate general safety program, in-
cluding an inadequate safety committee—the use of two sep-
arate safety committees with no coordination of efforts; a
safety director has not been appointed by the chief executive
officer—the use of two separate safety directors with no co-
ordination of efforts.
The reaction of Alley to the joint commission’s letter was
one of ‘‘shock.’’ A loss of accreditation would mean loss of
Federal funding and reimbursement rights, and the end to the
viability of Respondent. Alley’s response to the joint com-
mission’s letter on October 30, 1986 contained its evidence
of compliance with the factors found inadequate by the com-
mission. The response noted that Respondent established its
separate structure, including a separate supervisory structure
upon the merger, upon advice of counsel, in order to honor
employee self determination and avoid the accretion of the
Caledonian Hospital employees into the Brooklyn Hospital
units. The response added that ‘‘in the face of your current
recommendations, this structure can be changed.’’ Respond-
ent also noted that it has certain common corporate policies
and procedures.
One of Respondent’s specific responses was to the fact
that the two directors of nursing do not report to the same
administrator. Respondent’s response noted that separate su-
pervision was implemented upon its attorney’s advice in
order to avoid accretion and the extra costs of unionization.
The response added that a corporate director of nursing for
Respondent would be designated by December 1, 1986, and
that ‘‘we hope and think we can accomplish this without
union accretion at this time.’’ Alley’s explanation of this at
hearing was that he believed that the appointment of a cor-
porate director of nursing as a ‘‘titular head’’ of the cor-
porate nursing department would satisfy the joint commission
and preserve Respondent’s nonaccretion position. However,
according to Alley, as further changes took place, he recog-
nized that he was violating his attorney’s August 1981 ad-
vice to maintain a separation of functions between the sites,
and his belief that nonaccretion could be maintained, also
changed.
Following Respondent’s submission of its response and a
meeting with joint commission staff, Respondent received ac-
creditation, retroactive to 1986.
1169BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
Alley further testified that Respondent’s direction and
overall effort was to begin to standardize policies, procedures
and job descriptions so that its programs could become fully
integrated and operate similarly at both sites. Notwithstand-
ing this, and other organizational changes made at that time,
Alley and Respondent were still operating under the principle
of nonaccretion and separate units.
It is not disputed that Respondent continued this policy of
accretion avoidance for several years.
In October 1988, Alley was of the belief that at that time
Respondent was, in fact, operating a hospital at which accre-
tion had occurred, and could not successfully defend an argu-
ment by Local 144 that accretion had occurred. He discussed
these matters with Vice President for Corporate Administra-
tion Ott in early October 1988, and with finance official
Mandler prior to meeting with Local 144 on October 26,
1988. They reviewed certain changes made in the hospital’s
structure and operation and concluded that the principles of
accretion avoidance, which Alley had attempted to adhere to,
had been violated.
Accordingly, Alley told his attorney that the hospital’s op-
erations had changed substantially and were continuing to
change, and directed him to arrange a meeting with Local
144. Just prior to the meeting, Alley had decided that if
Local 144 was interested in recognition for the Caledonian
Hospital employees, then he would recognize Local 144 and
the other Brooklyn Hospital unions for the Caledonian Hos-
pital employees.
3. The recognition of the Brooklyn Hospital unions and
the application of their contracts to the Caledonian
Hospital employees
At a meeting on October 26, 1988, Alley told Local 144
representatives that he was meeting with them to discuss the
possibility of Local 144 representing the Caledonian Hospital
employees. Alley told them that there were common job de-
scriptions at both hospitals, and that he had been integrating
the payroll systems and management, and that he believed
that he could have a ‘‘businesslike’’ relationship with that
union. Alley then asked the Local 144 representatives if they
were still interested in representing the Caledonian employ-
ees, and they said they were. Alley told them that there were
certain issues that Respondent still had to consider, such as
how many employees were involved and how recognition
would affect the wages and benefits of the Caledonian em-
ployees. Alley concluded by saying that Respondent would
call them after that had been done.
Alley then met again with Ott and Mandler. Alley told
them of his meeting and asked Ott to prepare information
concerning the bargaining units involved. Alley told Ott that
any recognition accorded to the Brooklyn Hospital unions
should be corporatewide, and involve the other unions which
represented the Brooklyn Hospital units. Alley asked Ott to
look into the matter and report to him the ramifications of
corporatewide recognition, including the costs.
Corporate Human Resources Director Thomas Grosso tes-
tified that in early or mid-October 1988, Ott asked him to
find out whether the other Brooklyn Hospital unions,
NYSNA, Local 721 and Local 3, wished to represent the
Caledonian Hospital employees. He instructed Myrna
Branker to contact those unions. Thereafter, during the week
of November 7, 1988, Ott directed Grosso to tell the three
unions that he needed a letter requesting recognition. Grosso
again told Branker to contact them. Local 144’s written re-
quest for recognition was received by Respondent on No-
vember 9, 1988, and accepted on November 11. The letter
noted that since the merger of the two hospitals, their oper-
ations have increasingly become centralized, and that a
‘‘shared community of interest’’ now exists between the em-
ployees at both sites. As of November 11, a reply had not
been received from the three other unions, and on that day
Grosso phoned the three unions and requested a letter. Frank
Montemagno, the business representative for Local 3, testi-
fied that Grosso told him that the two hospitals had become
integrated and that an accretion had occurred, and asked if
Local 3 was interested in representing the Caledonian Hos-
pital engineering department employees. On that day, an oral
agreement was reached between NYSNA and Grosso that
Respondent would recognize it. The written request for rec-
ognition sent by NYSNA was received on November 15.
On October 31, 1988, Ott sent a memo to the corporate
directors of nursing, human resources, facilities & construc-
tion and safety, professional services, and operations, direct-
ing them to submit, by November 4, their written assessment
and list of initiatives to comply with the joint commission
standards for the summer 1989 inspection. Ott’s memo dis-
cussed the need for the writers to note the initiatives, ex-
pected date of implementation, and their purpose and impact
on the budget, of various items specified by the joint com-
mission in 1987. The memo stressed the importance of co-
ordination and integration of hospital services and uniformity
of performance standards and methods between the two sites,
and standardization of training, and procedures. With respect
to the human resources department, the memo stated that
‘‘common standards and practice concerning staff recruit-
ment, hiring, orientation, continuing education, and periodic
evaluation and annual health assessment must be completed
as soon as possible so that we have an implementation his-
tory to show at the point of our next [joint commission] sur-
vey. This is particularly important in light of recent revisions
to part 405 of the state hospital code. Thomas Grosso is re-
sponsible for development of a work plan which will bring
about the standardization of policy and practice in this area.’’
When asked why such a short response time was given, Ott
replied that Alley had asked him to brief him on their readi-
ness for the joint commission survey, and for his (Ott’s)
opinion on what had to be done to meet the ‘‘accretion argu-
ment’’ of the unions.
On November 14, 1988, Respondent received written re-
quests for recognition from Local 3 and Local 721. The de-
mands were accepted.
On November 14, 1988, the date conceded as the date that
Respondent recognized the Brooklyn Hospital unions for the
Caledonian Hospital employees, Grosso issued a memo to all
Caledonian Hospital employees as follows:
During the past year many of you have surely no-
ticed that the Corporation has taken extensive steps to
make the Brooklyn Hospital Division and the Caledo-
nian Hospital Division function as one unit. We have
now entered the final phases of that project.
Because of this, the various unions that represent the
employees at The Brooklyn Hospital have demanded
recognition and that the contracts at The Brooklyn Hos-
1170 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pital be applied to the corresponding employees at Cal-
edonian Hospital because, by law, the employees at
Caledonian Hospital are an accretion to the Brooklyn
Hospital bargaining units.
In light of the fact that the unions are legally correct
and inasmuch as the existence of uniform wages, hours,
and working conditions at both locations is consistent
with the Corporation’s desire to function as one hos-
pital, we have agreed to the unions’ demands.
Therefore, all Caledonian Hospital employees whose
classifications are covered by a collective bargaining
agreement at The Brooklyn Hospital are now covered
by the same collective bargaining agreement.
We will conduct special meetings beginning next
week to explain in detail what effect the application of
the existing collective bargaining agreements will have
on you.
Respondent immediately applied its collective-bargaining
agreements with the Brooklyn Hospital unions, Local 144,
NYSNA, Local 721, and Local 3, to the employees in com-
parable bargaining units at Caledonian Hospital. Although
each contract contains union-security clauses, the unions
have not sought to enforce the clauses.
At the time of recognition of the four unions, no evidence
of majority status was requested by Respondent, and none
was offered by those unions.
Local 144 represented a numerically larger number of em-
ployees at Brooklyn Hospital than employed in similar posi-
tions at Caledonian Hospital. NYSNA represented about 360
registered nurses at Brooklyn Hospital, compared with about
115 at Caledonian Hospital. Local 3 represented about 40
skilled maintenance employees at Brooklyn Hospital, com-
pared to 15 at Caledonian Hospital. Local 721 represented
about 50 licensed practical nurses at Brooklyn Hospital com-
pared with about 58 at Caledonian Hospital.
Alley conceded that at the time he decided to grant rec-
ognition to the unions, he was aware that some of the pro-
grams between the hospitals had not been fully integrated, or
that some departments did not have common supervision.
However, he knew what was being planned for the future
and what changes would occur, and his goal was that of
‘‘one master hospital’’ with staff moving back and forth, de-
pending upon workloads and changes in volume.
Thereafter, on November 23, 1988, a meeting of the hos-
pital council was held. General Counsel argues that the min-
utes of that meeting establishes that accretion had not yet oc-
curred, and that, for the first time following recognition, Re-
spondent then structured a program to support, after the fact,
its decision to recognize the Brooklyn Hospital unions.
The minutes state as follows:
Accretion Requests—The Hospital Corporation has
agreed to union demands to accrete the employees into
the same categories at the Caledonian Division. As has
been discussed before technically they have us ‘‘dead
to rights.’’ F.D. Alley has officially acquiesced to these
demands. Mr. Ott is very optimistic. Inter-use of em-
ployees in each division is to be encouraged at the rank
and file level of employees e.g. Dietary, Nursing and
Engineering. This is the time to do it. . . .
Mr. Alley, Mr. Ott, Mr. Mandler, Mr. Pucio, Ms.
Harrington, Mr. Grosso and Ms. Stoddard have been
actively pursuing new initiatives. As of Nov. 14, 1988
the same union at the TBH Division is now at the Cal-
edonian Division as the process of accretion continues.
Mr. Grosso asked Administrators to stress to Dept.
Heads that employees in all four bargaining units be
utilized at both divisions. Dept. Heads should come up
with a plan of accretion and documentation of same.
Local 144 personnel get salary increases Dec. 1, 1988.
The increases are 4%. This increase is ‘‘a matter of
law’’ and not a ploy of the corporation at this particular
time. 1199 is telling people not to join 144. Caledonian
Hospital is now a ‘‘union shop’’ and personnel are in-
formed that within 30 days of employment the person
must become a member of the union or they cannot
work at that job site. Again Mr. Ott and Mr. Grosso
stressed the importance of utilization of employees at
both hospital sites e.g. emergency coverage, float
teams, etc. The principle we must remember is ‘‘one
unit or community of interest.’’
Corporate official Ott testified that, until that Hospital
Council meeting, there was, at the level of department head,
a standing directive to avoid interdivisional use of employ-
ees, in order to avoid accretion. He further stated that, at the
level of administrator, they all were faced with the ‘‘di-
lemma’’ of trying to integrate and not integrate functions at
the same time.
4. Facts relating to the operations of the hospital—its
two sites and employees
Geographic proximity
As set forth above, the two hospital sites are about 3
miles, and a 10 minute drive from each other. Respondent’s
vans transport supplies and staff between locations when
necessary. An outside vendor, Aaron Ambulance, transports
patients between the sites, for example, when a certain test
is needed for a Caledonian Hospital patient, he will be taken
to Brooklyn Hospital for the test. Similarly, patients admitted
at Brooklyn Hospital are sometimes transferred to Caledo-
nian Hospital, and are admitted there. Admitted Caledonian
Hospital patients are also transferred to Brooklyn Hospital
and admitted there.
Similarity of skills and functions
Employees performing certain job duties at each hospital
possess the same general skills and perform their jobs simi-
larly regardless of which site they are located in. Thus, for
example, registered nurses perform their nursing duties in a
similar manner, whether at Caledonian Hospital or Brooklyn
Hospital. However, an exception exists in the engineering de-
partment, which includes the skilled maintenance employees.
Separate engineering departments are located at the two hos-
pital sites. Juergen Luebker, the corporate director of facili-
ties and construction management, testified that, overall, the
Caledonian Hospital employees have fewer trade skills than
the Brooklyn Hospital engineering employees. Whereas, the
Brooklyn Hospital engineering department employees per-
form such work as electrical, carpentry, and plumbing work
for the Brooklyn Hospital site, the same types of work, need-
ed to be performed at Caledonian Hospital, would be con-
tracted out and not performed by the Caledonian Hospital en-
1171BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
gineering employees. There are specialized tools at Brooklyn
Hospital, such as a pipe threader, welding machine and elec-
trical testing equipment, used by skilled workers. Luebker
stated that the Caledonian engineering department employees
do not possess such specialized skills.
Thomas Grosso, the corporate director of human services,
testified that he was in charge of a project, which began in
1987, pursuant to which uniform criteria based job descrip-
tions for all positions in the hospital would be prepared.
Such job descriptions state the main functions identified with
the position involved, and also state how those functions will
be evaluated in order to determine whether the individual
meets or exceeds those requirements. Grosso stated that the
project was completed by November 14, 1988, the date of
recognition of the Brooklyn Hospital unions for the Caledo-
nian employees. Respondent argues that such standardized
job descriptions are evidence of uniformity of skills and
functions between the two sites, and according to president
Alley, they provide for uniform monitoring and audit of how
specific functions and jobs are performed.
However, the current descriptions are written for the sepa-
rate positions at the two sites, describing the separate posi-
tions. The uniform criteria based job descriptions used for
the Brooklyn Hospital positions were ‘‘without question’’ the
classic criteria based job descriptions, having two columns
listing ‘‘responsibilities’’ and ‘‘performance is satisfactory
when’’ which lists acceptable actions. However, the Caledo-
nian descriptions simply list the duties and responsibilities
for the position, as for example, the positions of recovery
room registered nurse at Caledonian Hospital compared with
the critical care unit registered nurse at Brooklyn Hospital.
In this connection, the testimony of Bridget Keenan, the Cal-
edonian Hospital director of nursing, that the Caledonian
Hospital nursing department adopted, in January 1989, the
uniform criteria based job descriptions used at Brooklyn
Hospital, and that prior thereto the Caledonian Hospital job
descriptions were ‘‘separate,’’ is inconsistent with that of
Grosso, who testified that the two differently written job de-
scriptions in the nursing department, set forth above, were at
the time of the hearing the ‘‘current’’ job descriptions.
As a rule, regarding Caledonian Hospital, prior to Novem-
ber 14, 1988, the job descriptions for bargaining unit posi-
tions were prepared and signed by the supervisor or the de-
partment head of the department in which the employee is
employed, and also signed by the human resources director
for Caledonian Hospital.
In addition, the job descriptions are written by various su-
pervisors and department heads, separately, at each site, and
approved, in the case of Caledonian Hospital by William
Myhre, the manager of human resources at that site, and for
Brooklyn Hospital by Grosso or his subordinate who is em-
ployed at the Brooklyn Hospital location.
Similarity of conditions of employment
As set forth above, prior to the recognition of the Brook-
lyn Hospital unions for the Caledonian employees, the Cal-
edonian employees were not members of any labor organiza-
tion, and accordingly, their wages, hours, and other terms of
employment were set at Respondent’s discretion. On the
other hand, the Brooklyn Hospital employees were rep-
resented by the four unions involved here. Collective-bar-
gaining agreements set forth the terms and conditions of the
Brooklyn Hospital unit employees.
The wages for comparable positions at the two locations
prior to November 14, 1988 were different, although essen-
tially comparable. Caledonian Hospital employees, received
wages and benefits at the discretion of Respondent. For ex-
ample, in May 1984, Caledonian Hospital Executive Director
James Jordan announced improvements in benefits for var-
ious classifications of Caledonian employees. Such improve-
ments included increases in vacation days, increased uniform
allowances for those employees eligible to receive such an
allowance, one additional paid holiday, an increase in shift
differentials for registered nurses and licensed practical
nurses, time-and-a-half pay for legal holidays, longevity in-
creases for most technical, professional and ancillary employ-
ees, and for registered nurses, shift differential, education dif-
ferential and certification differential. Virtually all those im-
provements were in effect on November 14, 1988, the date
of recognition of the Brooklyn Hospital unions. It should be
noted that Grosso first testified that certain Caledonian Hos-
pital improvements were in effect as of November 14, 1988.
However, he later testified that they, as well as others, had
been superseded by corporate policy or practice before that
date. With reference to that, he testified that certain corporate
policies, dated February 1, 1989, were effective November
14, 1988. That testimony cannot be accepted, especially in
view of his earlier statement that the 1984 Caledonian Hos-
pital policies were in effect on November 14, 1988.
Policies concerning tuition reimbursement were different
for the two sites. Employees represented by Local 144 at
Brooklyn Hospital were not eligible for tuition reimburse-
ment. Other full-time Brooklyn Hospital employees were eli-
gible, to the extent not inconsistent with the collective-bar-
gaining agreements covering them. Caledonian Hospital em-
ployees were eligible pursuant to a policy dated June 1983.
However, Grosso testified that that policy was orally changed
in mid-1988, but could provide no details of the change or
the persons affected. It should be noted, however, that both
programs provided for 100-percent refund of tuition, al-
though the Caledonian program spreads the refund over a pe-
riod of time.
Payment for overtime was essentially the same for em-
ployees at both sites. Until late 1988, Caledonian Hospital
employees were reimbursed for all sick time up to a maxi-
mum of 120 accrued sick days upon the employee’s reaching
normal retirement age. The same policy did not apply to
Brooklyn Hospital employees, who were entitled to receive
all their unused sick time pay or part thereof upon their sepa-
ration from that hospital. Under the Brooklyn Hospital pol-
icy, some employees received 100 percent of unused sick
time.
Regarding hospitalization, pension, and retirement, of the
Brooklyn Hospital unions, only Local 3 participated in Re-
spondent’s hospital, pension and retirement plans. The other
unions did not. The Caledonian Hospital employees were
also covered, until the end of 1988, by the hospital’s own
insurance plan. Beginning in January 1989, Respondent
began contributing to the health and welfare benefit funds of
Local 144, NYSNA, and Local 721 in behalf of its employ-
ees represented by those unions. Through the end of 1988,
Respondent provided dental benefits for the Caledonian Hos-
1172 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pital employees, and their families were covered by Re-
spondent’s contribution during that time.
Respondent offers tax deferred annuity plans to employees.
As of November 14, 1988, there were five such plans offered
to employees assigned to Brooklyn Hospital, and two were
offered to Caledonian Hospital employees.
As of late 1988, Respondent provided life insurance to all
eligible employees of Caledonian Hospital equal to the
amount of their salary. Those Brooklyn Hospital employees
who participated in Respondent’s hospital plan, specifically
the employees represented by Local 3, received this life in-
surance benefit. The Brooklyn Hospital employees rep-
resented by NYSNA, Local 721 and Local 144 were not pro-
vided any hospital life insurance. Subsequent to the applica-
tion of Local 3’s Brooklyn Hospital contract to the Caledo-
nian Hospital employees, only those Caledonian Hospital em-
ployees covered by the Local 3 contract receive the hos-
pital’s life insurance benefit.
Caledonian Hospital’s policy concerning probationary peri-
ods for its employees differed from that for the Brooklyn
Hospital employees, who were covered by collective-bargain-
ing agreements. The probationary period for full-time Cal-
edonian employees was 3 months for full-time employees,
and 4 months for part-time workers.
Timeclocks were in use at Brooklyn Hospital, which the
unit employees were required to use. In contrast, Caledonian
Hospital employees’ time records were kept by their super-
visors. A timeclock was installed at Caledonian Hospital
after November 14, 1988. However, it should be noted that
the Caledonian timeclocks were ordered in the summer of
1988. Prior to May 1989, Brooklyn Hospital employees wore
uniforms with an emblem stating ‘‘Brooklyn Hospital,’’ and
Caledonian employees’ uniform emblem stated ‘‘Caledonian
Hospital.’’ Beginning in May 1989, one standard uniform
emblem was used. As of November 14, 1988, and at the time
of the hearing, it was Respondent’s policy to make separate
awards for the employee of the month and employee of the
year, to employees of Caledonian and Brooklyn Hospitals. In
December 1988, a separate Christmas party was held at Cal-
edonian Hospital for the Caledonian employees.
With respect to the nurses, during nurses recognition
week, which began in 1987 or 1988, Caledonian Hospital
nurses select the ‘‘outstanding nurses’’ for that hospital, as
to which the Brooklyn Hospital nurses have no input. Simi-
larly, Brooklyn Hospital nurses select the ‘‘outstanding
nurses’’ at Brooklyn Hospital with no input from the Caledo-
nian nurses. During nurses recognition week, speakers ad-
dress the nurses at the separate sites. The only joint activity
that week is the awards ceremony.
After November 14, 1988, when Respondent applied its
collective-bargaining agreements with the Brooklyn Hospital
unions to the Caledonian employees, the wages, benefits, and
other terms and conditions of employment as set forth in the
agreements have been identical regardless of which site the
employee is employed at. In addition, the hours of work for
the employees since that time have been the same.
Centralization of administration, managerial, and
supervisory control
As set forth above, Respondent, upon the merger, had one
board of trustees, and one president and chief executive offi-
cer. In addition, as of September 4, 1987, it had several cor-
porate directors, including a vice president for finance; the
director for corporate planning and facility development who
was responsible for the engineering function at both sites; a
corporate director of human resources; a corporate director of
materials management who oversaw the assistant directors of
materials management at both locations. Each assistant direc-
tor was responsible for different areas. For example, the as-
sistant director at Brooklyn Hospital was in charge of pur-
chasing, stores and receiving, and printing and duplication,
while the assistant director at Caledonian Hospital was re-
sponsible for central supply, purchasing, stores and receiving,
the EKG technicians, and the mailroom. The corporate direc-
tor of human services was responsible for the director of
human resources at Brooklyn Hospital, labor relations func-
tions, and the manager of human resources at Caledonian
Hospital. The corporate director of nursing services was re-
sponsible for the separate directors of nursing at the two
sites. Each had assistant directors reporting to the directors
of nursing. A corporate director of food services, Rosario
Aguirre, was appointed in August 1988.
In February 1987, a corporate director of professional
services, Wayne Keathley, was appointed. He also reports to
Vice President for Administration Ott. He is responsible
mainly for compliance and regulatory matters. He is also in
overall charge of the census management and physician serv-
ices area, medical records and concurrent review and social
work services.
In April 1988, a corporate benefits manager was ap-
pointed. Prior to that time, there were separate benefits bil-
lings for the two sites. Upon the appointment of the cor-
porate benefits manager, although there has been no change
in the actual benefits themselves, the way the benefits are
processed is the same between the two locations.
In May 1988, Nancy Stoddard was appointed as the cor-
porate director of nursing for special projects. She is in
charge of the quality assurance and infection control program
and also regulatory compliance. She is involved with the
standardization of policies and procedures in the nursing de-
partment, which became one policy in July 1988.
A corporate director of operations, Frank Goldstein, was
appointed in about February 1989. Prior to that time, there
were separate directors of operations for Brooklyn Hospital
and Caledonian Hospital. He also reports to Ott. A corporate
director of food services, Rosario Aguirre, was appointed in
August 1988.
A management council, comprised of corporate directors
such as Grosso, Keathley, Luebker, Ott, and others, was
begun in September 1987.
The management group, comprised of the department
heads of both locations, have held group meetings since June
1988. At the meetings, the individuals discuss labor relations,
finance, policy and procedure, and safety matters. Prior to
June 1988, separate meetings of the department heads were
held at each location.
Until the recognition of the Brooklyn Hospital unions for
the Caledonian Hospital unit employees, there were separate
payrolls for each site, and different starting and ending dates
for payroll periods for the two sites. But even before Novem-
ber 14, 1988, there was a biweekly payroll pay period re-
gardless of site.
Thomas Grosso became corporate director of human serv-
ices in charge of administration in June 1987. A couple of
1173BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
months before his appointment Grosso was told by David
Ott, the corporate vice president for administration, that his
position was created in order to bring about a ‘‘total integra-
tion’’ of all human resource functions. Ott sought to have all
human resource functions, such as policies and procedures,
hiring, training, orientation, job descriptions, evaluations,
time and leave records, methods of operation, integrated in
order to have the human resource area function under one
corporate ‘‘umbrella.’’ Ott told Grosso that the reason for
this change was the joint commission mandate which re-
quired the unification of methods of doing business. Grosso
later testified that he did not know if the joint commission
required one system for hiring, adding that one hiring system
was not implemented until after November 14 1988.
Grosso testified that as of November 14, 1988, William
Myhre, the director of human resources at Caledonian Hos-
pital, was his representative at that site, and he (Grosso) gave
Myhre instructions as to the performance of his duties. How-
ever, in early 1989, Myhre was assigned by Grosso to spend
more time at Brooklyn Hospital in order to ensure that the
human resources department was prepared for the reinspec-
tion by the joint commission. Charles Moore, a labor rela-
tions assistant, was therefor assigned to Caledonian Hospital,
and he spent at least 75 percent of his time there.
Grosso stated that he visited Caledonian Hospital three to
four times per week, but his visits varied. When there, he
met with department heads and supervisors, and the human
resource staff assigned there.
Regarding recruitment, all recruitment of Brooklyn Hos-
pital’s bargaining unit positions was done from the Brooklyn
Hospital human resources department, and all hiring of unit
personnel in that hospital was done by Brooklyn Hospital’s
supervisors and managers at least until the end of 1988.
Prior to November 14, 1988, the posting of available posi-
tions at Caledonian Hospital was done at Caledonian only.
Similarly, at that time, posting of vacant positions at Brook-
lyn Hospital was done at Brooklyn Hospital only.
Upon the recognition of the Brooklyn Hospital unions for
the Caledonian employees in November 1988, those bargain-
ing unit positions which were vacant were posted at both
sites simultaneously. In selecting a current employee for the
position, which for example was at Brooklyn Hospital, no
preference was given to a current Brooklyn Hospital em-
ployee over a worker who was employed at Caledonian Hos-
pital. Seniority, hospitalwide, would prevail regardless of
which site the employee involved was employed at. The se-
niority lists of both sites were combined and dovetailed after
the recognition of the Brooklyn Hospital unions for the Cal-
edonian employees. Outside advertising, however, for posi-
tions at both hospitals was done through one office even be-
fore November 1988.
New employees receive orientation and on-the-job training
concerning their job functions from their supervisor at the
site at which they are assigned. However, the corporate
human resources department briefs them on their benefits,
pay days, and use of timecards.
Grosso further testified that since January 1989, the cor-
porate human resources department recruits and screens ap-
plicants for all nonnursing positions at Brooklyn Hospital
and Caledonian Hospital. The planning for this corporate hir-
ing structure began ‘‘many months’’ before January 1989.
Once it is determined that the applicant meets the minimum
qualifications for the position, all such applications passing
the screening process are sent to the site where the vacancy
exists. Then, the supervisors and managers at Brooklyn Hos-
pital or Caledonian Hospital select the candidate. The ulti-
mate hiring decision remains with the department manager at
the particular site.
Hiring for registered nurses and licensed practices nurses
is done by the corporate nursing resources office rather than
the corporate human resources department headed by Grosso,
because the nursing resources office is more qualified to as-
sess the clinical skills of nursing applicants. Bridget Keenan,
the director of nursing at Caledonian Hospital, testified that
before January 1989, the recruiting and screening function
for Caledonian Hospital’s nurse applicants was done by Cal-
edonian Hospital nursing supervisors in cooperation with the
human resources department. As to the registered nurses and
licensed practical nurses, such hiring was done by nursing
department supervisors exclusively. After January 1989, the
recruitment of nurses has been done by corporate nurse re-
cruiter Donna Jermott who recruits nurses by advertising,
word of mouth and by means of nurses approaching the hos-
pital who have not been solicited by it. The procedure fol-
lowed once an applicant is found, is that Jermott administers
a preliminary test to the applicant and checks her credentials.
Jermott then notifies the assistant director of nursing and the
assistant nursing care coordinator in the area of the hospital
seeking the nurse, regardless of the site involved. An inter-
view is then arranged with those persons. The nursing care
coordinator and the assistant director of nursing at the par-
ticular site then makes the decision as to whether the appli-
cant should be hired.
Grosso testified that until about late December 1988, the
entire hiring process for Caledonian Hospital employees took
place at the Caledonian personnel office, and at that hos-
pital’s departments. Such process included the screening of
applicants, their interview, and decisions as to whether the
applicant should be hired. Decisions on hiring were made by
Caledonian Hospital’s supervisors and managers. Nicholas
Costello, the Caledonian personnel director until November
1987 and his successor, William Myhre, the Caledonian
manager of human resources, were responsible for the human
resource function at Caledonian Hospital. Until November
1988, Myhre spent more worktime at Caledonian Hospital
than at Brooklyn Hospital. He was responsible for signing
personnel documents for Caledonian employees, such as pay-
roll change notices. He was not responsible for signing such
forms for Brooklyn Hospital employees until November
1988. Grosso stated that Myhre has reviewed the job descrip-
tions for Caledonian employees, and has signed his approval
for such descriptions, pursuant to the authority given him by
Grosso.
Similarly, Caledonian Hospital disciplinary notices prior to
November 14, 1988, were issued by a department head at
Caledonian Hospital, and signed by Nicholas Costello, the
director of human services for Caledonian Hospital, or his
successor, William Myhre.
Grosso stated that prior to June 1987, when he became
corporate director of human services, discipline of Caledo-
nian Hospital employees was handled by the Caledonian
human resources staff, headed by Nicholas Costello, who did
not consult with Grosso or anyone else at Brooklyn Hospital
regarding disciplinary matters. However, from June 1987 to
1174 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
November 14, 1988, suspensions and discharges were subject
to the approval of the corporate office, specifically Grosso,
or his assistant, Myrna Branker. However, the Caledonian
human resources department performed the investigatory
work, and the department head made a recommendation and
discussed the matter, but it was the corporate human re-
sources department which then gave instructions as to wheth-
er, how and when to proceed. Grosso noted that the cor-
porate human resource department’s approval of such dis-
ciplinary action was not put in writing, and there is nothing
on the disciplinary form requiring express written approval
of the corporate department. In fact, the department head and
supervisor at Caledonian Hospital sign the disciplinary docu-
ment. In cases of a serious offense or when no corporate
human resource individual was available, however, the de-
partment head may take disciplinary action immediately,
pending an investigation.
Grosso noted a situation in which he overruled a depart-
ment head’s recommendation to discharge an employee who
wore a large button which obscured her identification badge.
On that occasion he spoke to the department head and Wil-
liam Myhre. In addition, in January 1988, he was advised by
Bridget Keenan, the associate director of nursing at Caledo-
nian Hospital, of an altercation between two nurses at that
site. He directed that an investigation be conducted, after
which he directed one nurse’s discharge. Grosso stated that
he was not aware of any involvement of Corporate Director
of Nursing Harrington in that matter.
Grosso stated that other then a leave of absence policy and
a policy concerning an employee’s date of termination, he
was not aware of any corporate human resources policy that
was put in writing and disseminated on or before November
14, 1988.
Grosso stated that even currently, performance evaluations
for Caledonian Hospital employees are done by the super-
visor and the department head at Caledonian, but may be re-
viewed by a higher authority. The performance evaluations
are reviewed by the human resource department when the
employee seeks a promotion or transfer. A computer selects
those employees whose evaluations are due, and requests that
evaluations be performed, and are sent to both sites. The per-
sonnel files of Caledonian employees are maintained at Cal-
edonian Hospital. Grosso further stated that the hours of
work assigned to Caledonian employees are assigned to such
workers by their supervisors or the department heads at Cal-
edonian Hospital, and their work assignments are given to
them by the department head assigned to Caledonian.
With respect to the supervision of the approximately 258
employees in the Caledonian Hospital nursing department,
Keenan testified that she has two assistant directors of nurs-
ing who report to her. Two nursing supervisors are on duty
at night. There is also one nursing care coordinator for each
of the medical-surgical units in the department. The nursing
care coordinator is in charge of all the nursing employees
working on the unit. There are also assistant nursing care co-
ordinators who work primarily at night. They direct the work
of the nursing staff on their unit, and have authority to issue
warning notices. The assistant nursing care coordinators re-
port to the nursing care coordinators. Keenan stated flatly
that the nursing employees are under the supervision of her-
self, the assistant directors of nursing, the nursing care coor-
dinators, the assistant nursing care coordinators, and the
nursing supervisors. It should be noted that she also stated
that prior to November 14, 1988, she consulted with cor-
porate director of nursing Harrington concerning warning no-
tices. However, when shown certain disciplinary notices, she
could not recall if she discussed particular notices with Har-
rington, and instead testified that when apprised by her as-
sistant director of nursing and nursing care coordinator of
misconduct by a nursing employee she (Keenan) rec-
ommended disciplinary action and relayed her recommenda-
tion to her supervisors, and Keenan then spoke to the em-
ployee. In fact, Harrington testified that discipline given to
Caledonian nursing staff is issued by Caledonian Hospital
nursing supervisors, although one incident related by Har-
rington involved a situation in January 1988, where Caledo-
nian assistant director of nursing Mitchell told her that she
(Mitchell) was recommending termination for a nurse who
assaulted her supervisor. Harrington told Mitchell to consult
with Human Resources Director Grosso. Harrington has also,
from time to time since her appointment as corporate director
of nursing, been advised of the warnings of nurses by Cal-
edonian nursing supervisors.
One particular incident involved a serious medication
error, which because of its nature was brought to the atten-
tion of the corporate quality assurance committee. However,
not all disciplinary action is brought to that committee. On
other occasions when Keenan was on vacation, Mitchell ad-
ministered a warning to an employee. In fact, written warn-
ings dated prior to November 14, 1988, bear the signatures
of the supervisor and Keenan as the department head.
Margaret Harrington, the corporate director of nursing, tes-
tified that Keenan supervises the day-to-day operations at
Caledonian Hospital. She further stated that performance
evaluations of those nurses are performed by the nursing su-
pervisors at Caledonian Hospital, and similarly, evaluations
of Brooklyn Hospital nurses are done by supervisors at
Brooklyn Hospital. Work schedules, and the hours and days
of work to be assigned to specific nurses, are determined by
the Caledonian supervisory nurses, who also grant routine re-
quests for time off for vacations and sick leave.
When additional nurses are needed for overtime, for exam-
ple, Keenan hires per diem nurses from a list in her office.
That list is maintained for Caledonian Hospital only. Brook-
lyn Hospital’s requirements for overtime help are met by its
‘‘float team’’—which consists of Brooklyn Hospital nurses
available for duty. Only when the float team has been fully
utilized, will an outside agency or per diem nurses be used
for overtime at Brooklyn Hospital.
Harrington further testified that even in January 1989, the
practice was for Keenan to handle routine disciplinary mat-
ters, including the termination of nonnursing staff. If the mat-
ter was ‘‘clear cut,’’ Harrington had no objection to Keenan
handling the situation in consultation with the personnel de-
partment. Keenan stated that she never terminated a nurse
without checking with Harrington first. Although the assist-
ant nursing care coordinator initiates a warning notice, before
that notice is issued, the nursing care coordinator, Keenan,
and Harrington, and the human resource department are in-
volved in the matter.
Joint meetings have been held among the nursing care co-
ordinator, the assistant directors of nursing and the director
of nursing since January 1988, at which common problems
1175BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
are discussed. Since 1989, weekly operations meetings have
been held with assistant directors of nursing from both sites.
Elaine Shimono was appointed the corporate director for
nursing education in January 1988. She is responsible for
planning, directing, and implementing nursing educational
programs at both sites. Such programs are the same at both
locations. She has an office at Brooklyn Hospital, but travels
to Caledonian Hospital when needed. Each site has its own
nursing instructors who teach the same classes at each site,
and also teach at the other site. Prior to November 1988, vol-
untary workshops were held for nurses dealing with such
topics as trauma, neurologically ill patients, care of AIDS pa-
tients, and documentation. Nurses at both sites attended the
workshops. In January 1989, a joint orientation for new
nurses was begun, but plans were instituted for such program
before November 1988. An in-service instructor for Caledo-
nian Hospital conducts training for Caledonian nurses, but
she is consulted if there is a problem with a Brooklyn Hos-
pital nurse. If the nursing education coordinator believes that
a Caledonian nurse, for example, is seriously deficient, she
speaks to Shimono, who speaks with the assistant director of
nursing, or with Bridget Keenan, the director of nursing for
Caledonian Hospital.
Juergen Luebker, the corporate director of facilities and
construction management, and corporate director of safety,
has held the position of corporate director of facilities and
construction management since 1983. He is in overall charge
of the engineering departments at both sites. There are sepa-
rate directors of engineering employed at the Brooklyn Hos-
pital and at the Caledonian Hospital locations, both of whom
report to Luebker. At Caledonian Hospital, two supervisors
report to the director of engineering there. They supervise the
15 employees employed there, including a plumber, elec-
tricians, maintenance men, firemen, stationery engineers, and
painter. The two supervisors, Andrew Ford and Victor
Sarkissian, assign work to the employees and have authority
to warn and reprimand the workers.
Luebker’s philosophy is that he should not intercede with
the two directors regarding their day-to-day supervision of
employees under their command. However, on rare occasions
he will supervise the employees himself, as set forth below.
Luebker stated that the day-to-day supervision of the engi-
neering department employees at Caledonian Hospital is per-
formed by director of engineering Barry Frankenstein, and
his two supervisors. Neither director of engineering is re-
sponsible for any engineering employees employed at the
other site. Frankenstein signs the performance evaluations for
the Caledonian employees, but he usually discusses them
with Luebker before he gives them to the employees. Frank-
enstein determines the break and lunch times for the workers
consistent with Luebker’s general instructions, given in 1985,
that there were too many breaks. Before November 14, 1988,
Luebker interviewed the applicants as did the director of en-
gineering at the respective site. After November 14, 1988,
the human resources department prescreens the applicant,
who is then sent to the site where a vacancy exists, for an
interview. For a vacancy at Caledonian, for example, the in-
dividual is interviewed by Frankenstein. Frankenstein makes
a recommendation which Luebker can accept or reject, with
the concurrence of the human resources department. How-
ever, Luebker has never disagreed with Frankenstein’s rec-
ommendations.
Prior to November 14, 1988, and at the time of the hear-
ing, Frankenstein schedules the hours of work of the Caledo-
nian Hospital engineering department employees, and he and
his supervisors distribute the work assignments to the various
employees in the department. The same procedure is fol-
lowed at Brooklyn Hospital where director of engineering
Tatum performs the same duties and also makes work assign-
ments to the 45 engineering department employees based
upon any priority jobs given them by Luebker.
Frankenstein initiates all the discipline imposed upon the
Caledonian engineering department employees. He issues
written warning notices to the employees under his super-
vision, but consults with the human resources department and
Luebker. However, discharge notices are issued by the per-
sonnel department. The disciplinary action notice bears the
department head’s signature—Frankenstein or Tatum.
Luebker stated that he never overruled Frankenstein as to
disciplinary action taken against Caledonian engineering em-
ployees, but later testified that he overruled Frankenstein re-
garding discipline only once, and that incident occurred in
1989. However, he has overruled Tatum. Luebker has been
consulted on each occasion prior to the issuance of a written
warning or written disciplinary action such as suspension or
termination, and in fact regarding terminations, Luebker
looks into the situation, learning the disciplinary history of
the employee, and consults with the human resources depart-
ment. But it is Frankenstein who meets with the employee
involved, not Luebker, and it is the specific director of engi-
neering who takes the action needed. Luebker overruled
Tatum when Tatum sought to immediately suspend an em-
ployee, because Luebker did not believe that proper proce-
dural steps had been taken to suspend the worker. He also
disapproved Caledonian supervisor Ford’s desire to suspend
or issue a written warning to an employee. Luebker met with
the individuals in his office and they resolved the matter be-
tween themselves.
Frankenstein determines the times for the breaks and lunch
hours. The time sheets used before the timeclocks were in-
stalled were kept by Frankenstein, who also kept the attend-
ance records. Employees at their respective sites seeking time
off request such from Frankenstein or Tatum, who decide
whether to grant the request. Overtime, in such situations as
where an engineering department employee must be called in
to replace an employee who calls in sick, is approved by
Frankenstein or Tatum as to the individual employee who
will receive the overtime work. Luebker testified that in
emergency situations, where an employee cannot report at
midnight, Frankenstein may obtain a replacement and incur
an overtime payment. However, Luebker stated that in non-
emergency cases, prior written approval for overtime must be
obtained from him. Luebker’s overall approval for overtime
is necessary because he must authorize the expenditure of
funds for the entire department.
As a rule, Luebker attempts to visit Caledonian Hospital
once every 2 weeks. He is there more frequently when con-
struction is taking place there.
Regarding cross-training, in 1989, Frankenstein and Tatum
and their supervisors were given tours of the other’s work-
place so they could become familiar with the other site in
the event of an emergency. Various pieces of equipment and
materials have been brought from one site to the other by the
1176 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engineering department employees where the materials or
equipment is located.
At the time of the hearing, the policies and procedures for
the two engineering departments are the same, except that
due to the difference in facilities, certain language in the pol-
icy documents differ.
On rare occasions, Luebker himself directed the Caledo-
nian engineering staff, when for example, he was present at
construction being done at that location, and instructed the
Caledonian carpenters as to certain renovation work. Luebker
undertook this supervision because Frankenstein was busy
with another project.
Regarding transfers between sites, Luebker testified that
the first temporary transfer occurred in March 1989, when a
Caledonian painter was sent to Brooklyn Hospital to help
with a weekend painting job. As to repairs, however, several
years ago, a Brooklyn Hospital employee fixed the Caledo-
nian ventilation system because no one at Caledonian Hos-
pital was able to do so.
The separate directors of engineering and their supervisors
meet daily with the employees under them. They have daily
contact regarding work assignments and scheduling. At the
time of the hearing, Luebker held weekly meetings with
Frankenstein, and he also meets with Frankenstein and
Tatum at least on a quarterly basis. At the weekly meetings,
they discuss performance, what problems may have occurred
in the prior week, and how to ‘‘proceed’’ in the next few
days. At the quarterly meetings, they discuss Luebker’s plan-
ning responsibilities, new policies and procedures, job de-
scriptions, construction, personnel and purchases.
Luebker has been the corporate director of safety since
1986. There exist separate reporting responsibilities from
Caledonian and Brooklyn Hospital for safety. Thus, Franken-
stein reports to Luebker’s assistant, Carol McCallum, regard-
ing Caledonian safety, and another individual reports to her
concerning Brooklyn Hospital safety. A corporate safety
committee, chaired by Luebker, meets quarterly. It is com-
prised of the Caledonian and Brooklyn Hospital safety com-
mittees.
Regarding the housekeeping department, the management
of the housekeeping services at both locations is differently
operated. At about the time of the joint commission tentative
notice of nonaccreditation, Respondent retained an outside
housekeeping service, Service Master, to manage the house-
keeping services at Caledonian Hospital. Service Master pro-
vides on-site supervisors and a department head for the Cal-
edonian housekeeping department. The Caledonian house-
keeping employees are supervised by the contractor Service
Master, whose supervisors direct their work, keep their time
records, and issue written warnings to employees. Regarding
the hire of housekeeping employees, such employees obtain
applications from the personnel department and are sent to
the director of housekeeping, a Service Master employee.
That individual interviews the applicant and a decision is
made as to his hire. Service Master personnel also have sus-
pended an employee, in the case of Gordon Ferguson, and
employee. However, such suspension was countersigned by
a human resources department official. At the time of the
hearing, Service Master continued to manage the house-
keeping function at Caledonian Hospital. In contrast, at all
times at Brooklyn Hospital, the housekeeping function was
managed by Brooklyn Hospital personnel, and not an outside
contractor.
In 1989, Brooklyn Hospital housekeeping employees per-
formed clean up work at Caledonian Hospital following ren-
ovation of a Caledonian Hospital area. This occurred on two
or three weekends.
Regarding the dietary department, Rosario Aguirre was ap-
pointed as the corporate director of food services in August
1988. She has overall responsibility for the food services at
the Brooklyn and Caledonian sites. In October 1988, Jurlean
Meadows was appointed the associate director of food serv-
ices at Caledonian Hospital. Meadows is in overall charge of
the day-to-day operations of the dietary department at Cal-
edonian, is the person to whom the supervisors report. There
are about 40 nonsupervisory food service employees, and 6
supervisors at Caledonian Hospital. Meadows schedules the
days of work for the dietary employees, and supervisor Ulla
Bishop assigns work to the dietary aides. Dietary aide Inez
Matthews testified that Meadows granted her time off, and
her work is evaluated by Bishop.
Aguirre has offices at both locations. At Caledonian, that
consists of a desk used by Meadows. She meets with Mead-
ows and the Brooklyn Hospital associate food services direc-
tor, Carmelita Alas, at least once per week. She stated that
on a daily basis, she discusses operations with them, includ-
ing purchasing, and personnel matters. Aguirre stated that
both associate directors issue disciplinary warnings after con-
sulting with her, and suspend workers after consulting with
the human resources department.
Aguirre further stated that she visits Caledonian Hospital
a couple of times per week, or more often if needed, in order
to make sure that the operation is run the same way as at
Brooklyn Hospital. While there, she speaks to the employees,
and asks them questions concerning their work. She stated
that she changed certain types of operations at Caledonian:
in August 1988, she authorized the institution of a store
room at Caledonian; she replaced certain full-time employees
with part-timers to ensure coverage which would be similar
to that at Brooklyn Hospital; she changed the hours of some
employees, so that they would begin work at 7 a.m. instead
of at 6 a.m.; she began a policy of similar menus for the two
locations, and after November 14, 1988, made the Caledo-
nian cafeteria hours the same as at Brooklyn Hospital. Prior
to that date, the hours were different.
Aguirre further stated that, regarding hiring, after an appli-
cant is screened by the human resources department, she
interviews the candidate, then checks with the associate di-
rectors, and then she hires the individual. Regarding schedul-
ing, a master schedule is written by her on a biweekly basis.
However, the associate directors may make a schedule only
after consultation with her. She also stated that she actually
schedules employees. She decides who is going to work
based upon seniority and performance. Aguirre testified that
she authorizes overtime work, but if she is not available, her
associate directors or the supervisors may authorize overtime,
and in any event, when overtime is needed, the supervisor
first checks with Meadows or the assistant director of food
services. Even when Aguirre is available, her associate direc-
tors decide which employee will work overtime, but if she
is on the site they will seek her approval to have an em-
ployee work overtime.
1177BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
Employee evaluations in the food service area are done by
the supervisor. Aguirre has the ‘‘final say’’ in signing off the
evaluation, except when she is not available.
A Caledonian Hospital dietary employee was trained at
Brooklyn Hospital for a couple of days regarding ingredient
assembly at some unknown time after Aguirre’s appointment.
A Brooklyn Hospital cook, Martinez, was trained at Caledo-
nian so that in the event that there was a shortage of staff,
he could be moved to Caledonian. That occurred after No-
vember 14, 1988. In late 1988 or early 1989, three Brooklyn
Hospital dietary helpers went to Caledonian on about two or
three occasions. In August or September 1989, two Caledo-
nian employees were assigned to the tray line at Brooklyn
Hospital for 1 day each so that they could observe its oper-
ation there.
Regarding the radiology department, Karen Buono became
the administrator for radiology services in December 1988.
However, in January 1986, she was given corporate respon-
sibility for the radiology departments at Brooklyn and Cal-
edonian Hospitals. Prior to that time, in 1984, she was re-
sponsible for Brooklyn Hospital, and upon her assumption of
responsibilities for Caledonian in 1986 she was told to keep
a ‘‘low profile’’ in Caledonian’s activities in keeping with
Respondent’s plan of accretion avoidance. However, in the
summer of 1988 she was told by corporate official Frank
Goldstein to begin to fully integrate the departments in order
to satisfy the joint commission requirements, and also in
order to contain costs. She was not given similar instructions
regarding the joint commission in 1986 when she was made
responsible for Caledonian Hospital.
Ron DeFranco, chief technologist, was hired in December
1988, and is in charge of the radiology department at Cal-
edonian Hospital. There are about 25 employees and 3 super-
visors in the radiology department at Caledonian, and about
76 employees at Brooklyn Hospital.
Buono’s office is at Brooklyn Hospital, but she visits Cal-
edonian at least once per week to sign the payroll, observe
the operations there and discuss problems and plans with
DeFranco. DeFranco also visits Brooklyn Hospital, and he
and Buono speak by phone each day. She also spoke with
DeFranco’s predecessor, Paul Sconzo, by phone each day.
She discusses staffing with him and hiring. DeFranco con-
ducts hiring interviews, and has authority to hire employees
for Caledonian Hospital. Regarding discipline, Buono stated
that DeFranco consults with her before imposing ‘‘formal’’
discipline such as verbal or written warnings. In 1989, Buono
became involved in resolving a disagreement between an em-
ployee and his supervisor, and she gave advice to a worker
who was contemplating resigning. Also, in 1989, she over-
ruled DeFranco’s imposition of suspension to an employee,
but they had together agreed to suspend the individual. Only
when a grievance was filed did Buono reverse the suspen-
sion.
Regarding hiring, consistent with the practice in other de-
partments, after the position is approved, DeFranco inter-
views and hires applicants for Caledonian Hospital only.
However, Buono has occasionally conducted the first inter-
view of prospective employees, and she reviews the resume
of the applicant and also consults with DeFranco and the
Brooklyn Hospital chief technologist to learn what occurred
during the interview.
Regarding cross-training, in December 1986, Caledonian
Hospital radiology clerk Mary Marshall went to Brooklyn
Hospital for about 1 hour on 1 day in order to view the file
system there, to which Caledonian Hospital was changing.
Prior to November 14, 1988, Brooklyn Hospital special pro-
cedures technician Apoute went to Caledonian Hospital for
1 day to teach certain techniques to the Caledonian staff.
Technicians Miller and Ortiz did the same thing in the sum-
mer of 1987, for 1 day. After November 14, 1988, Caledo-
nian Hospital employees Machin and Ott went to Brooklyn
Hospital to observe procedures, and two Caledonian medical
transcribers went to Brooklyn Hospital for 1 day. Brooklyn
Hospital stenographer Stack went to Caledonian Hospital for
1 day.
At the time of the hearing, Mary Marshall regularly trav-
eled to Brooklyn Hospital twice per week, apparently to per-
form stenography work there.
Supplies are frequently moved between the Brooklyn and
Caledonian sites, for example, when one location is in need
of a certain item. Currently, the policies and procedures and
job descriptions are the same for employees at both sites.
There is a combined quality assurance committee in the radi-
ology department. The committee, which is comprised, in
part, of employees from both sites, meet to discuss quality
assurance matters.
At the time of the hearing, there were apparently many va-
cancies at Brooklyn Hospital for technical positions, and the
supervisors at both sites communicate with each other in
order to make available for Caledonian employees overtime
or weekend work at Brooklyn Hospital.
At the time of the hearing, technicians and radiologists are
on call during the evening and weekend hours, when no
technicians or radiologists are on the premises. When they
are on call, they are expected to be available for work at ei-
ther site. Those technicians are employed at Brooklyn Hos-
pital and they cover at Caledonian when on call. It should
be noted that radiologists are not employees within any bar-
gaining unit involved herein.
Caledonian Hospital darkroom technician Leonard Wash-
ington testified that DeFranco and Supervisor Sandra Ortega,
supervise him. They schedule his work, assign work to him,
and grant overtime. Ortega evaluated his work, discussed his
performance evaluation and signed it. She also issues warn-
ing notices. Washington also testified that when Buono vis-
ited Caledonian, she spoke with him concerning radiology
matters. She has also borrowed supplies on three occasions
in 1988. Mary Marshall stated that in 1987, Supervisors
Sconzo and Ortega gave her a performance evaluation, and
that she is granted vacation leave by DeFranco, who also au-
thorizes her to do overtime work.
Regarding the laboratory or pathology department, Leslie
James was appointed corporate administrator for laboratory
services in May 1989. In that position, he is responsible for
the administrative operation of the laboratories at both sites
and their 200 employees, about 140 being bargaining unit
employees. He formulates and monitors the budgets for the
department.
Of the 200 employees, James has direct supervisory re-
sponsibility for about 25 at Brooklyn Hospital and 10 at Cal-
edonian, who consist of phlebotomists and 2 secretaries.
Louis Farrer is responsible for laboratory operations at
Caledonian. When James, who has offices at both sites but
1178 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
regularly works at Brooklyn Hospital, visited Caledonian, he
spoke with Farrer about operational problems and labor mat-
ters. He only discussed personnel matters when asked to be-
come involved, which was not a routine occurrence.
Laboratory operations at the two sites are integrated. Each
site performs procedures and tests for its patients and for pa-
tients at the other site, depending on the test required. This
is done because certain sophisticated equipment is only lo-
cated at one site, and such centralization of testing is more
cost effective. It should be noted that since the time of the
merger in 1982, such equipment was located at only one site,
but used for patients at both locations. For example, special-
ized hematology procedures and chemistry tests are done at
Brooklyn Hospital for patients at Caledonian. Electron mi-
croscopy procedures and certain immunology tests are done
at Brooklyn Hospital for Caledonian patients. Similarly, the
Caledonian laboratory performs a chemistry profile test for
Brooklyn Hospital patients. The Caledonian laboratory began
performing that test for Brooklyn Hospital patients in July
1988. As to that test, the test results, which are generated by
the Caledonian equipment, are relayed to a printer located at
Brooklyn Hospital. In late 1983, Brooklyn Hospital began
performing special chemistry tests for Caledonian patients.
The amount of tests performed increased each year, so that
by the time of the hearing, a majority of such testing was
done at Brooklyn Hospital.
In 1989, Caledonian Hospital laboratory department medi-
cal secretaries, a hematology technologist and a phlebotomist
were temporarily assigned to Brooklyn Hospital. Similarly,
Brooklyn Hospital blood drawing employees and
phlebotomists have been temporarily assigned to Caledonian
in 1989. In addition, Brooklyn Hospital technicians Johnson,
Picard and Scott were temporarily assigned to Caledonian
Hospital in 1989.
In July 1988, a Brooklyn Hospital hematology technologist
permanently transferred to the same position at Caledonian.
One year later, in July 1989, a Brooklyn Hospital supervisor
transferred to Caledonian
There is interaction between laboratory employees at both
sites. For example, the testing of specimens between sites re-
quires communication and contact regarding the delivery of
the specimens and the results of the testing. Caledonian med-
ical technologist Edward Elardo, however, testified that
specimens are transported by the messenger service located
at Brooklyn Hospital, and not by the laboratory employees.
If equipment breaks down at one site, the employees at the
other location may be called on to ‘‘troubleshoot’’ the ma-
chinery by phone. Equipment, supplies, and blood are shared
between the sites, as needed.
James testified that the policies and procedures between
both sites has been the same since before 1988.
Regarding labor relations matters in the laboratory depart-
ment, James testified that whenever a disciplinary matter
arises, the supervisor from that area discusses the situation
with him. James stated that he does independent investiga-
tions concerning the alleged offense: he asks for documenta-
tion of the wrongdoing, for example, asks to see timecards
if the employee has been chronically late; if a test was im-
properly done he will obtain the result from the nurse or lab-
oratory. Both he and the supervisor then both determine the
appropriate action to be taken. James asks the supervisor for
a recommendation. If he believes that the supervisor’s rec-
ommendation is inappropriate, he discusses it with the super-
visor, and has the ‘‘final say’’ as to the measure of dis-
cipline. The supervisor issues a verbal or written warning,
while a suspension or termination is handled by James’ of-
fice, in consultation with the human resources department.
The supervisors at the two locations complete performance
evaluations for the employees employed at that location, and
they schedule the employees’ work, overtime and vacations.
Regarding hiring, all applications for the laboratory depart-
ments at both sites are sent to James for screening. He then
gives the applications to the respective director or supervisor
for the conduct of an interview. If the employee is hired,
James schedules a preemployment physical examination and
tells the new employee his salary. He usually checks ref-
erences of the new hire but where the employee is known
to the director or supervisor, they will contact the references.
James is involved with scheduling of employees only if a
supervisor tells him of a problem in scheduling. He leaves
the scheduling of overtime to the discretion of the first line
supervisor. If overtime becomes excessive he has spoken to
the director about that matter.
Timecards are separately reviewed and initialed by the em-
ployee’s supervisor.
Notwithstanding that a corporate director of finance has
been employed at Respondent since the merger in 1982, the
day-to-day operation of the finance function has been sepa-
rated by location. Thus, the payroll operation, which is part
of the finance department, has its own employees employed
at Caledonian Hospital. Natalie Fowler, the payroll super-
visor for Caledonian, has two payroll clerks who report to
her. They perform Caledonian payroll work. Fowler reports
to the corporate controller. Since 1987, the separate assistant
controllers for each site were replaced by one assistant for
both locations. There are also seven patient accounts employ-
ees at Caledonian Hospital. Their immediate supervisor
works at the Brooklyn Hospital site, and they have been re-
porting to her since about August 1986. However, even prior
to that time, the Caledonian patient accounts area has been
supervised by personnel at the Brooklyn Hospital site.
Fowler receives payroll information, usually in the form of
timecards setting forth the amounts needed to compute the
payroll from the Caledonian departments. The department
heads or supervisors at Caledonian send the completed time-
cards to Fowler. The employees’ data is fed into a computer
terminal at Caledonian Hospital which is connected to the
mainframe computer located at Brooklyn Hospital. After the
data is relayed, Fowler notifies the data processing depart-
ment at Brooklyn Hospital and tells them to run the payroll.
The paychecks have been generated at Brooklyn Hospital
since 1982.
The Caledonian payroll, which is separate from the Brook-
lyn Hospital payroll, has been printed at Brooklyn Hospital
since 1982. The patient accounts employees’ timecards and
the Caledonian managers’ timecards are approved by cor-
porate officials located at Brooklyn Hospital.
Wayne Keathley was appointed corporate director of pro-
fessional services in February 1987. He stated that his ap-
pointment was directly related to the joint commission letter
of tentative nonaccreditation received by Respondent. He is
responsible for several departments, including admitting,
quality assurance, medical records, social work services, uti-
lization review, and discharge planning. Keathley stated,
1179BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
however, that the joint commission did not require that a uni-
form medical records plan or a uniform admitting procedure
be established.
Since the merger, there have been separate staffs at the
Brooklyn Hospital and Caledonian Hospital locations in the
departments of admitting, medical records, utilization review
discharge planning, and social work.
Barbara Just, the director of census management, reports
to Keathley. Just’s office is at Brooklyn Hospital, but she
visits Caledonian Hospital. There are separate admitting of-
fices at Brooklyn Hospital and Caledonian Hospital. As of
the time of Keathley’s appointment, Pat Reilly, the director
of admitting at Caledonian Hospital, is responsible to ensure
that the admitting staff at Caledonian implements department
policy. Brooklyn Hospital also has a director of admitting.
There are separate admitting staffs at each location. Keathley
stated that Reilly consults with Just concerning personnel de-
cisions, and in consultation with Just, hires and evaluates the
Caledonian admitting employees, and also schedules their
hours and overtime. However, Keathley admitted not having
first-hand knowledge of such consultation. His information
comes only from Just. A written warning to Sharon Hall in
September 1988, and a performance evaluation for Jean
Burke in December 1988, both bear the signatures of Reilly,
and no other supervisors or corporate officials.
Keathley has seen cross-training exercises conducted by
Just and Reilly and Brooklyn Hospital director of admitting
Kelman for the admitting staffs of both locations. Generally,
the retrieval and assembly of Caledonian patient records are
the responsibility of Caledonian medical records personnel,
but in late 1988, and several times up until the time of the
hearing, Brooklyn Hospital medical records employees have
retrieved and prepared Caledonian patient records at Caledo-
nian Hospital for the purpose of high profile reviews and
presentations.
Errico, the emergency room admitting coordinator, a non-
bargaining unit position, has authorized the admission to Cal-
edonian Hospital, of emergency room patients who present
themselves at the Brooklyn Hospital emergency room, and
the reverse.
The admitting staff at each location uses the same admis-
sion form and uses a single corporatewide computer system
which processes the patient admission information. The main
computer is located at Brooklyn Hospital, but computer ter-
minals are located at Caledonian Hospital, which the admit-
ting registrars use to enter information concerning the new
patient. There is communication between the admitting reg-
istrars at both sites concerning the location of a patient.
Regarding the medical records department, Keathley stated
that the corporate director of medical records is Harry Gibbs.
Gibbs is currently responsible for hiring and firing in that de-
partment, and consults with Keathley on cases of discharge.
Caledonian Hospital’s assistant director of medical records
prior to November 14, 1988, Pamela Vaughan, and then
Martha Miles, were responsible for the day-to-day super-
vision of the medical records staff, including the assignment
of work. Miles kept the attendance records of the Caledonian
staff, and scheduled the staff in consultation with Vaughan.
Corrine Blake, the current assistant director, is also respon-
sible for the day-to-day operation of the department. Between
February 1987 and November 14, 1988, Liguina Reimers, the
Brooklyn Hospital director of medical records, was given
certain corporatewide responsibility for medical records.
Medical records policies, procedures and work rules were es-
tablished by Reimers, and then revised in 1987 with the cre-
ation of the professional services division. As such, accord-
ing to Keathley, she hired the Caledonian Hospital medical
records staff during 1988, and was involved with Miles’
scheduling of the staff. This, again, was what she told
Keathley. He did not see any of the hiring interviews, nor
could he recall the names of the involved applicants. It
should be noted that employee Larry Whyte transferred from
the central supply department to medical records in October
1988, and was accepted for transfer by Miles. In April 1989,
his performance evaluation was signed by Miles.
The medical records department policy and procedures
manual, which is applicable to both sites, was developed
shortly after the creation of the professional services division
in February 1987.
Keathley stated that the budget for the medical records de-
partment, which is larger for Brooklyn Hospital than it is for
Caledonian, is treated in a flexible manner. If the Brooklyn
Hospital’s budget is overdrawn, he ‘‘overdraws’’ from that
account and covers it with the Caledonian budget. The im-
portant factor is that the department, as a whole, is within
its budget.
The utilization review and discharge planning department
is involved with the periodic review of patients in order to
determine whether they are still in need of hospitalization,
and the determination of what services the patient will need
upon discharge.
Keathley stated that this department is integrated through
the use of standardized forms, cross-training of staff, and the
use of supervisors and department heads to implement one
plan and one standard for the entire hospital. The department
has been headed, since, December 1988, by Dorothy Mon-
tague, the director of concurrent review and social work
services. Martha Chambers, who reports to Montague, is the
director of utilization review and discharge planning at both
sites. Chambers’ assistant director is also responsible for both
sites. Chambers is responsible for routine human resources
matters, including recruiting, hiring, and promotions.
Keathley exercises ‘‘final review and veto power’’ over dis-
charges. Keathley related a situation in which a Caledonian
social worker was ‘‘monitored’’ by Montague, who advised
Keathley of the matter. However, Deborah Motollo, who
began work at about the time of the hearing, is responsible
for the day-to-day supervision of utilization review and dis-
charge planning at Caledonian Hospital. She is assigned pre-
dominantly to Caledonian.
Prior to Keathley’s corporate appointment in February
1987, Aileen Corbie, the assistant director of utilization re-
view, supervised the utilization review and discharge plan-
ning function at Caledonian Hospital, and served in that
function until her retirement in early 1989. Corbie reported
to Arthur Blutstein, the associate director of Caledonian. She
was responsible for the day-to-day supervision of employees
in that department, including the daily work assignments of
the Caledonian utilization review and discharge planning em-
ployees.
The corporate quality assurance department, created in
February 1987, has an office which is located at Brooklyn
Hospital. At that time, a quality assurance committee was
also established which is responsible for the quality assur-
1180 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ance program. The committee is a committee of the board
of trustees. It is charged by a member of the board. One-half
the membership of the committee consists of trustees. Other
members include President Alley, physicians, and others.
The function of the quality assurance program is to estab-
lish, measure and enforce a single standard of care for the
entire hospital. Each department in the hospital has its own
quality assurance subcommittee, comprised of individuals
from both sites. Each departmental subcommittee meets peri-
odically to review and create its own standards, and submits
a report to the quality assurance committee.
Regarding the social services department, Montague, who
was appointed the corporate director of social services in
September 1987, developed screening criteria for the social
services staff to be used at both sites. These criteria, which
are applied to every admission, contain information about the
patient for use by the social services department. Until about
September 1987, there was a separate associate director of
social work at Caledonian Hospital, but in that month she
was demoted to supervisor. Nevertheless, as supervisor of so-
cial work staff at Caledonian, she is in charge of the staff
there and reports to Montague. There is a separate associate
director of social work at Brooklyn Hospital, who also re-
ports to Montague. At about the time of the hearing, due to
unexpected resignations at Caledonian Hospital, Montague
reassigned two Brooklyn Hospital social workers to Caledo-
nian, and had social workers at Brooklyn Hospital work with
those at Caledonian.
Regarding the respiratory therapy department, Stephen
Schuh became the corporate director of respiratory care in
July 1989. Schuh, who has offices at both locations, has an
assistant, Elaine Terdoslavich, who reports to him concerning
Caledonian Hospital. Terdoslavich makes work assignments
to and schedules the Caledonian staff on a day-to-day basis,
and maintains the time records for that staff, as does Schuh’s
assistant at Brooklyn Hospital. However, Schuh is shown the
schedule on a monthly basis, and he ‘‘oversees’’ the schedul-
ing. In situations where employees have the same day off,
Schuh will become involved in resolving the matter.
Terdoslavich helps him make the decision, and applies the
seniority principle.
Schuh’s two supervisors speak with him concerning dis-
ciplinary measures they are contemplating, and make a rec-
ommendation, but he has the final say. However, in the three
instances of verbal warnings, Schuh followed Terdoslavich’s
recommendation for verbal warnings, which were adminis-
tered by Terdoslavich. Regarding interviews of applicants,
the assistant director at the respective site interviews the ap-
plicant and make recommendations to him. Schuh also inter-
views the candidate and makes the final decision.
Work on a common policy and procedure manual for
Brooklyn Hospital and Caledonian Hospital was begun in
late 1988 when Schuh was director of respiratory care at
Brooklyn Hospital. He meets with the Caledonian assistant
about twice per week, and discuss matters of concern to the
department. Schuh also meets with the employees at both
sites. There have been occasions, about five to six times, in
6 months beginning in July 1989, when employees from one
site worked overtime at the other site in order to cover for
absences.
There have been transfers in the respiratory therapy de-
partment. Tadbiri, a Caledonian unit employee permanently
transferred to Brooklyn Hospital in 1980. Supervisor Ansbro
permanently transferred to Brooklyn Hospital as a staff mem-
ber.
Each employee employed at the two sites went to the other
location in April 1989 for 2 days for training. When needed,
patient supplies are transferred between locations.
Frank Goldstein, the director of operations for Brooklyn
Hospital in September 1987, became the acting director of
operations for Caledonian Hospital in September 1988, and
the corporate director of operations in February 1989.
In June 1989, Richard Mo-Ed was hired as the director of
operations for Caledonian Hospital.
During his tenure as acting director of operations for Cal-
edonian, Goldstein was responsible for various departments.
A stipulation was received, and there was testimony by
Goldstein that, as of November 14, 1988, there were separate
directors for each site in the communications department,
physical therapy department, respiratory therapy department,
pharmacy department, and separate supervisors in the central
supply department for each site, separate divisional super-
visors at the first line supervisor level at each site in the pur-
chasing, storeroom and mail room, and separate divisional
supervisors, who were immediate supervisors of the employ-
ees in the professional services departments which included
admitting, medical records, utilization review and discharge
planning, and social services.
Goldstein testified that the integration of the separate phar-
macy departments was begun in November 1987, when it
was decided that a single corporate formulary, a listing of all
the drugs in the hospital, should be instituted. This system,
which replaced the separate formularies in use by the two
sites prior to that time, was completed in early 1988. At the
same time, an emergency drug code listing was unified.
In about April 1989, a director of EKG services for both
sites was appointed who is responsible for the supervision of
all technical and clerical EKG staff persons.
There is an employees activity committee comprised of
separate committees for the two sites. The committee under-
takes activities to raise money for the needy. At the time of
the hearing, the committees held joint meetings.
Prior to the recognition on November 14, 1988, all annual
physical examinations for Caledonian employees were per-
formed at the Caledonian clinic. Similarly, Brooklyn Hospital
employees’ examinations were done at Brooklyn Hospital.
Transfers of employees
Corporate Human Resource Director Thomas Grosso stat-
ed that prior to November 14, 1988, there was no written
policy concerning permanent or temporary transfers between
Brooklyn Hospital and Caledonian Hospital. As noted above,
as of that date, the posting of jobs which were available at
a particular site was done at that location only.
Regarding transfers of personnel between sites, the follow-
ing bargaining unit employees transferred between sites:
Rose Marie Heron, a laboratory technologist, transferred
from Brooklyn Hospital to Caledonian Hospital in July 1988.
Martin Ansbro, and Mohammed Tadbiri, respiratory thera-
pists at Caledonian, transferred to the same titles at Brooklyn
Hospital in July 1987 and September 1988, respectively. In
October 1987, Caledonian Hospital staff registered nurse
Kathleen Quirke transferred to Brooklyn Hospital to the
1181BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
nonbargaining unit position of associate nursing care coordi-
nator.
Caledonian Hospital Director of Nursing Keenan testified
that she knew of no temporary transfer of Brooklyn Hospital
bargaining unit nurses to the Caledonian Hospital staff, or of
Caledonian staff nurses working at Brooklyn Hospital.
Keenan further stated that in mid-1989, Victoria Santos, a
Caledonian Hospital operating room registrar, transferred to
a secretarial position at Brooklyn Hospital. At the same time,
about four to five nonsupervisory registered nurses were sent,
at Corporate Director of Nursing Harrington’s request, from
Caledonian Hospital to the Brooklyn Hospital emergency
room, delivery room and operating rooms, where they
worked for 1 day because of the shortage of nurses at Brook-
lyn Hospital.
In the summer of 1989, Lydia Phang, an emergency room
registrar transferred to the health management center in the
same position, and nurse Braithwaite permanently transferred
from Brooklyn Hospital to Caledonian.
Goldstein testified that he was not aware of any inter-
change of nonsupervisory employees between sites as of No-
vember 14, 1988, in the following departments: communica-
tions; pharmacy; radiology; dietary; central supply; EKG de-
partment; purchasing, storeroom and mailroom; building
services; and laundry department;
The following nonbargaining unit personnel transferred be-
tween sites: Nancy Stoddard, the assistant director of nursing
at Caledonian Hospital, transferred to the same title at
Brooklyn Hospital in about May 1987. Brooklyn Hospital su-
pervisor, Jurlean Meadows, transferred to a management po-
sition at Caledonian Hospital in October 1988. In February
1989, Kathleen Kerrigan, a supervisory nurse at Caledonian
Hospital, transferred to a nonbargaining unit position in in-
fection control at Brooklyn Hospital in February 1989.
Goldstein testified that he was aware of a food service em-
ployee who transferred in the food service department from
one site to the other as of November 14, 1988.
Special concerns relating to the hospital industry
Grosso testified that, from a human resources perspective,
there were business reasons for having one union at both
sites which represents employees having the same, or similar
job classifications. He stated that it was easier to administer
the human resources function with one union, which would
require less human resources staff, less financial burden,
easier implementation of policies, and no ‘‘jurisdictional’’
issues, which might arise between two unions.
5. Postrecognition assistance to the Unions
The complaint also alleged that Respondent violated the
Act by permitting Local 144 and Local 3 to meet with Cal-
edonian Hospital employees on Caledonian property during
worktime for the purpose of soliciting them to join those
unions, and to authorize the deduction of moneys from their
wages on behalf of the unions, and for other union business;
and by permitting NYSNA to meet with Caledonian employ-
ees during worktimes, for the purpose of conducting a ratifi-
cation vote with respect to a supplemental collective-bargain-
ing agreement, and for other union business. Finally, the
complaint alleges that Sandra Ortega threatened Caledonian
employees with discharge if they refused to join Local 144.
On November 28, 1988, Sandra Ortega, a supervisor in the
radiology department told Mary Marshall, a Caledonian Hos-
pital radiology clerk, that Local 144 was having a meeting
in the hospital, and that she could attend the 10 a.m. meet-
ing. At the meeting, Marshall observed other employees
there. She attended from about 10:15 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.
during her working hours, for which she was paid.
Marshall testified that following the meeting, Ortega told
her that ‘‘they’’ are saying, apparently referring to Local
144, that Marshall would be discharged within days if she
did not sign a card for Local 144. Ortega also told Marshall
that there was nothing she [Ortega] could do as her hands
were ‘‘tied.’’ Ortega added that Marshall should have a
choice in deciding whether to join or not join the union. Or-
tega did not testify.
In January 1989, Ortega told Marshall that a Local 144
meeting was being held and asked who wanted to attend.
Marshall volunteered, and attended for 5 minutes, for which
she was not docked any pay.
Renee Valazquez, a Local 144 business agent, conducted
a union meeting on May 18, 1989, at Caledonian Hospital,
from 10:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Valazquez was told she could
have the room she occupied by hospital officials Charles
Moore and Myrna Branker. She stated that each employee
who attended the meeting was on a break at the time of the
meeting, but that some employees stayed during most of the
3-1/2 hour meeting.
Leonard Washington, a Caledonian darkroom technician,
testified that in May 1989, his supervisor, Sandra Ortega,
told him and Mary Marshall, a clerk in the radiology depart-
ment, that Local 144 was having a meeting, and that they
were permitted to attend. Marshall testified that she asked
Ortega if she could go to the meeting, and Ortega replied
that she was not stopping her from going. Marshall was
present at the meeting, which was held during working time,
for 1 hour, and she received her regular pay. Washington
also was not on a break, and he was paid for the time during
which he attended the meeting.
Frank Montemagno, a Local 3 business representative, tes-
tified that Respondent official Grosso gave him permission to
meet with Caledonian employees at that location. On Decem-
ber 14, 1988, Montemagno met with about 12 to 14 engi-
neering department employees for 1 hour in the morning.
Caledonian Hospital Director of Engineering Frankenstein
was called by Luebker some time after November 1988 and
was asked by him to make a room available to a representa-
tive of Local 3. Subsequently, that union agent met with sev-
eral of the engineering department’s employees during the
day shift, not during a break. No one was docked any pay
for their attendance at that meeting.
Elise Conway, a representative of NYSNA, stated that Re-
spondent official William Myhre helped her make arrange-
ments to meet with the Caledonian Hospital nurses. Meetings
were held on November 29, 1988, with the registered nurses
from 7 to 9 a.m. and from 2 to 5 p.m. Conway stated that
the nurses usually come to the meetings when they take their
breaks.
1182 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Analysis and Discussion
The Evidence Received
At the outset of the hearing, in ruling on a motion to re-
voke a subpoena, I ruled, over the objections of General
Counsel and the Charging Parties, that I would receive evi-
dence of postrecognition events. During the hearing, evi-
dence of postrecognition activities offered by the parties was
received in evidence.
The Board has recently held, affirming a longstanding con-
cept, that ‘‘the issue of whether a group of employees con-
stituted an accretion to an existing bargaining unit ‘must be
determined on the facts that existed on the date of the
union’s demand.’’’ GHR Energy Corp., 294 NLRB 1011,
1052 fn. 37 (1989); Gould, Inc., 263 NLRB 442, 446 (1982).
Respondent urges that in deciding whether an accretion
occurred, postrecognition evidence must be considered. The
cases cited by Respondent, King Radio Corp., 257 NLRB
521, 525 (1981); Arundel Corp., 252 NLRB 397, 401 fn. 13
(1980); Coinmeco, Inc., 200 NLRB 294, 299 (1972), all in-
volved situations where the judge received evidence concern-
ing facts relating to postrecognition events. However, the de-
cisions did not turn upon those facts, there was no discussion
by the Board of their relevance, and it appears that those
facts were not necessary to the decision reached.
On the other hand, in Gould, the Board has specifically
addressed this issue. Accordingly, although the recitation of
the facts herein has included postrecognition evidence, my
analysis relies upon the facts which existed on the date of
the recognition of the unions, November 14, 1988.
Respondent urges that even though postrecognition events
may not be relevant, evidence should be considered as to
such postrecognition events as to which prerecognition plans
had been made, but not implemented until after recognition.
I have considered them on a case-by-case basis.
The accretion principles
An accretion is the ‘‘incorporation of employees into an
already existing larger unit when such a community of inter-
est exists among the entire group that the additional employ-
ees have no separate unit identity. Thus, they are properly
governed by the larger group’s choice of bargaining rep-
resentative.’’ Reliable Trailer & Body, 295 NLRB 1013
(1989), quoting NLRB v. Security Columbian Banknote Co.,
541 F.2d 135, 140 (3d Cir. 1976);
Essentially, the doctrine is designed to preserve indus-
trial stability by allowing adjustments in bargaining
units to conform to new industrial conditions without
requiring an adversary election every time new jobs are
created or other alterations in industrial routine are
made. NLRB v. Stevens Ford, Inc., 773 F.2d 468, 473
(2d Cir. 1985).
The Board has followed a restrictive policy in find-
ing accretion because it forecloses the employees’ basic
right to select their bargaining representative. . . .
The Board will not, under the guise of accretion,
compel a group of employees, who may constitute a
separate appropriate unit, to be included in an overall
unit without allowing those employees the opportunity
of expressing their preference in a secret election.
Towne Ford Sales, 270 NLRB 311 (1984).
See also Kaynard v. Mego Corp., 633 F.2d 1026, 1030 (2d
Cir. 1980), where the court stated that ‘‘the Board has tradi-
tionally been reluctant to find an accretion, even where the
resulting unit would be appropriate, in those cases where a
smaller unit, consisting solely of the accreted unit, would
also be appropriate and the Section 7 rights of the accreted
employees would be better preserved by denying the accre-
tion.’’
The criteria used to determine whether employees
should be accreted into an existing bargaining unit
without an election include . . . geographic proximity,
similarity of skills and functions, similarity of condi-
tions of employment, centralization of the employer’s
administration, managerial and supervisory control,
interchange between the employees, functional integra-
tion of the employer, and bargaining history. Stevens
Ford, supra at 473.
A ‘‘balancing’’ of the elements bearing on a finding of ac-
cretion must be made because, in the same case, some ele-
ments favor such a finding, and others do not. Gould, Inc.,
supra at 445.
As in accretion cases generally, there are factors favoring
accretion, and factors indicating that accretion is not appro-
priate.
Those factors favoring accretion include the governing
structure of the hospital as a whole. With respect to the evi-
dence at the time of the recognition, November 14, 1988,
Respondent was one corporate organization, having one
board of trustees, one president and chief executive officer,
and was accredited and licensed as one institution.
At the time of recognition, Respondent had a governing
body in overall charge of both sites, including a vice presi-
dent for finance, vice president for information systems, a
single medical chairperson for each clinical department, a
corporate director of human resources, a corporate director of
professional services, a corporate director of facilities and
construction management, a corporate director of nursing, a
corporate director of nursing for special projects, a corporate
director for nursing education, and a corporate director of
food services.
As to its operation, at the time of recognition, its attending
physicians admit patients to both locations, its residents ro-
tate between the institutions, and its patients move readily
from one site to another if they are in need of specialized
testing available at one site or the other. Patients may be ad-
mitted to one site, but transferred to the other site if they are
in need of specialized services or treatment provided only by
the other site. Thirty to forty patients per day are transferred
between sites for such services. As set forth above, Brooklyn
Hospital and not Caledonian provides such important and
widely used services as labor and delivery, CAT scan, car-
diac catheterization, and certain intensive care care services.
The medical records of the patients also moved readily be-
tween sites. Specialized laboratory testing has been divided
between the two sites, with certain types of tests being per-
formed at one site for patients at the other site. The speci-
mens and reports as to the findings of tests made on them
1183BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
move between sites, and the test results are noted on pa-
tients’ charts.
Thus, Respondent, at the time of recognition, had a func-
tionally integrated operation. From the perspective of the
needs of the patient and the availability of patient care, serv-
ices, and treatment, the two sites operated as one. Decisions
as to testing, treatment and care were thus made without re-
gard to which location the patient happened to be admitted
to. Respondent had single department directors for each clini-
cal department, and rotations of residents between sites. De-
cisions as to medical care for the patient were made without
regard to site, and once a decision was made as to testing,
procedures to be performed on the patient, and a treatment
plan, a hospitalwide determination was implemented—utiliz-
ing whatever resources were needed, and wherever found, to
obtain the best possible result for the patient.
General Counsel argues that certain of the above facts,
particularly the integration of the two facilities upon the
merger as illustrated by the single board of trustees, the
merger of the medical staffs, and the appointment of certain
corporate officials and the treatment of patients and testing
at both sites, should not be given much weight because they
occurred at about the time of the merger, or shortly there-
after, and therefore did not result from some change in cir-
cumstances creating an accretion. General Counsel points to
the fact that notwithstanding this integration, Respondent un-
dertook a policy of accretion avoidance thereafter, and until
its recognition of the Brooklyn Hospital unions. Mercywood
Health Building, 287 NLRB 1114, 1115 (1988).
However, inasmuch as Respondent’s operation, as a whole,
is viewed at the time of the recognition, these factors must
also be considered and given the weight to which they are
entitled regardless of the events thereafter. Accordingly, I
find that there is a great amount of functional integration be-
tween the Brooklyn Hospital and Caledonian Hospital loca-
tions.
The geographical separation of the two locations, only 3
miles and a 10-minute drive apart, does not disfavor accre-
tion, when one considers the relatively short distance apart,
notwithstanding the congested nature of Brooklyn’s streets,
since a shuttle van operates at regular intervals between the
locations. In addition, patients are moved by a common am-
bulance service between the two sites. Montefiore Hospital
Center, 261 NLRB 569, 574 (1982). However, the separation
of the two facilities, taken together with the separate treat-
ment of the Caledonian employees in terms of supervision,
and historical nonunion status, are factors which tend to
favor a finding of nonaccretion.
However, I do not believe that the record factors favoring
accretion are sufficient to overcome the factors disfavoring
accretion. When viewed with respect to the operation of the
hospital as it affects the Caledonian employees, it is clear
that the Caledonian employees possess a separate identity
from that of the Brooklyn Hospital employees.
I reach this conclusion based on the facts, and pursuant to
the long-held policy that a finding of accretion, imposing a
union on employees that they have not selected, and fore-
closing such employees from their right to choose a labor or-
ganization of their own choosing, is restrictively applied.
Respondent pursued a policy of accretion avoidance from
the time of the merger until virtually the time of recognition
of the Brooklyn Hospital unions. The actions it took after re-
ceiving the letter of tentative nonaccreditation from the joint
commission, were, for the most part, changes which resulted
in centralization of the corporate hierarchy, which did not af-
fect the day-to-day activities of the employees. Indeed, Re-
spondent’s policy concerning accretion avoidance continued
in full force until about the time of recognition of the Brook-
lyn Hospital unions for the Caledonian employees. Its in-
structions to its supervisory hierarchy, cautioning against cre-
ating circumstances fostering accretion, also continued until
about the time of recognition.
As of November 14, 1988, the date of recognition of the
Brooklyn Hospital unions, the Caledonian Hospital, as to its
day-to-day operation concerning its employees, had its own
supervisory structure and identity. Until the time of recogni-
tion, the entire hiring process, including the screening, inter-
view and decisions as to hire, was done at Caledonian Hos-
pital. Such interviews were conducted by that location’s de-
partment heads, and decisions as to the hire of candidates
was made by Caledonian Hospital’s supervisors and person-
nel department located at that site.
The day-to-day supervision of employees, including as-
signment of work, work schedules, assignment of days off
for vacations, and time off for breaks and leave, were made
by supervisors. The personnel records of the employees were
kept at Caledonian Hospital, and the supervisors kept the
time sheets and attendance records of the employees under
their command.
Performance evaluations were done by supervisors and de-
partment heads and signed by them.
Discipline of employees, such as warnings and reprimands
were done by Caledonian supervisors and department heads.
Although severe discipline such as suspensions and dis-
charges were made in consultation with the corporate human
resources department, the supervisor or department head who
was familiar with the situation investigated the incident,
made a recommendation to the corporate human resources
department, and initiated the discipline.
Although there were visits by corporate heads of depart-
ments, and communications by them with the Caledonian site
department heads and supervisors, such discussions con-
cerned policy matters. Although there was evidence that
labor relations matters were discussed at such times, the im-
plementation, on a day-to-day basis, of such policies, was
done at Caledonian Hospital by the supervisors in charge.
In addition, posting of job vacancies was done by site.
Also, at that time, the wages, hours, and benefits of the un-
represented Caledonian employees were different than the
Brooklyn Hospital employees, who were represented by labor
organizations.
At the time of recognition, there was very little inter-
change or transfer of employees between the sites. Such
interchange as occurred, was sporadic and occurred for a
very brief period of time. Although there was contact be-
tween certain classifications of employees, where, for exam-
ple, a patient was transferred from one site to another and
the nurses sought information not contained on the patient’s
chart, or where test results were transmitted to the nurses for
inclusion in the chart, such contact is not sufficient to sup-
port a finding that Caledonian Hospital’s employees shared
a community of interest with the employees of Brooklyn
Hospital.
1184 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Here, the evidence establishes that, at the time of recogni-
tion, the Caledonian employees have not lost their separate
identity. They performed essentially the same functions they
had performed since the merger of the two hospitals, and al-
though certain corporate functions were instituted leading to
centralization of managerial activities, their terms and condi-
tions of employment were different, supervision remained es-
sentially the same, being performed by Caledonian super-
visors, and there was very minimal interchange of such em-
ployees with Brooklyn Hospital’s employees. Reliable Trail-
er & Body, 295 NLRB 1013 (1989).
Although Respondent’s structure became more centralized
with the appointment of corporate officers and other changes
effected after the merger, nevertheless the supervisors ‘‘have
considerable autonomy with respect to the day-to-day oper-
ations . . . .’’ Save Mart of Modesto, 293 NLRB 1190, 1193
(1989).
Respondent asserts that changes occurred as a result of the
joint commission’s letter in 1986. Some changes did occur,
but they did not affect the day-to-day activities of the em-
ployees, and did not cause those employees to lose their sep-
arate identity.
When viewed in a most basic light, Respondent sought to
control which union, if any, the Caledonian employees se-
lected. At the time of the merger, in 1982, Respondent un-
dertook a policy of attempting to avoid a finding of accretion
of the Caledonian employees to the Brooklyn Hospital units,
by instructing its supervisors in maintaining a separation of
the two units in order to preserve its nonunion status—to
honor the rights of employees to select a union of their
choice, and also to have a nonunion facility in the event of
a labor dispute at Brooklyn Hospital. Six years later, it solic-
ited the Brooklyn Hospital unions and recognized them for
the Caledonian employees, 2 years after the joint commission
letter. These actions by Respondent, particularly the precipi-
tous recognition of the unions after a long-term policy of ac-
cretion avoidance, flies in the face of the important principle
of freedom of choice that must be accorded to employees to
decide their own choice of representative.
It must be noted that this is not the typical accretion situa-
tion, where new employees are immediately added to an ex-
isting unit as a result of a consolidation of operations or a
purchase of a business. Rather, the Caledonian Hospital em-
ployees have been a part of Respondent’s facility for 6 years,
prior to their attempted accretion to the existing Brooklyn
Hospital units. The Board has noted this difference in United
Parcel Service, 303 NLRB 326 (1991). The Board stated that
accretion is not required or warranted, ‘‘where the parties to
a bargaining relationship have historically failed to include
an existing group of employees from a bargaining unit.’’ The
Board added:
If a group of employees comes into existence during
the term of a contract for an existing unit, then the par-
ties must timely address the unit status of those em-
ployees prior to executing a successor agreement.
Should they fail to do so, the parties have only them-
selves to blame for any instability resulting from the
existence of a group of employees having interests in
common with unit employees but excluded from rep-
resentation in the unit.
It is the fact of historical exclusion that is determina-
tive. (Emphasis in original.)
Here, the Caledonian employees had been deliberately ex-
cluded from the Brooklyn Hospital collective-bargaining
units from the time of the merger in 1982, until November
1988. During that period of time, Respondent entered into
successive contracts with the Brooklyn Hospital unions for
the employees at Brooklyn Hospital represented by such
unions.
Respondent argues that changed circumstances will negate
any history of exclusion of a group. This is a case where the
Respondent’s Caledonian Hospital bargaining unit existed
from 1982, the time of the merger, for 6 years, until the time
of recognition of the Brooklyn Hospital unions for them. The
only significant changes which occurred from the time of the
merger to the time of recognition, were certain hierarchical
changes in corporate structure which did not affect the day-
to-day activities, supervision, or terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the Caledonian employees.
I have considered Respondent’s argument that the congres-
sional admonition against the proliferation of bargaining
units in the health care industry requires a finding of accre-
tion. I have also considered Grosso’s testimony that it would
be administratively easier and less costly to operate with one
union representing all the employees at both sites, and that
‘‘jurisdictional disputes’’ would be avoided. However, when
considering the factors of administrative ease, efficiency and
cost against the evidence presented here, the separate self-
identity of the Caledonian Hospital employees is not out-
weighed by such considerations, especially where the accre-
tion doctrine has been treated as a narrow exception because
it contradicts the principle of employee self determination. It
should also be noted that the Board has considered the Con-
gressional admonition in its rulemaking, and has determined
that eight collective-bargaining units are appropriate in the
health care industry. 284 NLRB 1515 (1987). The Supreme
Court has upheld the Board’s exercise of its rulemaking
power. American Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 113 L.Ed. 2d 675,
111 S.Ct. 1539 (1991).
Respondent cites certain representation cases, including
West Jersey Health System, 293 NLRB 749 (1989) for the
proposition as to the appropriateness of single-facility units
in an employer’s multidivisional system. It is important to
note, however, that such cases, whether a single-facility or
multiple facility unit is found appropriate, the employees will
be able to exercise their right to select the representative of
their choice. Here, however, the question is whether the Cal-
edonian employees will have that right. Nevertheless, the
facts in West Jersey are distinguishable. In that case, the day-
to-day operations of the facility (division) are handled by the
departmental directors, who are various corporate officials,
who travel to the divisions on a regular basis. The division
administrators, who are stationed in the location at issue, are
responsible only for general implementation of policy and
budget oversight within his own division. The departmental
directors, on the other hand, are responsible for hiring, firing,
evaluations, scheduling, discipline, and grievances. Employ-
ees routinely rotate between divisions or regularly work tem-
porarily at other divisions. Here, however, at the time of rec-
ognition, with respect to the employees employed at Caledo-
nian Hospital, that location, the administrators located at Cal-
1185BROOKLYN HOSPITAL CENTER
edonian and the supervisors of the employees there, exer-
cised great authority and supervisory control over them with
respect to day-to-day activities, and there was minimal inter-
change or transfer between sites.
It is of particular note that with respect to the unit of li-
censed practical nurses, the number of such nurses at Caledo-
nian Hospital, approximately 58 outnumbered the approxi-
mately 50 Brooklyn Hospital licensed practical nurses. In
these circumstances, the Board has found that employees
cannot be accreted into a unit where the represented employ-
ees do not constitute a majority of the ultimately accreted
unit. Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., 289 NLRB 1335, 1338 (1988).
I accordingly find and conclude that on about November
14, 1988, Respondent unlawfully recognized Local 144,
NYSNA, Local 721 and Local 3 and unlawfully applied the
terms of its collective-bargaining agreements with those
unions to its employees who were employed at Caledonian
Hospital, and who were not represented by any labor organi-
zation, at a time when a majority of those employees had not
designated those labor organizations as their representative,
and at a time when no lawful accretion had occurred.
Postecognition assistance to the unions
The complaint alleges that Respondent unlawfully per-
mitted Locals 144, Local 3 and NYSNA to meet with em-
ployees during their worktime in order to engage in union
business. The evidence establishes that Respondent’s officials
permitted those three unions to meet on its premises for the
purpose of union activities. However, the testimony estab-
lished that such meetings occurred on employees’ working
time only in the cases of Local 144 and Local 3. Inasmuch
as Respondent unlawfully recognized Local 144 and Local 3
for the Caledonian employees, Respondent unlawfully facili-
tated access to its premises of Local 144 and Local 3.
Safeway Stores, 276 NLRB 944, fn. 2 (1985). Jolog Sports-
wear, Inc., 128 NLRB 886 (1960), cited by Respondent, is
distinguishable. That case, unlike the instant case, involved
a situation where a neutral employer granted access to a
union. I will recommend dismissal of the complaint allega-
tion as to NYSNA.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent threatened em-
ployees with discharge if they did not join Local 144. This
allegation relates to the testimony of Mary Marshall, who
stated that following a meeting of Local 144, her Supervisor
Sandra Ortega told her that ‘‘they’’ said that she would be
discharged if she did not sign a card for Local 144. Ortega
added that she could do nothing as her hands were ‘‘tied,’’
but told Marshall that she should have a choice as to whether
to join Local 144. On these facts, I cannot find that Respond-
ent threatened Marshall with discharge if she did not join
Local 144. The alleged threat was vague, came from the
union, and was not at all a threat made by Ortega. In addi-
tion, Ortega retreated from the apparent Local 144 threat by
assuring Marshall that in her opinion, she should have a
choice as to whether to join Local 144. I will accordingly
recommend that this allegation be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and a health care institution
within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
2. Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied
Services Union, Service Employees International Union,
AFL–CIO (Local 144), New York State Nurses Association
(NYSNA), Licensed Practical Nurses, Technicians and
Health Care Workers of New York, Inc., Local 721, Service
Employees International Union, AFL–CIO (Local 721),
Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL–CIO (Local 3), Local 819, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, AFL–CIO (Local 819), and Local 1199,
Drug, Hospital & Health Care Employees Union, Retail,
Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL–CIO (Local
1199), are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by recognizing Local 144, NYSNA, Local
721, and Local 3, and applying the terms of its collective-
bargaining agreements with Local 144, NYSNA, Local 721
and Local 3, on about November 14, 1988, to its employees
who were employed at its Caledonian Hospital location, and
who were not represented by any labor organization, at a
time when a majority of those employees had not designated
those unions as their representative, has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2), (3),
and (1) of the Act.
4. By permitting Local 3 and Local 144 access to its
premises for the purpose of engaging in union business dur-
ing the worktime of its employees, Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not violated the Act, as alleged in the
complaint, by permitting access to NYSNA to conduct union
activities on its premises.
6. Respondent has not violated the Act, as alleged in the
complaint, by threatening its employees with discharge if
they refused to join Local 144.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully recognized and
applied the terms of its collective-bargaining agreements with
Local 144, NYSNA, Local 721, and Local 3, on about No-
vember 14, 1988, to its employees who were employed at its
Caledonian Hospital location, and who were not represented
by any labor organization, at a time when a majority of those
employees had not designated those unions as their rep-
resentative, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 144,
NYSNA, Local 721, and Local 3 as the collective-bargaining
representative of those employees, and further that Respond-
ent be ordered to cease applying to those employees the
terms of Respondent’s collective-bargaining agreements with
those labor organizations, or any extension, renewal, modi-
fication, or superseding agreement, unless or until those labor
organizations are certified by the Board as such representa-
tives.
1186 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nothing in this decision should be construed as requiring
Respondent to rescind benefits conferred on its employees
who were employed at its Caledonian Hospital location, and
who were not represented by any labor organization as the
result of the unlawful application of the contractual provi-
sions to them.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]