McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical Center Associates, LLC d/b/a McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 2015

362 NLRB No. 20 (N.L.R.B. 2015)

362 NLRB No. 20
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical Center Asso-
ciates, LLC, d/b/a McKenzie-Willamette Medi-
cal Center and Service Employees International
Union Local 49, CTW-CLC. Case 19–CA–
119098
February 24, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND MCFERRAN
On November 4, 2014, Administrative Law Judge
Dickie Montemayor issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Re-
spondent filed a reply brief and a motion to reopen the
record.
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, briefs, and motion to reopen
the record, and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,
findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommend-
ed Order as modified and set forth in full below.2
1. The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to provide
certain information that was requested by the Union in
connection with bargaining for a successor collective-
bargaining agreement. The complaint also alleges that
the Respondent unreasonably delayed providing certain
other requested information. At the hearing, Respond-
ent’s counsel stated that the only defense the Respondent
was asserting was that the complaint was not valid be-

1 In affirming the judge’s findings, we find it unnecessary to rely on
his citation to Hanson Aggregates BMC, Inc., 353 NLRB 287 (2008),
which was decided by a two-member Board. See New Process Steel v.
NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635 (2010). We do rely, however, on the judge’s
citation to Oaktree Capital Management, LLC, 353 NLRB 1242 (2009),
another case decided by a two-Member Board. This decision was
subsequently incorporated by reference in a decision by a three-
member panel of the Board at 355 NLRB 706 (2010), which was en-
forced by the Fifth Circuit. See 452 Fed.Appx. 433 (5th Cir. 2011).
2 The judge ordered the Respondent to provide information fully re-
sponsive to paragraphs 1(i), 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13b-d, and 15 of the
Union’s October 17, 2013 information request. With respect to para-
graph 2 of the request, however, the complaint alleges only that the
Respondent unreasonably delayed in providing this information, not
that it failed to provide the information at all. We shall modify the
judge’s recommended Order to delete the reference to paragraph 2 of
the Union’s information request and to conform to the Board’s standard
remedial language. We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the
Order as modified.
cause (1) the appointment of Ronald K. Hooks as Re-
gional Director for Region 19 was invalid, and (2)
Hooks’ transfer from the Board’s Memphis office to its
Seattle office was also invalid. The Respondent asserted
that both of these actions were invalid because the Board
lacked a valid quorum on January 6, 2012, the date that
the Respondent claimed Hooks was appointed.3
The judge correctly rejected the Respondent’s defense.
Although Regional Director Hooks’ appointment was
announced on January 6, 2012, the Board approved the
appointment on December 22, 2011, at which time it had
a valid quorum. See Longshore and Warehouse Local 19
(Seattle Tunnel Partners), 361 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at
1 fn. 1 (2014). Whether Regional Director Hooks actual-
ly assumed his duties in Region 19 in early 2012, as the
Respondent suggests, has no bearing on the validity of
his appointment or on any of the actions Hooks has taken
as Regional Director of Region 19.
Beyond entering documents into the record in support
of its argument that Hooks’ appointment and transfer
were not valid, Respondent’s counsel stated at the hear-
ing that he would otherwise not participate in the hear-
ing. Respondent’s counsel did not ask any questions of
the General Counsel’s witnesses, and the Respondent did
not present any witnesses or other evidence of its own
regarding the merits of the complaint allegations. We
agree with the judge that the evidence presented by the
General Counsel establishes the violations alleged in the
complaint. Given the Respondent’s decision not to pro-
vide a defense on the merits, the evidence stands unre-
butted.
2. By its motion to reopen the record, the Respondent
seeks to admit evidence that it has reached a successor
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union since the
close of the hearing. The Respondent argues that this
evidence is probative of whether the information request-
ed by the Union was necessary for the Union’s repre-
sentative role “insofar as the parties were able to reach
agreement . . . in spite of any information that the Union
had requested, but the Hospital had not produced.” We
deny the Respondent’s motion. As the judge correctly
found, all of the information requested by the Union was
presumptively relevant for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and the Respondent had an obligation to provide

3 To support its claim, the Respondent points to the Board’s press re-
lease announcing Hooks’ appointment (dated January 6, 2012), and to
statements in an appellate brief filed by the Board in the Ninth Circuit
in connection with Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Services, Inc. (Dkt.
No. 25, Case No. 13-35912 (March 7, 2014)), stating that Hooks was
appointed in January 2012. The Board has since filed a motion to
correct the references in its brief to reflect Hooks’ actual appointment
date of December 22, 2011. See Dkt. No. 31, Case No. 13-35912 (July
31, 2014).
2
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the information in a timely fashion upon request.4 See,
e.g., Sause Bros., Inc., 319 NLRB 721, 721 (1995). Fur-
ther, contrary to the Respondent’s suggestion, the stand-
ard for assessing the relevance of requested information
is not whether the Union would be unable to function
without it. Instead, it is a liberal “discovery-type” stand-
ard, which requires only “the probability that the desired
information was relevant, and that it would be of use to
the union in carrying out its statutory duties and respon-
sibilities.” NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432,
437 (1967). The fact that the Union chose to bargain in
the absence of complete information and that the parties
were able to conclude a successor collective-bargaining
agreement does not mean that the information would not
have been useful to the Union in bargaining or rebut the
presumption of relevance. See White Farm Equipment
Co., 242 NLRB 1373, 1374 (1979) (finding that the
“most that can be inferred” from execution of new col-
lective-bargaining agreement in the absence of requested
information “is that the advantages of a contract in hand
outweigh those which the Union might later obtain when
all relevant information would be available to it,” quot-
ing NLRB v. Yawman & Erbe Mfg. Co., 187 F.2d 947,
949 (2d Cir. 1951)), enfd. 650 F.2d 334 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical
Center Associates, LLC, d/b/a McKenzie-Willamette
Medical Center, Springfield, Oregon, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Service Employees Inter-
national Union, Local 49, CWT-CLC, by unreasonably
delaying and/or failing and refusing to furnish it with
requested information that is relevant and necessary to
the Union’s performance of its functions as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit
employees.
(b) 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.

4 Prior to filing its motion to reopen the record, the Respondent had
not argued that the information was either irrelevant or unnecessary; as
discussed above, the Respondent’s only defense was based on the va-
lidity of the complaint. At the hearing, the judge granted the General
Counsel’s motion to strike the portion of the Respondent’s answer
denying that the requested information was both necessary and rele-
vant. As a result, the judge deemed these allegations admitted, and the
Respondent does not except to that ruling.
(a) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on October 17, 2013.
More specifically, Respondent shall provide information
fully responsive to paragraphs 1(i), 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13b-
d, and 15 of the October 17, 2013 request.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Springfield, Oregon, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since October 17, 2013.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 19 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 24, 2015
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the 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.”
3
MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Ser-
vice Employees International Union, Local 49, CTW-
CLC (the Union), by delaying and/or failing and refusing
to provide the Union with requested information that is
relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its
functions as the collective-bargaining representative of
our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by the Union on October 17, 2013.
MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A MCKENZIE-
WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-119098 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
Helena Fiorianti, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Bryan T. Carmody, Esq., for the Respondent.
Lynn-Marie Crider, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
DICKIE MONTEMAYOR, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried before me on July 8, 2014, in Portland, Oregon. The
case involves an allegation that McKenzie-Willamette Regional
Medical Center Associates, LLC d/b/a McKenzie-Willamette
Medical Center (the Respondent) failed to provide the Service
Employees International Union Local 49, CTW-CLC (the Un-
ion) certain information requested by the Union. The employer,
for its part, did not contest the allegations at the hearing but
instead relied on asserted general denials and affirmative de-
fenses. Respondent’s contention was that based upon its as-
serted denials and defenses, the complaint should be dismissed
in its entirety. I find that Respondent violated the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act) as alleged.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by delaying and failing to provide the
Union certain relevant requested information. Respondent filed
a timely answer to the complaint denying all violations of the
Act. Counsel for the General Counsel, and Respondent filed
briefs in support of their positions on August 12, 2014.1 On the
entire record, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all material times, Respondent has been a State of Delaware
Limited Liability Company with its place of business in Spring-
field, Oregon, and has been operating a hospital providing in-
patient and out-patient medical care.
The complaint further alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that at all material times Respondent, in conducting these oper-
ations, derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and pur-
chased and received at its corporate headquarters products,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $5000 directly from
points located outside the State of Oregon.

1 After the trial a flurry of motions, responses, and replies were filed.
Counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion to reopen the record for
limited purpose or in the alternative to take administrative notice, Re-
spondent filed a response opposing the motion. Counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel thereafter filed a reply to Respondent’s opposition. Re-
spondent filed a motion to strike portion of General Counsel’s reply
and attachment to reply. Counsel for the General Counsel then filed its
opposition to Respondent’s motion to strike and filed a cross motion to
strike Exhs. A through C of Respondent’s posthearing brief. Respond-
ent filed an opposition to the General Counsel’s Motion to Strike the
posthearing brief exhibits which was followed by the General Coun-
sel’s reply to Respondent’s opposition to the General Counsel’s motion
to strike. The matters raised within the various motions are implicitly
addressed within this decision. To the extent that it could be argued
that they are not, after careful consideration each motion referenced
above is denied except for that part of the General Counsel’s motion to
take administrative notice which as discussed more fully below is
GRANTED.
4
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that
Respondent is and has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and
further, the Union, is, and has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Based on the foregoing, I find that this dispute affects com-
merce and that the Board has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant
to Section 10(a) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all times material herein, the Union has been a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.
A. Background
Respondent operates a hospital that provides both in-patient
and out-patient care. The parties entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement which was effective from May 2011
through December 31, 2013. Since about November 4, 2013,
the parties have been engaged in bargaining for a successor
agreement. The parties have yet to come to any agreement re-
garding all of the terms of a successor agreement but have been
engaged with a Federal mediator attempting to resolve out-
standing issues.
B. The Bargaining Unit
The Union has a decade long history of representation with
Respondent. Broadly speaking this case involves Respondent’s
service, technical and skilled maintenance employees. The unit
encompasses a large cross section of various job types and
categories. The unit consists of the following employees:
All full-time, part-time, on-call, and per diem employees em-
ployed by Respondent in the job classifications of House-
keeper, Dietary Worker, Housekeeper Team Leader, Materi-
als Linen Tech Lead, Dietary Worker Lead, Clerical Assis-
tant, Assistant Operating Room Schedule Coordinator, Physi-
cal Therapy Aide I, Medical Records Clerk I, Supply Distri-
bution Aide I, Courier, Supply Distribution Aide II, Sterile
Process Tech, Santa Clara/JC Utility Groundskeeper, Custo-
dian, Dietary Clerk, Patient Service Assistant, Supply Distri-
bution Aide Team Leader, Admissions Specialist, Certified
Sterile Tech, Central Scheduler PRN, CNA, Utility
Groundskeeper Lead, ‘Custodian Team Leader, Dietary Clerk
Lead, PSA Team Leader, X-Ray Technician-Ground, Lead
Transcriptionist, Cashier I, Switchboard Operator, Trauma
Registrar, Occupational Therapy Assistant, Operating Room
Aide, Pharmacy Technician Trainee, X-Ray Assistant, Physi-
cal Therapy Aide II, Clerk Generalist, Storeroom Clerk, Secu-
rity Officer, Linen Tech, Food Service Cook Purchase Pro-
duce Clerk, X-ray Technician Student, Relief Lead Admitting
Clerk, Lead Switchboard Operator, Lead Security Officer,
Lead Cook, Purchase Produce Clerk Lead, Nurse Aide, En-
doscopy Support Aide I, Endoscopy Support Aide II, Cashier
II, Admitting Clerk, Unit Services Coordinator, Respiratory
Care Clerk/Assistant, X-Ray Receptionist/Secretary, Rehabili-
tation Secretary/ Receptionist, Central Supply Technician,
Santa Clara/JO Rehabilitation Secretary/Receptionist, Team
Leader Administrative Clerk, Accounts Receivable Clerk, Re-
fund/Correspondence Clerk, Business Office Lead Clerk, Ap-
pointment Scheduling Coordinator, OB CNA Scrub Techni-
cian, Operating Room Schedule Coordinator, Surgical Sup-
port Aide, Lab Assistant, Clerk Specialist, Ship-
ping/Receiving Clerk, Maintenance Worker I, Surgical Sup-
ply Aide Team Leader, Lead Lab Assistant, Clerk Specialist
Team Leader, Respiratory Therapy Student Coder I, Emer-
gency Medical Technician, Emergency Department Techni-
cian/Clerk, X-Ray Transcriptionist, Holter Analyst, Data En-
try - Operating Room, Endoscopy Technician, Histology As-
sistant, Release Information Specialist, Bio-med Technician I,
Relief Charge Respiratory Therapist, Charge Respiratory
Therapist, Respiratory Therapist, Pharmacy Technician, Med-
ical Lab Technician, Certified Pharmacy Technician, Electro-
cardiogram/OCT Tech, Electroencephalo-
gram/Electrocardiogram Technician, Coder II, Certified
Pharmacy Technician Specialist, Electroencephalogram/
Electrocardiogram Technician Lead, Certified Respiratory
Therapist, Polysomnographic Technician, Relief Charge Res-
piratory Therapist Certified, Charge Polysomnographic Tech-
nician, Charge Respiratory Therapist Certified, Respiratory
Therapist PFT Certified, Respiratory Therapist Respiratory
Therapist Technician, Physical Therapy Assistant, Certified
Occupational Therapy Assistant, Registered Respiratory
Therapist, Emergency Department Paramedic, Engineering I,
Engineering II. Health Information Specialist, Health Infor-
mation Management Technician, Insurance Verifier, Lead
Diagnostic Imaging Receptionist, Nutrition Services 1, Ob-
stetrics Technician, Operating Room Materials Aide, Pharma-
cy Clerk, Physical Therapy Secretary, Radiology Technolo-
gist,Registered, Certified Surgical Tech, Maintenance Worker
II, Medical Records Coder III Coder III Team Leader, Medi-
cal Receptionist Input Coder Lead, ABG Maintenance Tech-
nician, Respiratory Therapist PFT Registered, Angio Tech, X-
Ray Technician, X-ray Technician 2, Relief Charge Respira-
tory Therapist Registered, Maintenance Specialist, Charge RI
Registered, Charge Cardiovascular Technician Spr Techni-
cian, Echo cardiology Technician, Clinical Engineer, Bio-med
Relief Lead Pay, Charge Medical Technologist, Medical
Technologist, Lab Section Coordinator, Unit Secretary, Indus-
trial Injury Specialist, Electrocardiogram Technician, Charge
Section Coordinator, Charge Electroencephalo-
gram/Electrocardiogram Technician, Pharmacy Secretary,
CAT Scan Technologist, Special Procedures Technician, Ul-
trasound Technologist, X-ray Technologist, Charge Radiolo-
gy Tech, Charge Registered Polysomnographic Technician,
Registered Polysomnographic Technician PRN, Radiology
Technologist, Transporter, Unit Services Coordinator Lead,
Quality Assurance Auditor, Patient Financial Services Repre-
sentative II, Workers Compensation Specialist, Reimburse-
ment Analyst, Financial Services Specialist, Pre-Service Rep-
resentative, Patient Financial Services Representative Lead,
Relief Charge Medical Technician, Lead Monitor Tech, Re-
lief Charge Medical Lab Technician, Intensive Care Unit
Monitor Technician, Relief Charge Radiology Technician,
5
MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER
Relief Charge CAT Scan Technician and Charge CAT Scan
Technician; excluding all other employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
C. Negotiations
Overview
During all times material to this case, the parties were en-
gaged in contract negotiations which formally began on No-
vember 4, 2013. At the time of negotiations, the Union pro-
posed wage increases of at first 3.3 percent, and then reduced
its proposal to 3 percent. Respondent proposed an increase of
1.2 percent and then 1.5 percent. Respondent also proposed
changes to the health plan care but the Union has not submitted
any counterproposal asserting that it lacks sufficient infor-
mation to allow it to analyze the proposal.
D. Bargaining Teams
The Union’s bargaining team consisted of the Union’s health
care director, the Union’s lead negotiator, as well as employee
bargaining team members. Although not present at the first
bargaining session, Lynn-Marie Crider, the union bargaining
coordinator who had particular expertise in health insurance
plans and health policy was working behind the scenes on in-
formation requests. Respondent’s negotiation team members
were Megan O’Leary, vice president of human resources, and
two attorneys, Don Carmody and Steven Ward.
IV. THE INFORMATION VIOLATION
A. The Information Requests at Issue in this Case
The allegations in this case rest on information requests that
were sent by the Union to Respondent on October 17, 2013.2
These information requests were drafted by Lynn-Marie Crider
and sent directly to Megan O’Leary.
Ms. Crider requested the following information:
1. for all employees currently working and to be covered
by this Collective Bargaining Agreement:
(a) Name
(b) Date of hire
(c) Sex
(d) Job classification
(e) Current base hourly rate of pay
(f) Number of regularly scheduled hours per week
(g) Total gross wages earned in calendar year 2012
(h) Total gross wages earned in year-to-date 2013
(i) Health insurance in which the employee is currently en-
rolled, including the benefit plans selected, and the cover-
age selected (i.e., employee only, employee and spouse,
etc.)
(j) The subsidy for health care currently being paid
(monthly amount and pay period amount).

2 It is important to note that at trial, counsel for the General Counsel
withdrew the allegations of unreasonable delay set forth in par. 6c of
the complaint relating to requested item 6(a) xiii and also the allegation
relating to item 6(a) xiv referenced in complaint par. 6d. (Tr. 57:1–6.)
2. The total payroll for SEIU Local 49 bargaining unit em-
ployees in calendar year 2012 and, separately, for calendar
year-to-date 2013, including specific dollar amounts for
each of the following cost areas:
(k) Regular wages
(l.) Overtime premium (i.e., the additional amount over and
above the regular rate)
(m) Holiday premium d. Vacation pay
(n) Sick pay
(o) Other paid leave
(p) Shift premium pay h. Other premium pay
3. Current job descriptions for all SEIU 49 represented
classifications.
4. Copies of all MWMC’s policies and procedures that
a p p l y to the members of our bargaining unit.
5. A copy of the OSHA 300 logs for each of the last three
calendar years.
6. The cost to the Employer of a 1% wage increase for all
employees for the bargaining unit
7. The number of current vacancies by job classification.
Concerning Health and Welfare Plans
8. A copy of the current summary plan description for each
health, vision, and dental benefit plan offered to members
of the SEIU Local 49 bargaining unit.
9. The total cost for medical, for vision, and for dental
(separately) and the cost per caregiver per year for SEIU
bargaining unit employees in each of the 2010, 2011 and
2012 plan years by plan and coverage level (e.g., caregiver
only, caregiver & adult, caregiver & children, caregiver,
adult & children).
10. The total cost and cost per caregiver per year as in
question 7, broken down by amounts paid by the employee
and by the employer.
11. An Excel sheet with health plan enrollment information
for each SEIU Local 49 bargaining unit member for plan
years 2010, 2011and 2012, to include plan name, level of
coverage, out of pocket health care expenditures, broken
out by type of expenditure (e.g., deductible, co-pay, co-
insurance, etc.) and amount of premium share for each in-
dividual employee and who is being covered (e.g. spouse
or domestic partner, children, etc.).
12. All Custom Group Experience Reporting or other experi-
ence reporting (annual and quarterly) supplied by any benefit
consultant, the plan administrator, or any other entity during
the current and prior three plan years, showing the key utiliza-
6
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion and cost indicators summary; group demographic sum-
mary; monitor reporting; top 20 (or more) diagnoses, proce-
dures, prescriptions, therapeutic classes with codes, numbers
of claimants, and total cost. Explain whether costs in the plan
are attributable to all plan participants or to bargaining unit
employees and their dependents only.
13. If MWMC plans to propose any health plan changes:
(a) Documents describing the details of the plans MWMC
proposes to offer and the costs to employees, including any
differences in services .covered among the plans currently
offered and the plans MWMC proposes to offer;
(b) The projected total cost per employee per year (includ-
ing any portion proposed to be borne by the employee) in
the next plan year of continuing with the same plans cur-
rently offered to bargaining unit employees and of adopt-
ing the plans the employer proposes to offer;
(c) The projected total employee cost per year for premi-
ums for deductibles, for co-pays, and for coinsurance in
the next plan year if the employer continues with the same
plans currently offered to bargaining unit employees and
if the employer adopts the plans the employer proposes to
offer; and
(d) The actuarial value of each of the plans currently of-
fered and the plans MWMC proposes to offer.
Concerning Retirement Plans
14. A copy of the current summary plan description for
each retirement plan offered to members of the SEIU Lo-
cal49 bargaining unit.
15. Complete copies of each annual report-the plan’s
Form 5500 filings with all attachments and schedules-for
plan years 2010 to present;
Other Benefit Plans
16. Please provide a summary plan description of any and
all other benefit plans made available to members of our
bargaining unit. This may include disability benefits, flexi-
ble spending accounts, etc. For each such benefit, please
include both employee and employer share of cost on a
monthly basis. [GC Exh.3.]
The Union requested that Respondent provide the infor-
mation by November 1, 2013, so that it could have the infor-
mation prior to the first bargaining session. Respondent did not
provide any of the requested information prior to the first bar-
gaining session. Instead, on the first day of bargaining, No-
vember 4, 2013, O’Leary provided Ward with documents re-
sponsive to requests numbers 8, 14, and 16. By email dated
November 6, 2013, Crider acknowledged receipt of the infor-
mation that was provided but informed O’Leary that the majori-
ty of information had not been provided. (GC Exh. 4.) O’Leary
responded, “I will have additional portions of these ready to
give to you by the end of the week. As you may remember
from years past, some of the things you ask, we do not track, or
have a way to provide in the manner in which you are asking
for them. However, I am working on what I can, and will have
the next batch off by Friday. Unfortunately, your time frame is
simply prohibitive considering the limited resources I have to
produce the information and the labor intensive manner in
which it has to be done.” (GC Exh. 4.) Friday came and went
and “the next batch” of documents that were promised did not
arrive. (GC Exhs. 4, 7.)
On November 26, 2013, O’Leary notified the Union that Re-
spondent planned to make changes to the unit employees’
healthcare benefits. The notice provided as follows:
This letter will serve as the 30 day notification to the SEIU of
the following changes to the McKenzie Willamette Medical
and Dental plans allowed for in our current Collective Bar-
gaining agreements. Effective 01/01/2014 there will be a 9%
increase in employee premiums for these employees covered
by our “Premium” Plan (at the highest level of coverage, Em-
ployee Plus Family, this equates to less than an $18 per pay
period increase) and a 4% increase in the employee premiums
for those employees enrolled in Our “Choice” Plan and in the
Dental Plan. In addition, attached you will find minor plan
changes as well [GC Exh. 5].
In response to the notice, the Union requested to bargain
over the proposed changes and by email dated December 2,
2013, Crider advised O’Leary that she hadn’t yet received any
of the requested information and further advised that given the
proposed changes she would need the information that was
previously requested but was made contingent on whether Re-
spondent intended to make changes to the health plans. (GC
Exhs. 3, 7–8) [see requests # 13(b)-013(d)]. O’Leary assured
Crider that she was “working on forwarding more information”
but the information was not provided. (GC Exhs. 3, 8.)
At the second bargaining session on December 11, 2013,
Ward advised Respondent that the Union wouldn’t be able to
bargain over the health care issues because Respondent hadn’t
provided information that was requested. O’Leary assured
Ward that they were working on gathering information. Re-
spondent at the bargaining session provided the union with
some of the requested information which included:
(1) the name, date of hire, sex, job classification, current base
hourly rate of pay, number of regularly scheduled hours per
week, total gross wages earned in calendar years 2012 and
2013, and the subsidy for health care currently being paid for
all bargaining Unit employees. [GC Exh. 3 [item #s 1(a) -1(h)
and # 1(j)].]
(2) a copy of the OSHA 300 logs (i.e., logs reporting acci-
dents that Respondent submits to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration) for each of the last three calendar
years. [GC Exh. 3 [item #5]]; and
7
MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER
(3) the cost to Respondent of a 1% wage increase for all em-
ployees in the bargaining Unit. [GC Exh. 3 [item # 6].]
On December 16, 2013, O’Leary emailed Crider information
regarding the total cost per bargaining unit employee of health
insurance. (GC Exh. 9.) O’Leary also sent health plan enroll-
ment information for the years 2010–2012, but did not provide
the Union with information regarding the out of pocket health
care expenditures or the amount of premium share for each
individual employee. (GC Exh. 3.) On January 15, 2014,
O’Leary sent an email to Crider which contained information
relating to the unit employees wages and their paid time off.
(GC Exhs. 3 and 10.) O’Leary also provided a “thumb drive”
with information regarding job classifications and procedures
but the drive did not contain job vacancy information that had
been requested. (GC Exhs. 3, 10.)
B. The Duty to Provide Information
Section 8(a) (5) of the Act provides that it is an unfair labor
practice for an employer “to refuse to bargain collectively with
the representatives of its employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (5).
As the Board explained in A-1 Door & Building Solutions,
356 NLRB No. 76, slip op. at 2 (2011): An employer’s duty to
bargain includes a general duty to provide information needed
by the bargaining representative in contract negotiations and
administration. See NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149,
152–153 (1956) [parallel citations omitted]. Generally, infor-
mation concerning wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment for unit employees is presumptively rele-
vant to the union’s role as exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative. See Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231,
235 (2005). By contrast, information concerning nonunit em-
ployees is not presumptively relevant; rather, relevance must be
shown. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 257, 259
(1994). The burden to show relevance, however, is “not excep-
tionally heavy,” Leland Stanford Junior University, 262 NLRB
136, 139 (1982), enfd. 715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983); “[t]he
Board uses a broad, discovery-type standard in determining
relevance in information requests.” Shoppers Food Warehouse,
supra at 259.
C. Relevance
1. The relevant information requests
The Respondent, in its answer, specifically denied the allega-
tions contained in the complaint which asserted that the infor-
mation sought by the Union was both necessary and relevant to
the Union in the performance of its duties as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit. Prior to trial, on
July 3, 2014, counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion to
strike the portion of Respondent’s answer relating to relevance.
Counsel for the General Counsel argued inter alia that, “each of
the items listed in Complaint Paragraph 6(a) pertains to Unit
employees’ terms and conditions of employment. Respondent,
at no time since the Union submitted its information request,
ever questioned or contested the relevance of the information
requested. Moreover, Respondent never contested the relevancy
of the information requested by the Union during the investiga-
tion of the underlying charge in this case.” (See GC Motion at
p. 2.) Respondent did not file a responsive pleading to the
General Counsel’s motion, and the motion to strike was granted
and the denial set forth in Respondent’s answer was deemed
admitted.3
Assuming for the sake of argument that the portion of Re-
spondent’s answer relating to relevance had not been stricken,
the evidence of record establishes, and I find that the infor-
mation requested by the Union all related to terms and condi-
tions of unit employees and the information sought was pre-
sumptively relevant. See for example, Postal Service, 332
NLRB 635 (2000); Oaktree Capital Mgmt., 353 NLRB 1242
(2009); Otay River Constructors, 351 NLRB 1105 (2007), and
also Hanson Aggregates BMC, Inc., 353 NLRB 287 (2008).
Therefore, Respondent had an obligation to provide the infor-
mation sought in a timely manner. See Woodland Clinic, 331
NLRB 735 (2000), and Pennco, Inc., 212 NLRB 677, 678
(1974).
2. The failure to provide relevant information.
The Union was entitled to all of the relevant information ref-
erenced above and I find that Respondent’s refusal and/or fail-
ure to provide the information violated the Act. “The refusal of
an employer to provide a bargaining agent with information
relevant to the Union’s task of representing its constituency is a
per se violation of the act without regard to the employer’s
subjective good or bad faith.” Piggly Wiggly Midwest, LLC,
357 NLRB No. 191 (2012), Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 220
NLRB 189, 191 (1975); Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 237
NLRB 747, 751 (1978), enfd. 603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979).
The failure to provide the information is in direct contravention
to the fundamental objectives of the Act. “The objective of the
disclosure [of requested information] obligation is to enable the
parties to perform their statutory function responsibly and ‘to
promote an intelligent resolution of issues at an early stage and
without industrial strife.’” Clemson Bros., 290 NLRB 944, 944
fn. 5 (1988).
3. The delay in providing information
The obligation to provide relevant information includes with-
in it an obligation to provide the information in a timely man-
ner. Shaw Supermarkets, 339 NLRB 871 (2003). In this case it
is undisputed that Respondent eventually provided some of the
requested information. However, it cannot also be said that it
made any reasonably diligent effort to do so. Nearly 8 weeks
passed before it handed over some of the most basic infor-
mation which it had at its ready disposal. Indeed, it took Re-

3 Respondent took the position that since the actions of the Regional
Director in issuing the complaint was void ab initio it was under no
obligation to file a responsive pleading. Respondent took the same
position regarding the subpoena that was served upon it arguing that it
was under no obligation to respond to the subpoena. Counsel for the
General Counsel argued that Respondent’s failure to respond to the
subpoena warranted the imposition of sanctions. Given my findings
discussed more fully below, I concur with counsel for the General
Counsel that Respondent was under an obligation to comply with the
subpoena. Nevertheless, in view of my conclusion that Respondent
violated the Act as alleged, imposing additional sanctions would serve
no useful purpose.
8
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent more than 3 months to provide simple job descrip-
tions. I find that this unexplained and unreasonable “foot drag-
ging” violated both the letter the spirit of the Act. Quality En-
gineered Products, 267 NLRB 593 (1983).
D. Respondent’s Defenses
Respondent’s defenses were predicated upon its position that
the underlying complaint was void ab initio because: (1) the
Regional Director was appointed when the Board lacked a
quorum; and (2) the Regional Director’s transfer to Region 19
was void because it occurred at a time when the Board lacked a
quorum.
1. The Regional Director’s appointment
Respondent’s initial defense was premised on the require-
ment under the NLRA that the Board must have at least three
members to constitute a quorum. 29 U.S.C. § 153(b). Appli-
cable Supreme Court precedent further instructs that this quor-
um requirement must be satisfied “at all times.” New Process
Steel v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674, 688 (2010). Respondent’s argu-
ment also had at its foundation Section 3(d) of the NLRA
which requires that “[t]he appointment, transfer, demotion or
discharge of any Regional Director . . . shall be made by the
General Counsel only upon approval of the board.” 67 Fed.Reg.
62992-01 (October 1, 2002). Respondent argues that since
Regional Director Hooks was appointed on January 6, 2012, his
appointment is invalid because at that point in time the board
lacked a valid quorum in light of the Supreme Court’s decision
in Noel Canning v. NLRB, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), which held
that a 3-day recess was too short a timeframe to trigger the
President’s power under the Recess Appointments Clause and
therefore the January 4, 2012 recess appointments of Members
Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terrence Flynn were inva-
lid.
Respondent drew its conclusion regarding the appointment
of Ronald Hooks directly from information provided by the
NLRB. The NLRB “announced the appointment” of Regional
Director Hooks on January 6, 2012. (R. Exh. 4.) Similarly,
Respondent noted that in other litigation the NLRB took the
position that in fact Regional Director Hooks was appointed
January 6, 2012. More specifically, in an appellate brief filed
by the General Counsel in NLRB v. Kitsap Tennant Support
Services, the General Counsel in a footnote stated, “In April
2000, a five member Board appointed Mr. Hooks Director for
Region 26 after he served as Regional attorney in that office.
In January 2012, he was appointed Director for Region 19 and
transferred to that office.” (R. Exh. 5 p. 23 fn. 9.)
After the close of the hearing, counsel for the General Coun-
sel moved to reopen the record or in the alternative to take ad-
ministrative notice and sought to introduce the actual certificate
of appointment of Ronald Hooks which showed the actual date
he was appointed to be December 23, 2011. Respondent moved
to strike the appointment certificate and also argued that the
Government should be precluded from arguing that the date of
his appointment was anything other than January 6, 2012, as
had already been set forth by the Agency in its press release
and its representations in the Kitsap case referenced above. I
take administrative notice of the fact that the actual and correct
date of Hook’s appointment is December 22, 2011, as noted in
the appointment certificate attached to counsel for the General
Counsel’s motion. See Metro Demolition Co., 348 NLRB 272
(2006).
2. Estoppel against the Government
The equitable doctrine of estoppel is typically invoked to
avoid injustice and requires that the party claiming estoppel
must have relied upon the representations in such a manner as
to change their position for the worse. 3 J. Pomeroy, Equity
Jurisprudence Section 805, p. 192 (S. Symons ed. 1941). Es-
toppel against the government requires an even higher standard.
In Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County,
Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 60–61, (1984), the Supreme court noted that,
“when the Government is unable to enforce the law because the
conduct of its agents has given rise to an estoppel, the interest
of the citizenry as a whole in obedience to the rule of law is
undermined. It is for this reason that it is well settled that the
Government may not be estopped on the same terms as any
other litigant. . . . Estoppel against the government is appropri-
ate only in the rarest of circumstances when the “countervailing
interests of citizens in some minimum standard of decency,
honor, and reliability in their dealings with the government”
outweighs the public interest in ensuring that the government
can enforce the law.” Id.
It is clear (and counsel for the General Counsel admits) that
there were inaccuracies in the Kitsap brief. Similarly, the word-
ing of the news release which “announced” the appointment of
Regional Director Hooks, might have left the impression that
Regional Director Hooks was in fact appointed on January 6,
2012. However, Respondent made no showing that would
suggest that in reliance upon the inaccuracies in the Kitsap brief
(or the press announcement) it changed its position for the
worse. Respondent also made no showing that standards of
“decency, honor, and reliability” outweigh the interests of the
public in having the NLRA enforced.4 While Respondent es-
tablished that the Kitsap brief contained an error, I find that
Respondent presented no legally supportable justification for
striking the affidavit of appointment and\or in the alternative
precluding the General Counsel from relying upon it.
3. Regional Director Hook’s appointment and transfer
was valid
Respondent’s argument might in fact carry the day if indeed
Regional Director Hooks was actually appointed on January 6,
2012, but he wasn’t. In fact he was appointed and transferred
when (pursuant to the three-member rule noted above) a valid
quorum existed. Chairman Pearce, Members Hayes and Becker
were all participants in the decision. (See Board’s Minute Order
Dated December 22, 2011.)
The status of Member Becker at the time deserves some
mention as some have challenged the validity of his recess
appointment. In Teamsters Local 455 v. NLRB, 2014 WL
4214920 (10th Cir. 2014), the court applying the reasoning and

4 The General Counsel on July 31, 2014, filed a motion to correct a
factual misstatement in the NLRB’s reply brief in the Kitsap case in an
attempt to correct the record regarding the date of Hook’s appointment.
9
MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER
rationale set forth by the Supreme Court in Noel Canning, su-
pra, found that since Member Becker was appointed during an
intra-session recess exceeding 2 weeks his appointment was
valid and the Board’s power and authority to act was intact. A
similar result based on identical reasoning was reached in
Gestamp S. Carolina, L.L.C. v. NLRB, 11-2362, 2014 WL
5013049 (4th Cir. 2014).
Assuming for the sake of argument Respondent’s assertions
had some validity, they would in any event have been rendered
moot by the Board’s subsequent actions. The Board by Minute
Order dated July 18, 2014, in response to the Supreme Court’s
decision in Noel Canning, affirmatively “confirmed, adopted
and ratified nunc pro tunc all administrative, personnel and
procurement matters approved by the Board or taken by or on
behalf of the Board from January 4, 2012 to August 5, 2013.”
(See Board Minute Order of July 18, 2014.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical
Center Associates, LLC, d/b/a McKenzie-Willamette Medical
Center, is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Charging Party, Service Employees International Un-
ion Local 49, CTW-CLC (the Union), is a labor organization
with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all material times the Union has been the designated
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the following
bargaining unit of Respondent’s employees:
All full-time, part-time, on-call, and per diem employees em-
ployed by Respondent in the job classifications of House-
keeper, Dietary Worker, Housekeeper Team Leader, Materi-
als Linen Tech Lead, Dietary Worker Lead, Clerical Assis-
tant, Assistant Operating Room Schedule Coordinator, Physi-
cal Therapy Aide I, Medical Records Clerk I, Supply Distri-
bution Aide I, Courier, Supply Distribution Aide II, Sterile
Process Tech, Santa Clara/JC Utility Groundskeeper, Custo-
dian, Dietary Clerk, Patient Service Assistant, Supply Distri-
bution Aide Team Leader, Admissions Specialist, Certified
Sterile Tech, Central Scheduler PRN, CNA, Utility
Groundskeeper Lead, ‘Custodian Team Leader, Dietary Clerk
Lead, PSA Team Leader, X-Ray Technician-Ground, Lead
Transcriptionist, Cashier I, Switchboard Operator, Trauma
Registrar, Occupational Therapy Assistant, Operating Room
Aide, Pharmacy Technician Trainee, X-Ray Assistant, Physi-
cal Therapy Aide II, Clerk Generalist, Storeroom Clerk, Secu-
rity Officer, Linen Tech, Food Service Cook Purchase Pro-
duce Clerk, X-ray Technician Student, Relief Lead Admitting
Clerk, Lead Switchboard Operator, Lead Security Officer,
Lead Cook, Purchase Produce Clerk Lead, Nurse Aide, En-
doscopy Support Aide I, Endoscopy Support Aide II, Cashier
II, Admitting Clerk, Unit Services Coordinator, Respiratory
Care Clerk/Assistant, X-Ray Receptionist/Secretary, Rehabili-
tation Secretary/ Receptionist, Central Supply Technician,
Santa Clara/JO Rehabilitation Secretary/Receptionist, Team
Leader Administrative Clerk, Accounts Receivable Clerk, Re-
fund/Correspondence Clerk, Business Office Lead Clerk, Ap-
pointment Scheduling Coordinator, OB CNA Scrub Techni-
cian, Operating Room Schedule Coordinator, Surgical Sup-
port Aide, Lab Assistant, Clerk Specialist, Ship-
ping/Receiving Clerk, Maintenance Worker I, Surgical Sup-
ply Aide Team Leader, Lead Lab Assistant, Clerk Specialist
Team Leader, Respiratory Therapy Student Coder I, Emer-
gency Medical Technician, Emergency Department Techni-
cian/Clerk, X-Ray Transcriptionist, Holter Analyst, Data En-
try - Operating Room, Endoscopy Technician, Histology As-
sistant, Release Information Specialist, Bio-med Technician I,
Relief Charge Respiratory Therapist, Charge Respiratory
Therapist, Respiratory Therapist, Pharmacy Technician, Med-
ical Lab Technician, Certified Pharmacy Technician, Electro-
cardiogram/OCT Tech, Electroencephalo-
gram/Electrocardiogram Technician, Coder II, Certified
Pharmacy Technician Specialist, Electroencephalogram/
Electrocardiogram Technician Lead, Certified Respiratory
Therapist, Polysomnographic Technician, Relief Charge Res-
piratory Therapist Certified, Charge Polysomnographic Tech-
nician, Charge Respiratory Therapist Certified, Respiratory
Therapist PFT Certified, Respiratory Therapist Respiratory
Therapist Technician, Physical Therapy Assistant, Certified
Occupational Therapy Assistant, Registered Respiratory
Therapist, Emergency Department Paramedic, Engineering I,
Engineering II. Health Information Specialist, Health Infor-
mation Management Technician, Insurance Verifier, Lead
Diagnostic Imaging Receptionist, Nutrition Services 1, Ob-
stetrics Technician, Operating Room Materials Aide, Pharma-
cy Clerk, Physical Therapy Secretary, Radiology Technolo-
gist, Registered, Certified Surgical Tech, Maintenance Work-
er II, Medical Records Coder III Coder III Team Leader,
Medical Receptionist Input Coder Lead, ABG Maintenance
Technician, Respiratory Therapist PFT Registered, Angio
Tech, X-Ray Technician, XRay Technician 2, Relief Charge
Respiratory Therapist Registered, Maintenance Specialist,
Charge RI Registered, Charge Cardiovascular Technician Spr
Technician, Echo cardiology Technician, Clinical Engineer,
Bio-med Relief Lead Pay, Charge Medical Technologist,
Medical Technologist, Lab Section Coordinator, Unit Secre-
tary, Industrial Injury Specialist, Electrocardiogram Techni-
cian, Charge Section Coordinator, Charge Electroencephalo-
gram/Elec-trocardiogram Technician, Pharmacy Secretary,
CAT Scan Technologist, Special Procedures Technician, Ul-
trasound Technologist, X-ray Technologist, Charge Radiolo-
gy Tech, Charge Registered Polysomnographic Technician,
Registered Polysomnographic Technician PRN, Radiology
Technologist, Transporter, Unit Services Coordinator Lead,
Quality Assurance Auditor, Patient Financial Services Repre-
sentative II, Workers Compensation Specialist, Reimburse-
ment Analyst, Financial Services Specialist, Pre-Service Rep-
resentative, Patient Financial Services Representative Lead,
Relief Charge Medical Technician, Lead Monitor Tech, Re-
lief Charge Medical Lab Technician, Intensive Care Unit
Monitor Technician, Relief Charge Radiology Technician,
Relief Charge CAT Scan Technician and Charge CAT Scan
Technician; excluding all other employees, professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
10
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unreasonably delaying and/or failing and refusing to provide
information requested by the Union and relevant to the Union’s
representational duties.
5. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Respondent shall provide the Union with the information re-
quested in paragraphs 1(i), 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13b-d, and 15 of
the October 17, 2013 information request. To remedy Respond-
ent’s unlawful failure to bargain in good faith with the Union,
Respondent shall be ordered to bargain in good faith with the
Union.5
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended
ORDER
The Respondent, McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical
Center Associates, LLC, d/b/a McKenzie-Willamette Medical
Center, Springfield, Oregon, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain with the Union as the rep-
resentative of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit
by unreasonably delaying and/or failing and refusing to provide
information requested by the Service Employees International
Union, Local 49, CWT-CLC that is relevant and necessary to
the Union’s representational status.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) In a timely manner, furnish the Union with all the infor-
mation requested by the Union in its information request of
October 17, 2013. More specifically, Respondent shall provide
information fully responsive to paragraphs 1(i), 2, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13b-d, and 15 of the October 17, 2013 request.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Springfield, Oregon, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative shall be posted by

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the 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.”
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to the physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondents to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 4, 2014
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the
above rights.
WE WILL NOT fail to collectively bargain in good faith with
Service Employees International Union, Local 49, CTW-CLC
(the Union), by delaying, refusing, and/or failing to provide the
Union with requested information that is relevant and necessary
to the performance of the Union’s duties as exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of nonprofessional unit employ-
ees at our facilities in Springfield, Oregon.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it requested
in its October 17, 2013 information request.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with
your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A MCKENZIE-
WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER
11
MCKENZIE-WILLAMETTE MEDICAL CENTER
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-119098 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.