Hilton Nursing Home

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 12, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 107 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

HILTON NURSING HOME 107 3313 Realty Corp . t/a Hilton Nursing Home and Ethyl E. Crowley. Case 5-CA-5784 June 12, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY , AND PENELLO On April 19, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Ber- nard J. Seff issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three member-panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER dictional facts and the supervisory status of certain employ- ees but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. All parties appeared and were offered the opportunity to be heard, and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent which were duly considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,2 I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent , a Maryland corporation , operates two nurs- ing homes in Baltimore , only one of which , known as 3313 Poplar Street , t/a Hilton Nursing Home , Baltimore, Mary- land, is involved in this case . Respondent operates proprie- tary nursing homes providing nursing care for elderly and infirm patients . During the preceeding 12 months , Respon- dent in the course and conduct of its business received gross revenues in excess of $500 ,000. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Local 1199E , National Union of Hospital and Nursing Home Employees , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, 3313 Realty Corp. t/a Hilton Nursing Home, Baltimore, Maryland, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BERNARD J. SEFF, Administrative Law Judge: This pro- ceeding was tried before me on December 28, 1972, pur- suant to a charge filed on September 19 and a complaint issued on November 14, 1972.' The complaint alleges in substance that Respondent (Hilton) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act: (a) through interference , restraint, and coercion (including an alleged overt threat that anyone who starts a union would be fired), and (b) by the alleged discriminatory discharge of three employees . Respondent in its answer admitted certain juris- i Unless otherwise indicated all dates are in 1972 II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Union Organizational Campaign 1. First meeting at employee Threatt's home Starting on September 13 a meeting was held in the home of employee Bernice Threatt which was attended by about 13 employees, 2 representatives of the Union, and including Thomas Van Dyke, Rosalie Chambers, and Ethyl Crowley (the three alleged discnminatees). At this meeting union applications for membership cards were given to Van Dyke, Chambers, and Crowley, each of whom signed a card. Commencing on September 14 and continuing through September 15 the three employees named above solicited Hilton employees and, while the record is not clear on this point, approximately 15 employees out of a complement of 60-70 workers signed union cards. The solicitation took place in the nursing home during breaks, lunch time, and at other times. At or about 6 p.m. Van Dyke (the most articu- late union adherent) was called into the office of George Leibowitz, administrator in training, and his brother, Mau- ry Leibowitz, administrator, was also present. Van Dyke was fired. During the same day, at or about 3 p.m. on 2 The testimony of all witnesses has been considered. In evaluating the testimony of each witness , demeanor was relied upon In addition, inconsis- tencies and conflicting evidence were considered The absence of a statement of resolution of a conflict in specific testimony, or of an analysis of such testimony , does not mean that such did not occur. See Bishop and Malco, Inc, d/b/a Walker's, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161. Further, to the extent that a witness is credited only in part , it is done upon the evidentary rule that it is not uncommon "to believe some and not all of a witness ' testimony." N L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F 2d 749, 754 (C A 2, 1950). 204 NLRB No. 28 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD September 15, Chambers and Crowley were together called into George Leibowitz's office and were summarily dis- charged. Each of the three employees were told that Hilton was in precarious financial condition and identical letters were given to them which stated they were being laid off for economic reasons and "were not terminated for any other reasons." 2. The discharge of Van Dyke Van Dyke had his initial job interview on or about August 7 and commenced his job on August 8 as an orderly earning $1.85 an hour. He was interviewed by Head Nurse Bernice Rubio. After inquiring into his past record of employment and his marital status he was hired. His duties as an orderly consisted of cutting hair, handling bed pans, shaving male patients, and assisting patients getting into and out of the bath tub. After his interview was concluded he first left Rubio's office and then returned to stick his head back into the office. Van Dyke testified he asked if there was a union at Hilton. According to Van Dyke, Rubio said: ... we don't need a union here. People are happy here, if you try to get a Union, you know, you are fired. Rubio testified: I interviewed Van Dyke, as he formerly testified .... As he went out the door, he came back . . . So he came to the door. He looked around the corner. And I was dialing the phone to call a number-and he asked me, was this a community nursing home. And I said, no, it isn't. He then said , is there any Union here? And I said, no, it isn't. He said I'm glad of that, because at Bolton Hill [one of his previous places of employment] . . . and he went out the door mumbling and I don't know what the rest of it was. Q. Did you ever talk to him at any other time about Union activities? A. I never had to call him to the office. He did his work as far as I'm concerned. Thus Rubio flatly denied she ever said anything about "if you try to get a Union, you know you're fired." She credibly testified she was dialing a phone number when Van Dyke stuck his head in her door after his initial interview had been concluded. She did not volunteer any information about unions but merely answered this question put to her by Van Dyke. The General Counsel did not cross- examine Rubio about her alleged remark to Van Dyke. Van Dyke impressed me as a diffident person. When applying for a job he was obviously trying to make a good impression. At this point in his testimony it appeared he was speaking in a sly manner attempting to win the favor of his new employer. It is reasonable to expect that he did not know how Rubio felt about unions and this impression is fortified by Rubio's testimony that Van Dyke said, "I'm glad of that because at Bolton Hill," then his words trailed off as he left. So far as this episode is concerned I was not impressed with his demeanor. Rubio, on the other hand, impressed me with her busi- nesslike and direct answers and the brevity of her com- ments. She did not waste words. For the most part her answers were laconic. She concluded her remarks with the statement that she had no further conversation with Van Dyke because so far as she was concerned he (Van Dyke) did his work. I credit her version of the conversation with Van Dyke. I do not credit his testimony that she said any employee would be fired if he tried to bring a union into the nursing home. Van Dyke also testified that a few days after he began to work he had a friendly talk with John Parrish, the adminis- trative assistant . Van Dyke claims he mentioned the Union to him and, in response, Parrish said: ... don't mention that. That is a bad word around here. Mention that word around here and you'll be out the door before you can say boo. On direct examination Parrish said he could not recall hav- ing made that statement or any other remark about unions. Parrish was not cross-examined by the General Counsel. Parrish was vague and uncertain in his answers. Signifi- cantly, he did not deny having made the comment attribut- ed to him by Van Dyke. Under these circumstances I credit Van Dyke and find that Parrish did make the statements ascribed to him by Van Dyke. Furthermore, I note, in evalu- ating the testimony given by Parrish, his vague answers to questions put to him, and his inability to recall what was said during his encounter with Van Dyke. His outward de- meanor and uncertainty while he was testifying made him an unpersuasive witness. The question as to whether the statement which I have found was made by Parrish can be imputed to Respondent depends on whether Parrish is a supervisor. From the scant information elicited from him in the record as to his duties, it seems that he was involved in clerical, financial, and accounting matters. There is some doubt in my mind about his supervisory status. However, Respondent admitted in its answer to the fourth allegation in the complaint that Parrish was a supervisor and I conclude that this answer is binding on the Respondent and conclusive of the supervisory status of Parrish. Van Dyke also testified that on September 15 at about 3 p.m. he went to George Leibowitz's office to request change in order to make a food purchase at a vending machine. He opened his wallet to take out some money. In the wallet were several union cards which had the Union's name and number and which Van Dyke claimed Leibowitz could see. It seems highly unlikely that Van Dyke had positioned union cards in his wallet in such a manner that they could be seen and identified by Leibowitz as union cards. There is no evidence in the record that Van Dyke sought to attract Respondent's attention to his union activity. The incident as described by Van Dyke seems contrived. Leibowitz de- nied he had seen any union cards in Van Dyke's wallet or anyplace else. I credit Leibowitz's denial and do not believe the version of this incident as recited by Van Dyke. 3. The discharge of Chambers Rosalie Chambers is a licensed practical nurse. She was hired to work on the day shift in the capacity of an LPN towards the end of July. She was present at the organiza- tional meeting that took place at Threatt's home on the HILTON NURSING HOME 109 evening of September 13. She signed a card and was given 22 authorization cards to solicit. She signed up six employ- ees on September 15. There is no direct evidence that Re- spondent had knowledge of her union activities. The General Counsel contends that such knowledge should be inferred because Chambers' activities took place on the day she was fired under circumstances indicating that it seems unlikely her active campaigning during the peak of the Union's organizing efforts could hardly have passed unno- ticed in a small nursing home of 60-70 employees. Further, the timing of her discharge, taken in the context of the discharges of three of the most active adherents of the Union, is a highly suspicious circumstance. This fact, cou- pled with Respondent's admission that no employees at Hilton were ever laid off due to economic reasons prior to this occasion, underscores the likelihood that Chambers' union activities were known to the Company. 4. The discharge of Ethyl Crowley On January 7 Crowley was hired by Rubio as an LPN. She received a raise in pay on August 1. She testified credi- bly that she worked double shifts when Hilton was short- handed. Only two other LPNs, Chambers and a nurse named McCloud, had worked double shifts prior to the discharge. Respondent explained the need for doubling over on occasions as being in accordance with Maryland law requiring an LPN to be on duty for every shift. Crowley was active in the Union campaign. She signed a card herself and solicited five other employees to sign cards during the September 14-15 union drive. She approached three other employees to sign cards but they declined to do so. On one occasion she was speaking to an employee named Lee. While engaged in conversation with Lee she noticed a "funny look come up on Mrs. Lee's face." Crowley turned around and saw George Leibowitz standing about 4 or 5 feet behind her during this encounter. Leibowitz neither admitted nor denied this incident. It should be noted that only a few hours after the Lee incident Crowley was called into Leibowitz's office and fired. Here again the timing of the discharge, occurring as it did shortly after her conversa- tion with Lee, is suspicious. I was impressed with the straightforward recital of Crowley's testimony as juxta- posed by Leibowitz's failure to admit or deny he saw Crow- ley talking to Lee and his physical proximity to the two women (4-5 feet) all of which makes it seem likely that the event took place as described by Crowley. Further, it is to be noted that two less senior LPNs were retained on the staff. B. Respondent's Defenses 1. Respondent's poor economic condition The record shows that Respondent was in demonstrably poor economic condition around the time of the discharge of Van Dyke, Chambers, and Crowley. Respondent's CPA, Maurice Rosenfeld, found in an audit he made of Respondent's books in February that the nursing home was operating at a large deficit. Despite this fact Respondent hired Van Dyke as an orderly and LPN Chambers about the end of July 1972. It is also true that Respondent was still in economic straits at the time of the instant hearing. Its appeal to Maryland state authorities for permission to raise its rates had not been acted on. The situation of economic difficul- ties seems to have been continuous and has prevailed since 1971. Moreover, despite its economic difficulties, Hilton laid off no other employees for economic reasons after Sep- tember 15. In this connection it should be noted that Re- spondent had not previously discharged or laid off any employees due to economic reasons prior to the discharge of the three alleged discriminatees. Here again the timing of the discharges thus becomes a matter for special scrutiny. How can it be explained that out of a work force of 60-70 employees Respondent chose for discharge the three most active unionists in the nursing home at the height of the Union's efforts at unionization? If the selection of Van Dyke, Chambers, and Crowley was merely a matter of coin- cidence it was an extraordinary event to be ascribed to sheer happenstance, and was most improbable. 2. Letters of reference for the dischargees After giving the three employees identical letters stating that they were discharged for economic reasons and not for any other reason, Respondent, at the heanng, shifted its ground and for the first time claimed the two LPNs were removed from the staff because they were poor employees. It is well settled that giving an employee one reason for discharge and asserting a different reason before the Board is an indication of discriminatory motive. N.L.R.B. v. Bow- man Transportation, Inc., 314 F.2d 497, 498 (C. A. 5, 1963). Van Dyke learned at the hearing that he could be dispensed with because the job of an orderly was a "luxury" that the nursing home could do without. Incidentally, none of the above reasons were ever discussed with the involved em- ployees at the time of their exit interviews. If the nursing home could not afford an orderly, why was Van Dyke hired to replace his immediate predecessor, also an orderly, while Respondent was experiencing the same financial stress it has been operating under since 1971? 3. Executive Director Mitchell Gould's testimony Mitchell Gould, the owner of the business and executive director of the nursing home, testified on direct examination that he instructed Leibowitz to inform the two LPNs at the time of their discharge to report for work at his other opera- tion-Gould's Convaleserium-the next day after they were discharged. On this point the transcript shows: Q. (By Respondent's Counsel) Anyway, after choos- ing these people to discharge were you going to rehire them at your other home? A. Well they would be in a different capacity. They would not be working around medications. I had no qualms about their efficiency as far as taking care of patients, because I felt that anyone who has gone through a year of training and has passed State Boards certainly can take care of patients. Gould also explained Chambers and Crowley would be 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD under closer supervision in the other nursing home . He said he was very familiar with the work performance of his em- ployees at the Hilton nursing home and thought the two LPNs were satisfactory employees. Gould claimed he knew nothing about union activities at Hilton until he received a copy of the NLRB charges on September 21. He testified: If I had known anything about Union activities I certainly wouldn't tell them to come to the other home which is 158 patients, smooth running, to be a disrup- tive force. In this connection I note that Respondent's Exhibit 1 is a photostatic copy of part of Crowley's personnel record, which states on the back: Bad attitude. A disruptive force within the home. She played favorites among the staff. Medical treatments rendered to patients not always correct. Under Recommendation she is marked `Poor' and un- der `Rehire' the word `No' is checked. Her supervisor's comment : `High absenteeism for a professional em- ployee. Rather poor working relationship with fellow staff members, both professional and non-profession- al.' Chambers' personnel record (Resp. Exh. 10) states: Supervisor's comment: `Signed medical chart days in advance. Really bad attitude. Not willing to pitch in and help with other staff.' Recommendation: `Poor' is checked. Rehire: 'No' is checked. The contrast is marked between Gould's testimony of having offered both Crowley and Chambers immediate em- ployment at his other nursing home which he would not have done if he knew they were active unionists because he did not want a disruptive influence to interfere with the smooth running of his other home. Both Chambers and Crowley denied they were offered immediate employment at the Convaleserium . Gould's testimony is so inconsistent with his own personnel records as to make him an unreliable witness. 4. Gould's speech to employees of September 26 At a meeting of employees (56 employees were present) and his administrative staff given on September 26, Gould suggested that in order to add to the job security of the employees they form an "Economic Council" to be made up of two management representatives plus one aide from each shift who would present the employees' side of any prob- lems. The record is silent as to whether this suggestion was implemented . In any case , while there is no allegation in the complaint that Respondent attempted to form an 8(a)(2) union , Gould's urging the formation of a house union at a time when he knew of the organizational efforts to form an outside union constitutes clear evidence of 8(a)(1) activity. In the same speech Gould further suggested that anyone who desired to withdraw from the Union could request that the Union return or destroy his application for membership card. This latter notion came to the attention of Respondent through a report provided to it by employee Dorothy Lewis. She testified that she changed her mind about membership in the Union, called the Union's office to be told that when her card came to the Union's attention it would be de- stroyed as per her request. She became mad when the union spokesman accused her of being an "Uncle Tom." Lewis repeated this information to Maury Leibowitz who then must have passed it on to Gould because he repeated it in his speech to his employees. Leibowitz corroborated the fact that Gould discussed how employees could withdraw from the Union in his speech of September 26. Gould, by explain- ing how employees could withdraw their signed union cards, taken together with urging his employees to form their own "Employee Council," manifested his animus to the Union's attempt to organize his employees and was thus guilty of violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In what purports to be the substance of the talk given by Gould (Resp. Exh. 7) to his administrative staff and 56 of his employees there is a brief statement captioned "Union Activity." The first part of these remarks in effect sought to explain that the three discharged employees were not termi- nated because of union activity. Respondent disclaimed knowledge of any union activity prior to its receipt of a charge from the NLRB on September 21. This section of the talk concluded with the statement that "the staff was told that if they preferred a union, and if it was of their own choosing, then the union would be welcome." This com- ment preceded the Company's explanation as to how the employees could form an "Employee Council" consisting of management representatives Mr. Lee and Mrs. Rubio and one aide from each shift. Significantly, the typed summary of Gould's remarks omits his explanation of how the em- ployees could withdraw from the Union. Concluded Findings and Analysis The General Counsel succinctly states in his brief: In view of the evidence that Respondent had been in economic distress for so long, it appears improbable that Respondent should wait until the Union's organi- zational campaign to choose for the first time to lay off employees for economic considerations, especially since the active union campaign had commenced only three days before. Even more improbable, given Respondent's asserted lack of knowledge of any union activities engaged in by the three discriminatees, is Respondent's alleged fortuitous discharge of the three individuals most active in the union organizing cam- paign. It is noted that there is no evidence in the .. . record disclosing that any employee other than the three discriminatees was laid off on September 15. In fact, no employee at Hilton has been laid off for eco- nomic reasons after September 15. Disparate treatment of union and nonunion employees has been long held to be persuasive evidence of discrimination. Furthermore, Maury Leibowitz claims Hilton was over- staffed when he became administrator in July 1972. Despite this contention Chambers and Van Dyke were hired in Au- gust. Leibowitz gave as one reason for discharging LPN's Chambers and Crowley that a surplus of LPN's existed on September 15. This is inconsistent with his later testimony that LPN's Crowley, Chambers, and McCloud were re- quired to work double shifts in August to assure adequate HILTON NURSING HOME staffing. This information indicates that in point of fact LPN's were in short supply. Contrast this fact with Hilton's hiring two LPN's the month after terminating Crowley and Chambers. This demonstrates that considerations other than a surplus of LPN's precipitated their discharge since Respondent's own records show that no LPN's quit or were terminated after September 15. The basic motivation that caused Respondent to discharge Chambers and Crowley was their activities on behalf of the Union and not the fact that Hilton was in financial difficulties. Maury Leibowitz had previously testified that because of financial stringency he only hired vitally needed personnel. Yet he hired Van Dyke and George Leibowitz testified that an orderly was a luxury Hilton could not afford. I have credited Van Dyke's testimony that Parrish said if anyone mentioned the word union he would be discharged. Van Dyke engaged in substantial union activities; the timing of his discharge in relation to his union activities was suspect; three union adherents were terminated on the same day; and no other persons were fired. The conclusion is inescapa- ble that Van Dyke was terminated for engaging in protected activities rather than because of economic considerations. From the totality of the evidence in the record I conclude and find that Van Dyke, Chambers, and Crowley were dis- charged for engaging in protected union activities in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By the statement of Supervisor Parrish to Van Dyke, he and the other employees were threatened with discharge if they mentioned the word "Union." Further by Respondent's soliciting its employees to withdraw their signed union cards and to establish a house formed "Em- ployee Council" in order to head off unionization Respon- dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By discharging Rosalie Chambers, Ethyl Crowley, and Thomas Van Dyke on September 15, 1972, and thereafter failing or refusing to reinstate them, in order to discourage affiliation with and activity on behalf of Local 1199E, Re- spondent has discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of their employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY The recommended Order will contain the conventional remedial provisions in cases involving findings of interfer- ence, restraint, and coercion, and discriminatory dis- charges, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. These will require Respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and to offer reinstatement with backpay to the employees discriminated against. In accor- dance with usual requirements, reinstatement shall be to the discriminatees' former job or, if that job no longer exists, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges. The discriminatees 111 shall be made whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned from the date of their discharge (September 15, 1972) to the date of a valid offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during such period, to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices Re- spondent has engaged in, I shall recommend that it be re- quired to cease and desist from in any like or related manner infringing upon rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS Respondent, 3313 Realty Corp. t/a Hilton Nursing Home , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Soliciting employees to withdraw their union applica- tion cards. (b) Urging their employees to form an "Employees Council" including in its membership representatives of management and withdrawing membership from any labor organization of their choice; and in any like or related man- ner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. (c) Discouraging membership in and activities for Local 11 99E, National Union of Hospital and Nursing Home Em- ployees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Respondent's employees or by discrimi- nating in regard to any term or condition of their employ- ment, in order to discourage such membership or activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Rosalie Chambers, Ethyl Crowley, and Thomas Van Dyke immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiva- lent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of their dis- charge, in the manner set forth in the "Remedy" section herein. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all rec- ords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay that may be due to Rosalie Chambers, Ethyl Crowley, and Thomas Van Dyke, including payroll records, timecards, social se- curity records, and other records. (c) Post at its Hilton Nursing Home at 3313 Poplar Street , Baltimore, Maryland, copies of the attached notice 3 In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order, herein shall, as provided in Seciton 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objec- tions thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives, be post- ed by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. 4 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government collectively for other mutual aid or protection; If you wish, not to do any of these things. Accordingly, we give you these assurances; WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with any of your rights listed above. WE WILL NOT ask you to withdraw your union applica- tion cards. WE WILL NOT coercively induce you to withdraw membership from any union. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, Local 1199E by discriminating against you in regard to your jobs. WE WILL NOT urge you to form an "Employees Coun- cil" including in its membership representatives of management and in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your rights listed above. WE WILL offer Rosalie Chambers, Ethyl Crowley, and Thomas Van Dyke immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with full seniority and all other rights and privileges, since they were found to have been discharged for supporting Hospital Workers Local 1199E. WE WILL make up all pay Rosalie Chambers, Ethyl Crowley, and Thomas Van Dyke lost, plus interest. After a trial before an Administrative Law Judge, at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, it has been decided that we, Hilton Nursing Home, have violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we have been ordered to post this Notice. The National Labor Relations Act gives you, as an employee, these rights: To engage in self-organization; To form, join or help unions; To bargain collectively through a representative of your own choosing; To act together with other employees to bargain Dated By HILTON NURSING HOME (Employer) (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301 -962-2822.