Prime Healthcare Services - Encino, LLC dba Encino Hospital Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 2016

364 NLRB No. 128 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

364 NLRB No. 128
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.
Prime Healthcare Services–Encino, LLC d/b/a Encino
Hospital Medical Center and SEIU Local 121RN
and SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West
Prime Healthcare Services–Garden Grove, LLC d/b/a
Garden Grove Hospital & Medical Center and
SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West. Cases
21–CA–080722, 31–CA–066061, 31–CA–070323,
and 31–CA–080554
October 17, 2016
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS MISCIMARRA
AND MCFERRAN
On November 13, 2014, Administrative Law Judge
Jeffrey D. Wedekind issued the attached decision. The
Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel and Charging Party Unions filed an-
swering briefs, and the Respondents filed reply briefs.
Charging Party SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West
filed cross-exceptions, and the Respondents filed an an-
swering brief.1
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs
and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings,2 findings,

1 SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West failed to present any ar-
gument in support of its cross-exceptions. Accordingly, the cross-
exceptions may be disregarded pursuant to Sec. 102.46(b)(2) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, and we find it appropriate to do so
here. See Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc., 344 NLRB 694, 694 fn. 1
(2005), enfd. 456 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2006).
2 In upholding the judge’s rejection of Respondents’ conflict-of-
interest defense, we rely on the fact that the Respondent failed to show
evidence of a conflict of interest. We do not rely on speculation in the
judge’s decision concerning the lawfulness of SEIU United Healthcare
Workers–West’s participation in a labor-management committee.
Member Miscimarra joins his colleagues in adopting the judge’s de-
cision, with the following observations. First, in adopting the judge’s
finding that the Respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(5) when they discontin-
ued granting anniversary step wage increases after the collective-
bargaining agreements expired, Member Miscimarra agrees with the
judge that the language of the expired agreements fails to demonstrate
that the contract provision regarding anniversary step wage increases
was limited to the term of the agreements. Moreover, Respondent
Encino continued to grant the increases for 7 months after contract
expiration, which additionally supports a finding that Respondent Enci-
no violated Sec. 8(a)(5) when it discontinued the increases. Member
Miscimarra disagrees, however, with Southwest Ambulance, 360 NLRB
No. 109 (2014), enf. denied on other grounds 796 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir.
2015), cited by the judge, as well as Finley Hospital, 362 NLRB No.
102 (2015), revd. 827 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2016), to the extent those
cases hold that durational language contained in a provision of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement (e.g., language limiting the duty to act in
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified and set forth in full below.3
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Prime Healthcare Services–Encino, LLC
d/b/a Encino Hospital Medical Center, Encino, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with SEIU Local
121RN and SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West (the
Unions) by failing and refusing to furnish them with re-
quested information that is relevant and necessary to the
Unions’ performance of their duties as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representatives of unit employees. The
units are:
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
Registered Nurses, including Employee Health Nurse
and Educators employed at the Hospital located at
16237 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California;
Excluded: All other employees, Home Health Nurses,
Case Managers, Orthopedic Program Coordinators, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
service, maintenance, technical, and skilled mainte-
nance employees;

conformity with the terms of the provision to “the duration of this
agreement” or “the term of this agreement”) is insufficient to limit the
employer’s obligation to act in accordance with that provision to the
term of the agreement, and he disagrees that an employer violates Sec.
8(a)(5) when it discontinues the contractually mandated action upon
contract expiration in reliance on such limiting durational language.
Second, regarding the Unions’ information requests, although Member
Miscimarra agrees that the judge properly rejected the Respondents’
conflict-of-interest defense, he believes that the circumstances the
Respondents cite in connection with that defense may give rise to legit-
imate concerns about confidentiality. Nevertheless, the burden is on
the party that demonstrates a confidentiality interest to seek an accom-
modation of the parties’ respective interests, see, e.g., Borgess Medical
Center, 342 NLRB 1105, 1106 (2004), and the Respondents did not do
so here. Finally, although Member Miscimarra agrees that the circum-
stances here are insufficient to disqualify SEIU United Healthcare
Workers–West as collective-bargaining representative, he disclaims
reliance on the judge’s characterization of Greyhound Lines, Inc., 319
NLRB 554 (1995).
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decisions in Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997), and
AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), and to con-
form to the violations found and to the Board’s standard remedial lan-
guage. We shall also modify the judge’s recommended remedy to
correct his citation to New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), in ac-
cordance with our standard practices. We shall substitute a new notice
to conform to the Order as modified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Excluded: All other employees, managers, supervisors,
confidential employees, guards, physicians, residents,
central business office employees (whether facility
based or not) who are solely engaged in qualifying or
collection activities or are employed by another Tenet
entity, such as Syndicated Office Systems or Patient
Financial Services, employees of outside registries and
other agencies supplying labor to [Encino] and already
represented employees.
(b) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
its unit employees by ceasing payment of anniversary
step wage increases to unit employees without first noti-
fying the Unions and giving them an opportunity to bar-
gain.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish SEIU Local 121RN, in a timely manner,
the information it requested on April 5, 2011.
(b) Furnish SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West, in
a timely manner, the information it requested on January
12, 2012.
(c) Before implementing any changes in wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Unions
(or with the appropriate Union if the proposed change
only affects employees in one unit) as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representatives of the employees in
the above-described units.
(d) Resume granting anniversary step wage increases
to eligible employees in the above-described units, and
continue to grant such increases until such time as the
parties have reached a new agreement or a lawful im-
passe.
(e) Make whole eligible employees in the above-
described units for any loss of earnings resulting from
the Respondent’s failure to grant them anniversary step
wage increases since November 17, 2011, in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s decision.
(f) Compensate affected employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award, and file with the Regional Director for Region 31,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
years for each employee.
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Encino, California, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix A.”4 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
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, the 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
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, 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 cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since April 5, 2011.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Prime Healthcare Services–Garden Grove,
LLC d/b/a Garden Grove Hospital & Medical Center,
Garden Grove, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with SEIU United
Healthcare Workers–West (the Union) by failing and
refusing to furnish it with requested information that is
relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its
duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of unit employees. The unit is:

4 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 3
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
Service, Maintenance, Technical, Skilled Maintenance,
and Business Office employees;
Excluded: All other employees, managers, supervisors,
confidential employees, guards, physicians, residents,
central business office employees (whether Facility
based or not) who are solely engaged in qualifying or
collection activities or are employed by another Tenet
entity, such as Syndicated Office Systems or Patient
Financial Services, employees of outside registries and
other agencies supplying labor to [Garden Grove] and
already represented employees.
(b) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
its unit employees by ceasing payment of anniversary
step wage increases to unit employees without first noti-
fying the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested on January 25, 2012.
(b) Before making any changes in wages, hours, or
other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the above-described unit.
(c) Resume granting anniversary step wage increases
to eligible employees in the above-described unit, and
continue to grant such increases until such time as the
parties have reached a new agreement or a lawful im-
passe.
(d) Make whole eligible employees in the above-
described unit for any loss of earnings resulting from the
Respondent’s failure to grant them anniversary step wage
increases since March 31, 2011, in the manner set forth
in the remedy section of the judge’s decision.
(e) Compensate affected employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award, and file with the Regional Director for Region 21,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
years for each employee.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Garden Grove, California, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix B.”5 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed elec-
tronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-
spondent customarily 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 covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since March 31, 2011.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 17, 2016
______________________________________
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 a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
APPENDIX A
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 SEIU
Local 121RN and SEIU United Healthcare Workers–
West (the Unions) by failing and refusing to furnish them
with requested information that is relevant and necessary
to the Unions’ performance of their duties as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representatives of unit em-
ployees. The units are:
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
Registered Nurses, including Employee Health Nurse
and Educators employed at the Hospital located at
16237 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California;
Excluded: All other employees, Home Health Nurses,
Case Managers, Orthopedic Program Coordinators, of-
fice clerical employees, confidential employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
service, maintenance, technical, and skilled mainte-
nance employees [employed by Encino Hospital Medi-
cal Center];
Excluded: All other employees, managers, supervisors,
confidential employees, guards, physicians, residents,
central business office employees (whether facility
based or not) who are solely engaged in qualifying or
collection activities or are employed by another Tenet
entity, such as Syndicated Office Systems or Patient
Financial Services, employees of outside registries and
other agencies supplying labor to [Encino] and already
represented employees.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of
employment by ceasing payment of anniversary step
wage increases to unit employees without first notifying
the Unions and giving them an opportunity to bargain.
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 SEIU Local 121RN, in a timely man-
ner, the information it requested on April 5, 2011.
WE WILL furnish SEIU United Healthcare Workers–
West, in a timely manner, the information it requested on
January 12, 2012.
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Unions (or with the appropriate Union if the proposed
change only affects employees in one unit) as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representatives of the employ-
ees in the above-described units.
WE WILL resume granting anniversary step wage in-
creases to eligible employees in the above-described
units, and WE WILL continue to grant such increases until
such time as we have reached a new agreement or a law-
ful impasse in bargaining.
WE WILL make whole eligible employees in the above-
described units for any loss of earnings resulting from
our failure to grant them anniversary step wage increases
since November 17, 2011.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum
backpay award, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 31, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the
appropriate calendar years for each employee.
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC
D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
The Board’s decision can be found at
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-066061 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
APPENDIX B
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
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 5
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 SEIU
United Healthcare Workers–West (the Union) by failing
and refusing to furnish it with requested information that
is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of
its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of unit employees. The unit is:
Included: All full-time, regular part-time, and per diem
Service, Maintenance, Technical, Skilled Maintenance,
and Business Office employees [employed by Garden
Grove Hospital & Medical Center];
Excluded: All other employees, managers, supervisors,
confidential employees, guards, physicians, residents,
central business office employees (whether Facility
based or not) who are solely engaged in qualifying or
collection activities or are employed by another Tenet
entity, such as Syndicated Office Systems or Patient
Financial Services, employees of outside registries and
other agencies supplying labor to [Garden Grove] and
already represented employees.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of
employment by ceasing payment of anniversary step
wage increases to unit employees without first notifying
the Union and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
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 it requested on January 25, 2012.
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the above-described unit.
WE WILL resume granting anniversary step wage in-
creases to eligible employees in the above-described unit,
and WE WILL continue to grant such increases until such
time as we have reached a new agreement or a lawful
impasse in bargaining.
WE WILL make whole eligible employees in the above-
described unit for any loss of earnings resulting from our
failure to grant them anniversary step wage increases
since March 31, 2011.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum
backpay award, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 21, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the
appropriate calendar years for each employee.
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–GARDEN
GROVE, LLC D/B/A GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL
& MEDICAL CENTER
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-066061 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273–1940.
John Rubin, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Joseph Turzi, Esq. & Colleen Hanrahan, Esq. (DLA Piper LLP
(U.S.)), for the Respondents.
David Adelstein, Esq. (Bush Gottlieb), for the Charging Party
SEIU Local 121RN.
Monica Guizar, Esq. (Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld), for the
Charging Party SEIU UHW–West.1
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JEFFREY D. WEDEKIND, Administrative Law Judge. The con-
solidated complaint in this matter alleges that two Southern
California hospitals owned by Prime Healthcare Services—
Encino Hospital Medical Center (Encino) and Garden Grove
Hospital & Medical Center (Garden Grove)—unlawfully failed
and refused to bargain in good faith in certain respects with
SEIU Local 121RN and/or SEIU United Health Care Workers–
West (UHW) after their collective-bargaining agreements ex-
pired in March 2011. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the hospitals have unlawfully failed: (1) to continue paying
anniversary step wage increases to the unit employees as pro-
vided in the expired contracts; and (2) to provide information
that the Unions requested in April 2011 and January 2012, dur-
ing the new contract negotiations, regarding the unit employ-
ees’ healthcare plans, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of

1 Jonathan Cohen, Esq. (Rothner, Segall & Greenstone) made a lim-
ited appearance for the SEIU International Union to address subpoena
issues.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The hospitals deny that they violated the Act in either re-
spect. They assert that the anniversary step wage increase pro-
visions did not survive contract expiration and that the request-
ed healthcare information was not relevant to the negotiations
and was requested in bad faith and to harass. The hospitals
further assert that they had no legal obligation to bargain with
UHW at all, as the Union disqualified itself, forfeiting its statu-
tory right to represent the unit employees at the hospitals, be-
cause of its strategic partnership with Kaiser Permanente,
Prime’s competitor, and its public campaign of false and fraud-
ulent attacks to disparage Prime’s reputation and drive Prime
out of the healthcare market.2
The hearing to address the foregoing allegations and defens-
es opened in Los Angeles, California on April 30, 2013.3
However, the hearing was postponed at that time, before the
taking of any testimony, due to an unresolved dispute over
subpoenas that Respondents had served on the Charging Party
Unions and the SEIU International Union relating to the Re-
spondents’ disqualification defense. The hearing resumed ap-
proximately 14 months later, on June 10–12, 2014,4 and the
parties subsequently filed their posthearing briefs on Au-
gust 25, 2014.
After carefully considering the parties’ briefs and the entire
record, for the reasons set forth below, I find that the Respond-
ents had an obligation under the Act both to continue the anni-
versary step wage increases and to provide the Unions with the
requested information about the healthcare plans. I also reject
the Respondents asserted disqualification defense to the allega-
tions involving UHW.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Prime owns and operates hospitals in various states, includ-
ing California.5 It purchased the two subject hospitals in Enci-
no and Garden Grove from Tenet Healthcare in June 2008. It
continued thereafter to operate the hospitals in basically un-
changed form, and retained a majority of the employees. It also
recognized UHW, which had represented the service and tech-
nical employees at Encino and Garden Grove, and 121RN,
which had represented the registered nurses at Encino. Prime
adopted the three collective-bargaining agreements between the
Unions and Tenet covering those units, which were effective
from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2011.
In addition to Encino and Garden Grove, UHW represents
employees at certain other Prime hospitals, including Centinela

2 Respondents initially asserted that 121RN was likewise disquali-
fied, but withdrew this defense during the hearing (Tr. 68–69).
3 There is no dispute, and the record establishes, that the Respondent
hospitals satisfy the commerce standards for NLRB jurisdiction.
4 The Respondents filed a post-hearing motion to supplement the
record on June 18, which I granted in part (with respect to R. Exhs. 821
and 824–826) by order dated July 2 (ALJ Exh. 1).
5 The record contains various references to “Prime Healthcare,”
“Prime Healthcare Services,” and “Prime Healthcare Management.”
Although there is considerable ambiguity in the record about the rela-
tionship between these entities and the Respondent hospitals, there
appears no question that they are, in fact, related and are involved in the
ownership, management, or operation of the hospitals. For simplicity
sake, they are referred to here cumulatively as “Prime.”
Hospital Medical Center in Inglewood, which Prime purchased
in late 2007. UHW also represents employees at hospitals
owned by Kaiser, Prime’s competitor, and is a member of the
National Coalition of Kaiser-Permanente Unions (the Coali-
tion). Since 1997, the Coalition and Kaiser have been party to
a National Labor-Management Partnership Agreement (LMP).
Pursuant to the LMP, Kaiser has agreed, among other things, to
“fully integrate” the participating unions into the company’s
“strategic decision-making process” at all levels, national, re-
gional, and local.6 In return, the unions have agreed, among
other things, to assist Kaiser in “achieving and maintaining
market leading competitive performance”; to “expand [Kai-
ser’s] membership in current and new markets”; to “market[]
[Kaiser] as the employer and care provider of choice,” includ-
ing “to new and existing union groups,” in order to increase
enrollment in the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan; and to “work
in a proactive manner” on “growth strategies,” including “new
geographics and regions, mergers and acquisitions.” Consistent
with these obligations, the unions have agreed to “focus . . . on
real external threats” to Kaiser, including “competition,” and to
annually develop with Kaiser a “joint” marketing plan that
would include, among other things, consistent data collection,
education programs, and communication strategies and tools.
Kaiser and the Coalition have also agreed to establish certain
“joint education” trust funds, as well as a joint labor-
management partnership trust fund to pay for partnership ad-
ministration and activities. As of 2010, Kaiser contributed $10
million annually, and employees 9 cents per hour, to the part-
nership trust fund.7
Effective January 1, 2010, about 18 months after Prime pur-
chased the Encino and Garden Grove hospitals, the employees
represented by UHW and 121RN at those facilities became
covered by Prime’s EPO and PPO medical plans.8 The Prime
EPO (exclusive provider organization) plan was not an insur-
ance plan, but a fee-for-service plan. Under that plan, subject
to certain limited exceptions (e.g. lack of access or availability),
the employees obtained their medical services at Prime facili-
ties or doctors affiliated with those hospitals at a discounted
rate. Under the Prime PPO (preferred provider organization)
plan, the employees could join other networks such as An-
them.9

6 According to the LMP, this “does not mean co-management, but
rather full participation in the decision-making forums and processes at
every level of the organization.”
7 Tr. 517; R. Exhs. 93, 95–98, 435, 819. UHW President Dave Re-
gan signed the 2010 LMP (R. Exh. 98) as UHW “Trustee,” and is also
listed as a member of the LMP Strategy Group on the LMP website,
www.lmpartnership.org (R. Exh.438). Representatives of the SEIU
International and other SEIU locals also signed the 2010 LMP. In
addition, an attachment to the 2010 LMP lists the UHW and other
bargaining units at Kaiser hospitals. See also Permanente Medical
Group, Inc., 358 NLRB 758 (2012).
8 Tr. 316, 555–556; and GC Br. 14. It is not entirely clear how this
came about. See also Jt. Exhs. 6, 13; and Garden Grove Hospital &
Medical Center, 357 NLRB 653 (2011). However, the manner in
which the Prime EPO and PPO plans were initially implemented at
Encino and Garden Grove in January 2010 is not at issue here.
9 Tr. 145, 147, 224–229, 316, 596–597, 631. See also R. Exh. 37
(the 2011 summary description of the EPO plan). The vast majority
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 7
Around the same time, UHW began a so-called “corporate
accountability campaign” against the Prime. UHW at that time
was engaged in contentious contract negotiations with Prime at
Centinela. One of hospital’s proposals in those negotiations
was to replace the unit employees’ current medical insurance
program with Prime EPO/PPO plans similar to those at Encino
and Garden Grove.10 UHW had also previously been involved
in labor disputes with Prime at other hospitals, including Gar-
den Grove.11 UHW began publicizing these labor disputes and
campaigning against Prime’s attempts to acquire additional
hospitals in California. In particular, UHW criticized Prime for
cutting staff, reducing wages and benefits, and limiting access
to care in order to increase profits. See UHW press releases
dated April 2 and June 3, 2010 (R. Exhs. 201, 203).
UHW also began publicly questioning the quality of care and
billing practices at Prime hospitals. Sometime in 2010, UHW
prepared and circulated a 24-page report entitled “Septicemia at
Prime Hospitals” (R. Exh. 91).12 Citing Medicare billing data,
UHW reported that there had been an unusually high rate of
septicemia among Medicare patients at Prime hospitals in 2008.
Specifically, it reported that Prime operated five of the six hos-
pitals with the highest septicemia rates in the U.S.; that all 12
Prime hospitals, including Garden Grove and Encino, were in
the top 10 percent of hospitals with respect to septicemia rates;
and that the average septicemia rate at Prime’s hospitals (15.7
percent) was more than three times the national average (4.8
percent), and 70 percent higher than the second-highest health
system (9.2 percent).
The report concluded that a likely explanation for this was
“upcoding,” i.e. that Prime was incorrectly coding infections as
MS-DRG 038.9 (the Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related
Group code for unspecified septicemia) to obtain the higher
Medicare reimbursement rate for such infections. In support,
the report cited data indicating that, despite the relatively high
numbers of Prime Medicare patients coded with septicemia, the
mortality rate of such patients was relatively low (only 13 per-
cent compared to 21 percent for other hospitals), but about the
same for all Medicare patients (4.5 percent at Prime compared
to 4.7 percent at other hospitals). The report noted that this

(95 percent) of employees at Prime hospitals are in the EPO plan
(Tr. 632).
10 See Centinela Hospital Medical Center, 31–CA–030044, JD(SF)–
17–13, 2013 WL 1561256 (April 12, 2013) (ALJ Etchingham), excep-
tions filed June 14, 2013.
11 See Garden Grove Hospital, above (finding that Garden Grove vi-
olated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by rescinding the unit employees’
reserve sick leave benefit in April 2009).
12 Although UHW refused to acknowledge at the hearing that it au-
thored the 2010 septicemia report, it is clear from the document itself
and the record as a whole that UHW did so. See the UHW’s subse-
quent “Care and Coding” report, R. Exh. 92, p. 3, discussed infra (refer-
ring to the 2010 septicemia report as “our recent report”); and R. Exhs.
209, 210. See also Tr. 232. As for when UHW prepared and distribut-
ed the undated report, see R. Exh. 222 (February 2, 2010 letter from
CtW Investment Group to Medical Properties Trust); R. Exh. 202 (May
26, 2010 letter from the California Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud to UHW
Counsel Dave Regan); and R. Exh. 204 (July 1, 2010 letter from Con-
gressmen Pete Stark and Henry Waxman to the Department of Health
and Human Services Inspector General).
could also explain why Prime hospitals scored well in the
Thomson Reuters “Top 100 Hospitals” series; by upcoding
patients with a low-mortality DRG to a high-mortality DRG
like septicemia, the actual mortality rate (and length of stay)
would be lower than expected, making Prime look better by
comparison to its competitors.
The report concluded that another possible explanation was
that there were infection control problems at Prime hospitals,
raising “serious concerns about worker and patient safety.” In
support, the report cited higher than average levels of septic
shock and skin ulcers at several Prime hospitals, which were
not separately coded.
The report also analyzed various other possible explanations
for the high septicemia rates at Prime hospitals, including the
possibility that the infections were acquired at another location
before admission, such as at a nursing home; that Prime hospi-
tals treat medical patients or conditions that are more suscepti-
ble to septicemia; or that the hospitals already had elevated
septicemia rates when Prime acquired them. However, the
report concluded that these factors were not supported by the
available data, and were unlikely explanations. Rather, the
report concluded that there was
a high probability of serious breakdowns in patient care
and/or possible Medicare fraud at Prime hospitals, raising
troubling questions about the source of Prime’s profitability,
and casting a shadow over Prime’s apparently ill-gotten [“Top
100 Hospitals”] awards.
Thereafter, in January 2011, UHW also prepared and distrib-
uted a 17-page “update” of its 2010 septicemia report (R. Exh.
92). This second report, entitled “Care and Coding at Prime
Healthcare Services,” did a similar analysis of more recent
2009 Medicare billing data and reported “comparable” results,
including that Prime operated seven of the 12 hospitals with the
highest septicemia rates in the U.S.; that 11 of 13 Prime hospi-
tals were in the top 5 percent nationally with respect to such
rates; and that the average septicemia rate at Prime’s hospitals
(15.1 percent) was almost three times the national average (5.2
percent) and 50 percent higher than the second-highest compa-
rable health system. The report also again reported that Prime
had relatively low septicemia mortality rates (13 percent) com-
pared to other hospitals (19 percent), in contrast to comparable
mortality rates overall (4.3 percent and 4.4 percent, respective-
ly). It also reported that Prime had one of the highest rates of
very short inpatient stays among all U.S. health systems. The
report again explained how this could be due to upcoding for
septicemia (“The easy explanation is simply that you don’t die
if you aren’t really sick”), and could lead to inflated quality
scores in “Top 100 Hospitals” rankings.
The “care and coding” report also addressed malnutrition
rates at Prime hospitals, reporting that they were likewise the
highest in the U.S. Specifically, it reported that all Prime hos-
pitals were in the top 7 percent for the highest total malnutrition
rate nationally; that 12 of 13 Prime hospitals were in the top 4
percent for the highest severe malnutrition rate nationally; and
that Prime’s severe malnutrition rate (7.7 percent) was seven
times the national average (1.1 percent). It also reported that
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
Prime operated 8 of the 9 California hospitals with the highest
malnutrition rates, and 10 of the 11 California hospitals with
the highest severe malnutrition rates. As with the Prime’s high
septicemia rates, the report stated that inaccurate billing was the
most likely explanation for these high malnutrition rates.
Following release of the reports, UHW called for a “thor-
ough investigation” of Prime hospitals. It also urged state offi-
cials to deny licenses to Prime until the investigations were
completed, and the passage of state legislation that would pre-
vent Prime or any other company from buying and operating a
hospital without a license. It also wrote letters to Prime net-
work physicians repeating its criticisms of Prime’s corporate
takeover and labor practices and the findings in its earlier re-
ports regarding septicemia and malnutrition rates at Prime hos-
pitals. The letters urged the physicians to assist UHW in “ex-
posing the impact of the corporation’s practices” and to report
any information about such practices to the HHS Office of the
Inspector General. (R. Exhs. 216, 210, 213, 218, 254, 510.)
Prime, of course, responded. Both of the UHW reports stat-
ed that the Union was engaged in labor disputes with Prime,13
and Prime accused UHW of preparing and distributing the re-
ports to “extort concessions” from Prime in those disputes. As
for the reports’ findings and conclusions, Prime acknowledged
that its hospitals had higher rates of septicemia, but said the
rates reflected the company’s emphasis on “early detection and
treatment” of the illness, resulting in more cases getting report-
ed, even in early stages. It also said that the rates might be
elevated because “sicker patients are being admitted” at Prime
due to the company’s emphasis on emergency room admis-
sions. Prime also disputed UHW’s conclusion in the reports
that the lower septicemia mortality rate suggested upcoding.
Prime said the lower mortality rate instead reflected Prime’s
emphasis on treating septicemia early and aggressively. Final-
ly, Prime insisted that the malnutrition diagnoses at its hospitals
were likewise accurate.14

13 The January 2011 care and coding report also explained that UHW
was conducting the “corporate accountability campaign” because of the
interrelationship or correlation between poor treatment of workers and
irresponsible and unethical corporate behavior in other areas.
14 See R. Exhs. 105, 212 (October 11, 2010 and February 13, 2011,
California Watch articles). See also Prime Senior Labor Counsel Mary
Schottmillier’s testimony, Tr. 506–507 (October 2010 article accurately
reported Prime’s comments), Tr. 503 (Prime publicly responded to
UHW’s allegations numerous times), and Tr. 504 (“Prime’s position is
and continues to be that the whole attack on septicemia, malnutrition, et
cetera, [is] just an effort by the SEIU to extort concessions from us”).
The record indicates, and Respondents acknowledge, that state and
federal authorities did, in fact, open investigations into UHW’s allega-
tions. See, e.g., R. Exhs. 105, 208, 210; and R. Br. 33 (“UHW’s efforts
resulted in investigations of Prime hospitals by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, the California Attorney General, [and] the
[California Department of Public Health].”) However, no evidence was
presented regarding their results. The only evidence Respondents
offered regarding the results of any investigation into UHW’s allega-
tions was a December 13, 2010 letter from a private accreditation or-
ganization, Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP). The
letter stated that HFAP had conducted a 1-day “onsite survey” in No-
vember 2010 regarding allegations of up-coding/overbilling and infec-
tion control problems at Chino Valley Medical Center (one of the
In the meantime, in September and October 2010, Prime be-
gan meeting with UHW to negotiate new collective-bargaining
agreements covering the service and technical units at Encino
and Garden Grove. A few months later, in January 2011, Prime
likewise began meeting with 121RN to negotiate a new agree-
ment covering the registered nurses unit at Encino. The lead
negotiator for the hospitals in all three negotiations was Prime
in-house labor attorney Mary Schottmiller. Schottmiller was
hired by Prime Healthcare Management in January 2010 specif-
ically because of her experience with union corporate cam-
paigns when she worked for First Group America, and she had
served as Prime’s lead negotiator at Centinela since that time.15
Richard Ruppert was the lead negotiator for UHW, and Judith
Serlin was the lead negotiator for 121RN.
The parties did not reach any new agreements before the ex-
isting contracts expired on March 31, 2011, however. Indeed,
they had not even begun bargaining over economic items by
that time. Further, in early May, Schottmiller sent letters to
Ruppert questioning “whether the bargaining process has been
compromised.” Schottmiller was concerned—based on the
LMP between Kaiser and the Coalition and UHW’s corporate
campaign against Prime and related 2010 information requests
at Centinela (which specifically sought data on septicemia and
mortality rates)16—that the SEIU International and its affiliated
locals might be working together with Kaiser to exclude Prime
from the California healthcare market. Schottmiller therefore
requested a variety of information and documents regarding the
relationship and communications between SEIU and its affiliat-
ed locals and Kaiser, particularly with respect to Prime’s and
Kaiser’s competitive position in the healthcare market. (Tr.
516–518; R. Exhs. 22, 22a.)
Ruppert responded about a month later, on June 20. He de-
clined to provide any of the requested information on the
grounds that the requests should have been directed to the SEIU
International, were “overly broad” and “neither relevant nor
necessary to the negotiations” at Encino and Garden Grove, and
appeared to have been made “merely to harass UHW.” (R.
Exh. 23.)
Several months later, on November 15, 2011, Prime filed an
antitrust suit against SEIU, UHW, and Kaiser in federal district
court. The complaint alleged that the defendants had unlawful-
ly conspired together to eliminate Prime from the healthcare
services market in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act. In support, the complaint cited the LMP, the efforts to
prevent Prime from acquiring additional hospitals, the 2010 and
2011 septicemia and care-and-coding reports, and various other
alleged actions. As relief, the complaint requested treble dam-
ages and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from continuing their “collusive corporate campaign” to dispar-
age and destroy Prime. On August 30, 2012, prior to discovery
or trial, the federal district court granted Kaiser’s motion to
dismiss the complaint without prejudice to filing an amended
complaint. Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. v. SEIU et al., 2012

Prime hospitals listed in UHW’s 2010 report with an unusually high
septicemia rate) and found them “not substantiated” (R. Exh. 810).
15 See Tr. 324, 337; R. Exh. 3; and Centinela Hospital, above.
16 See id.
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 9
WL 3778348 (S.D. Cal.). Approximately a year later, on July
25, 2013, the court also granted the defendants’ motions to
dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice. 2013 WL
3873074. Prime thereafter appealed the dismissal to the Ninth
Circuit, which remains pending. 17
Respondents did not file an unfair labor practice charge with
the NLRB, however. Nor did they unilaterally withdraw
recognition from UHW. Notwithstanding their asserted de-
fense in this proceeding that UHW is disqualified from repre-
senting their employees at Encino and Garden Grove, as of the
June 2014 hearing they continued to recognize UHW as the
unit employees’ bargaining representative, continued to main-
tain the status quo under the expired labor agreements (aside
from the disputed issue here with respect to ceasing anniversary
step wage increases),18 and continued to meet and negotiate on
a regular basis with UHW (and 121RN) over new agreements
(Tr. 164, 561, 579, 635).
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Anniversary Step Wage Increases
All three of the expired agreements—the 121RN and UHW
agreements at Encino and the UHW agreement at Garden
Grove—contained identical provisions regarding annual and
anniversary step wage increases. In relevant part, they provid-
ed as follows:
ARTICLE 13 - COMPENSATION
Sec. 3. Annual Hospital Wide Increases. July 1, 2010. The
wage scales shown in the Appendices will be implemented.
Placement of bargaining unit members on the Wage Scales
will be in accordance with the Implementation section of this
Article. No bargaining unit member will receive a wage in-
crease greater than 9.25% in any twelve (12) month period.
No bargaining unit member (including those above the appro-
priate step) will receive a wage increase of less than 3%.
Sec. 5. Annual increases/Advancing through the steps.
In addition to the above hospital-wide annual increases, be-
ginning July 1, 2008, individual employees shall receive An-
niversary Step Increases in accordance with the wage scales
in the following manner:
Full and part time employees: Employees who are at or below
the scale on the anniversary date of their most recent date of

17 I take judicial notice that, in late August 2014, Prime also filed a
federal civil action against SEIU, UHW, and the Change to Win (CtW)
union coalition under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organi-
zations Act (RICO) based on many of the same operative facts and
asserting many of the same allegations as in the federal antitrust action.
See Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. v. SEIU et al., 2014 WL 5422631
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2014) (transferring action to southern district).
18 In April 2014, I granted the General Counsel’s motion to consoli-
date an additional complaint allegation (31–CA–101389) alleging that
Encino unilaterally altered the procedure for posting vacancies in
March 2013. However, the General Counsel withdrew that complaint
at the hearing on June 10 based on newly discovered evidence (Tr. 8).
hire shall advance to the next step on the wage scale on that
anniversary date, subject to the annual caps provided in Sec-
tion 3 above, which limit the maximum increase any employ-
ee may receive in any twelve (12) month period. Employees
who are above the scale shall not receive a step increase on
their anniversary date. However, employees who are less
than one full step above scale shall advance to the next step on
their anniversary date, again subject to the annual caps pro-
vided in Section 3 above.
(Jt. Exhs. 2–4.) Pursuant to these provisions, Encino and Gar-
den Grove granted anniversary step wage increases to the unit
employees during the life of the contracts subject to the 9.25
percent annual cap (Jt. Exh. 1).
At the parties first postexpiration bargaining sessions at En-
cino and Garden Grove in April and June 2011, respectively,
UHW lead negotiator Ruppert discussed with Schottmiller what
would happen to the contractual terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the service and technical unit employees. Ruppert
identified those terms in the expired Encino and Garden Grove
contracts that UHW believed survived as a matter of law, in-
cluding anniversary step wage increases, and Schottmiller
agreed (Tr. 183–186, 260–261, 265–267).19 121RN lead nego-
tiator Serlin likewise told Schottmiller during negotiations that
121RN believed the anniversary step wage increases continued
postexpiration, and Schottmiller agreed with Serlin as well (Tr.
572).
Consistent with the foregoing, over the next 7 months, Enci-
no continued to approve and award anniversary step wage in-
creases to eligible employees in the 121RN and UHW units.
However, Garden Grove did not do so for eligible employees in
the UHW unit at that hospital.20 Further, in October or No-
vember 2011, after reviewing the provisions of the expired
contracts and the law with Barbara Back, Encino’s HR manag-
er, Schottmiller concluded that her initial agreement with the
Unions that the hospitals would continue the increases was
mistaken. Specifically, she concluded that the provisions in
section 5 regarding anniversary step wage increases did not
survive or carryover because they referred back to the provi-
sions in section 3, which undisputedly did not survive or car-
ryover. Accordingly, on or about November 17, 2011, she
ordered that no further such increases be given at Encino. (Tr.
566–569, 572, 575, 578, 602, 757.) Schottmiller did not, how-

19 Although Ruppert did not recall whether he had a similar discus-
sion with Schottmiller with respect to the anniversary step wage in-
creases at Garden Grove (Tr. 198–200), I credit the testimony of UHW
Steward Kimberly Davis, who was also on the UHW bargaining team,
that such a discussion occurred.
20 Jt. Exhs. 1, 18; R. Exhs. 64, 64A; GC Exh. 13; Tr. 775, 781–788.
As indicated in the cited exhibits, not all employees with anniversary
dates at Encino received anniversary step wage increases during the
first 7 months after the contracts expired. However, the General Coun-
sel appears to concede that this was because only a minority of employ-
ees typically qualified for the wage increases for various reasons, and
only alleges a violation at Encino as of November 17, 2011, when
Schottmiller ordered the wage increases to cease. See the January 31,
2013 consolidated complaint and subsequent amendments thereto (GC
Exhs. 1(kkk), and 2, pars. 11, 12), and the General Counsel’s post-
hearing brief at 41, 80.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
ever, inform UHW and 121RN of this at the time. Rather, both
Unions were informed when they subsequently inquired about
the missing increases in late November or December 2011 and
February and March 2012. (Tr. 102, 186–189, 262–263, 586.)
In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that the Re-
spondents had an obligation under the Act to continue paying
anniversary step wage increases to eligible unit employees after
the contracts expired. It is well established that such contractu-
al wage provisions are a mandatory subject of bargaining, and
that an employer must continue them in effect postexpiration
until the parties have reached either a new agreement or a valid
impasse, unless the employer can show that the union clearly
and unmistakably waived the right to bargain over ceasing
them. See Southwest Ambulance, 360 NLRB No. 109 fn. 1 and
JD at 13–17 (2014) (longevity pay), and cases cited there.
Respondents have failed to show that there was a clear and
unmistakable waiver here. There is no language in section 5
indicating that the anniversary step wage increases would end
when the contracts expired. Nor do the references in section 5
to annual wage increases or the 9.25 percent annual cap on total
wage increases clearly indicate that the anniversary step wage
increases would end. The only reference in section 5 to the
annual wage increases is the statement that employees would
receive anniversary step wage increases “in addition to” annual
wage increases. This statement does not clearly indicate that
the employees would receive the former only if they received
the latter. Employees also received a variety of other benefits
under the contracts in addition to annual wage increases, and
there is no contention that they ended just because the annual
wage increases ended when the contracts expired. As for the
reference in section 5 to the 9.25 percent annual cap on total
wage increases, this reference likewise did not in any way con-
dition the continuation of anniversary step wage increases on
the continuation of annual wage increases.
Respondents nevertheless argue that no unilateral change vi-
olation can be found because the foregoing references provided
a “sound arguable basis” for Schottmiller’s interpretation that
the anniversary step wage increase provisions were not intend-
ed to survive. However, the “sound arguable basis” standard
applies only to alleged midterm modifications of agreements,
not to alleged postexpiration unilateral changes. See Finley
Hospital, 359 NLRB 156 fn. 7 (2012), cited with approval in
Southwest Ambulance, supra.21 As indicated above, the test in
the latter situation is whether there has been a “clear and unmis-
takable waiver” by the union. In any event, even if the “sound
arguable basis” standard were applicable here, I would find that
Respondents have failed to satisfy it for essentially the same
reasons stated above, i.e. because the cited references in section
5 to annual wage increases and the 9.25 percent annual cap on
total wage increases cannot by themselves reasonably be inter-

21 See also Bath Iron Works Corp., 345 NLRB 499 (2005), affd. 475
F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2007). As noted there (id. at 503), after a collective-
bargaining agreement expires, the union has no recourse under either
the grievance-arbitration clause, which normally does not survive con-
tract expiration (Litton Financial Printing Division v. NLRB, 501 U.S.
190 (1991)), or 29 U.S.C. § 185, which authorizes unions to bring suit
in federal district court against employers for violating contracts during
their term.
preted to mean that anniversary step wage increases were con-
ditioned on annual wage increases.
Moreover, as indicated above, the Respondents (per Schott-
miller, their lead negotiator and admitted agent) orally agreed
with the Unions in April 2011, shortly after the contracts ex-
pired, that the anniversary step wage increases would continue
at the hospitals. It is well established that oral agreements may
be binding. See Safeway Steel Products, 333 NLRB 394, 400
(2001); Kasser Distiller Products, 307 NLRB 899, 903 (1992);
and cases cited in Young Women’s Christian Assoc. of Western
Massachusetts, 349 NLRB 762, 771 fn. 8 (2007). And this
generally includes oral agreements to continue terms under
expired agreements. See Cincinnati Newspaper Guild, Local 9
v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 863 F.2d 439, 443 (6th Cir. 1988),
citing Inner City Broadcasting Corp. v. American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists, 586 F. Supp. 556, 559–560 (S.D.
N.Y. 1984).
Finally, Encino repeatedly and regularly approved and grant-
ed such increases to employees in the 121RN and UHW units
for 7 months after the contracts expired, until mid-November
2011. This was sufficient under Board law, even apart from the
oral agreements, to prevent Encino from unilaterally ceasing
such increases without notice or bargaining with 121RN and
UHW. See Garden Grove Hospital & Medical Center, 357
NLRB 653 (2011) (Respondent Garden Grove violated 8(a)(5)
by unilaterally rescinding reserve sick leave benefits 9 months
after acquiring the hospital from Tenet, even though it had the
right to and did set new initial terms, and had continued the
benefits by mistake, due to clerical errors).22
B. The Unions’ Information Requests
The complaint alleges that Respondents unlawfully refused
to provide certain information to 121RN and UHW relating to
Prime’s EPO and PPO healthcare plans in response to written
requests dated April 5, 2011 and January 12 and 25, 2012.
1. April 5, 2011 information request by 121RN
The first information request on April 5, 2011 was made by
121RN’s research director, Maryanne Salm. At that time, the
Union anticipated that Prime would make a healthcare proposal
at Encino similar to the one it made at Centinela, i.e. that Prime
would propose continuing its EPO and PPO plans with signifi-
cant increases in employee copays, deductibles, and premiums.
Accordingly, Salm submitted a written request to Schottmiller
for certain information regarding the plans. Specifically, Salm
requested the following information regarding employer costs,
employee access to care, and the quality of care under the
Prime EPO and PPO plans so that the Union could prepare its
bargaining proposals.

22 Contrary cases cited by Respondents are distinguishable. In Eagle
Transport Corp., 338 NLRB 489 (2002), the employer corrected an
administrative error in a single paycheck. In Foster Transformer Co.,
212 NLRB 936 (1974), although the employer reduced an employee’s
wage rate after paying the higher rate for several years, the Board found
no violation because the lower rate was “in line with [the employer’s]
uncontradicted policy of paying the applicable rate for the work per-
formed,” the reduction corrected “a plainly inequitable rate structure,”
and the union itself had “call[ed] attention to the inequity.”
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 11
Prime’s cost of providing the healthcare. Salm stated that
“insofar as Prime is the designated provider under the Prime
employee health plans,” the Union requested the following
information “related to Prime’s cost of providing care to bar-
gaining unit employees”:
1. Copies of all claims for coverage under the plan made by
employees during the last year for care received at a Prime fa-
cility as well as copies of any correspondence or other docu-
ments with respect to the processing of those claims and the
payments of those claims; [and]
2. A list of paid claims for care received at a Prime facility
with all personal information redacted indicating the proce-
dures for which payment was made and the cost to the plan
for each such procedure.
a. For each of the procedures performed in Prime fa-
cilities, please provide a breakdown of the actual cost
to Prime of each procedure (labor, overhead, pur-
chased materials/pharmaceuticals etc);
b. For those cost breakdowns, please provide the de-
tailed calculations upon which the cost figure was
based, indicating how the actual costs for medical ser-
vices, for administrative charges and for any other ex-
penses were determined.
Employee access to care at Prime facilities. Salm stated that
the Union also had “concerns that the limited number of ser-
vices and providers available at Prime facilities unduly restricts
our members’ access to care.” Accordingly, she requested:
1. Copies of all claims for coverage under the plan made by
employees during the last year for care received at a non-
Prime facility, as well as copies of any correspondence or oth-
er documents with respect to the processing of those claims
and the payments of those claims; [and]
2. A list of paid claims for care received at a non-Prime facili-
ty with all personal information redacted indicating the proce-
dures for which payment was made and the cost to the plan
for each such procedure.
Quality of healthcare provided by Prime. Salm additionally
stated that, “because employees are required to utilize services
within the ‘Prime Network’ and our members have limited
experience utilizing Prime facilities, the Union must carefully
evaluate the quality of care at Prime hospitals.” Accordingly,
she requested:
A list breaking down the quarterly number of in-patient dis-
charges by MSDRG, broken down by age groups (0-17, 18-
35, 36-50, 51-64, 65+), from July 1, 2009 to present, [specify-
ing] the following:
a. Quarter and calendar year;
b. MS-DRG grouper version used;
c. MS-DRG;
d. Age group (0-17, 18-35, 36-50, 51-64, 65+);
e. Number of cases;
f. Average length of stay;
g. Median length of stay; and
h. Mortality rate.
(Jt. Exh. 5; Tr. 103–106, 171–173.)
Schottmiller responded by letter about 10 days later, on April
15. However, other than an updated physician list, she did not
attach or otherwise provide the requested information. Instead,
she asked for “clarification” of the requests and requested in-
formation from 121RN in return. Specifically, with respect to
Prime’s cost of providing care, she asked for an explanation of
the proposals 121RN had made or anticipated making and how
the requested information was relevant to the collective-
bargaining negotiations and the Union’s proposal. She noted in
this regard that Encino was “not agreeable to any health care
plan other than the EPO and PPO plans already implemented
and agreed to” and was “not inclined to change that coverage,
regardless of the cost issues you raise.” She also requested that,
to the extent 121RN believed such information about Prime’s
plan was relevant, the Union provide “similar” information
regarding its alternative proposal.
Schottmiller also disputed the relevance of the requested in-
formation about access to Prime facilities. She stated that out-
of-network claims did not necessarily mean that Prime’s ser-
vices were limited or not conveniently available to employees;
indeed, she said it was “silly” to suggest that there were prob-
lems with employee access to Prime’s facilities and services
given that “the covered employees report to work at the place
where most of the services are provided.” She therefore stated
that the parties “should further discuss the reason for this re-
quest.” As with information about employer costs, she also
requested that, to the extent 121RN believed the requested in-
formation about access to Prime facilities was relevant, the
Union provide “similar” information regarding its alternative
proposal.
As for the request for information about quality of care at
Prime facilities, Schottmiller stated that the request was “baf-
fling” given that the care is provided “at the very hospitals in
which your members and members of SEIU-UHW work.” In
an apparent reference to UHW’s 2010 and 2011 septicemia and
care and coding reports, she also noted that “the SEIU appar-
ently has sufficient information to comment on the quality of
care at Prime Healthcare facilities, as it has done in numerous
reports which it has made public.” “In short,” she stated, “it
appears that you are seeking to impose a tremendous burden on
Prime to gather information that you already have in your pos-
session or that is readily available to you from your members.”
She therefore asked the Union to “more specifically identify
your concerns.” (Jt. Exh. 6; Tr. 106–107.)
Salm replied a few days later, on May 9. She advised
Schottmiller that 121RN had not yet determined what proposals
it would make regarding the existing health plans; “indeed,” the
Union was seeking the requested information “to properly
evaluate the existing plans to determine whether to even pro-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
pose changes.”23 Salm also further explained why the specific
information requested regarding cost, access, and quality of
care was relevant and necessary to such an evaluation. Salm
explained that the requested information about claims and
payments for care at Prime facilities was “critical to determin-
ing plan costs, the allocation of those costs, administrative effi-
ciencies, and to measuring quality of care.” With respect to the
requested information about claims and payments for care at
non-Prime facilities, Salm explained that this information was
needed because “employees must go through various adminis-
trative processes and often pay increased co-pays and deducti-
bles for out-of-network or non-Prime hospital coverage,” and
“our members have raised numerous complaints about the lim-
ited access to certain services within the Prime Network.” With
respect to the requested information about quality of care at
Prime facilities, Salm explained that the requested information
was necessary because “unit employees in the EPO plan may
utilize any of the hospitals within the Prime Network,” not just
Encino, “there are many other non-bargaining unit employees
that also provide care,” and “our members do not have access
to the aggregated data requested.” Salm also noted that the
existing plans had “not been in existence for all that long,” the
unit employees had “only limited experience utilizing Prime
facilities,” and the Union therefore had “a duty to carefully
evaluate the quality of care at Prime hospitals.” As for Schott-
miller’s reference to UHW’s recent reports, Salm noted that
121RN, not UHW or the SEIU International, was the bargain-
ing agent for the registered nurses, and that 121RN had not
itself issued any reports about the quality of care at Prime hos-
pitals. (Jt. Exh. 7; Tr. 107–108.)
Schottmiller responded about a week later, on May 17. She
rejected Salm’s explanations on the grounds that they were
“conclusory” and suggested that Salm “misunderstood our
questions and position.” With respect to the requested infor-
mation about claims and payments for care at Prime facilities,
she disagreed that cost can be a measurement of quality of care.
Further, she argued that the requested information about
Prime’s costs was not needed to propose reductions in the cost
of benefits; that short term, direct costs are not necessarily the
driver in health care planning”; that “many threshold issues
should be resolved before addressing costs”; and that it ap-
peared the Union was seeking “information that would violate
the collective bargaining privilege, our own cost analysis.”
With respect to the requested information about employee ac-
cess to Prime care, she likewise argued that 121RN could make
bargaining proposals without the information. She also object-
ed to Salm’s failure to provide more detail regarding employee
complaints about limited access, and made a “formal request
for information relating to all the complaints.” She likewise
objected to Salm’s failure to provide information regarding
employee complaints about quality of care, and made a “formal

23 Salm also expressed concern that Schottmiller’s response indicat-
ed that “the Hospital has adopted a take-it-or-leave-it stance concerning
health insurance with no intent to even consider alternative options or
views,” a position that “would be antithetical to good faith bargaining.”
However, aside from the refusal-to-provide information allegations,
there is no allegation in this proceeding that Encino has bargained in
bad faith over healthcare.
request” for “all information received by SEIU 121RN which
raises concerns regarding the quality of care in the Prime Net-
work.” Finally, Schottmiller accused Salm of being “disingen-
uous” regarding the relationship between 121RN and the SEIU,
and requested “any communications between SEIU 121RN and
the SEIU, any of the SEIU’s affiliate organizations, or any third
parties, regarding the quality of care provided at Prime.” (Jt.
Exh. 8; Tr. 108–109.)
Salm replied a few weeks later, on June 2. With respect to
the cost of the Prime health care plans, she repeated her earlier
explanation and assured Schottmiller that the Union was “not
seeking analysis you have prepared for purposes of bargain-
ing.” Regarding employee access to care, she again explained
that “going out of network for care often entails more cost to
employees and we are entitled to see how often and for what
reasons this is occurring.” As for Schottmiller’s request for
more detail about employee complaints, Salm stated that the
Union would review and respond to the request if made sepa-
rately, but that it had “no bearing on the relevance of the Un-
ion’s request” for information. Finally, with respect to quality
of care, Salm repeated that the requested information “is rele-
vant to analyzing existing health plans,” and would allow the
Union “to better understand the level of care at Prime facili-
ties.” She did not address Schottmiller’s additional “formal”
requests for information about the Union’s requests for infor-
mation on that subject. (Jt. Exh. 9; Tr. 109–110.)
Schottmiller responded a month later, on July 1. She stated
that it was “readily apparent,” based on Salm’s responses, that
121RN was engaging in a “fishing expedition in an attempt to
create a problem where none exists.” Specifically, regarding
the cost of the Prime healthcare plans, Schottmiller said she still
did understand why 121RN was seeking the requested infor-
mation, as “the NLRA does not require the employer to adopt
the lowest cost plan, allocate costs in any way, or obtain admin-
istrative efficiencies.” Regarding quality of care, Schottmiller
acknowledged that the requested data “may be of abstract inter-
est to a statistician.” However, she stated that it was “not the
best evidence” for the Union to evaluate the quality of care, and
repeated that the “best source” of information would be the
Union’s “own unit members.” Schottmiller also objected to
121RN’s failure to provide the information requested in her
May 17 response regarding employee complaints about access
and quality of care. Finally, she made several additional “for-
mal” requests for information. Specifically, she requested “all
quality of care information you have obtained from bargaining
unit members and other persons for purposes of your analysis.”
She also requested “any similar requests served on other em-
ployers,” and “any efforts made by SEIU 121RN to develop
similar information with respect to any plans covering its mem-
bers,” particularly “the extent to which SEIU 121RN developed
the same information from Aetna or PacifiCare, which previ-
ously provided benefits to the bargaining unit.” (Jt. Exh. 10; Tr.
110.)
At this point, Salm decided it would not be productive to
continue going back and forth, and therefore did not reply to
Shottmiller’s July 1 response. Nor did 121RN provide the in-
formation Schottmiller requested. However, the Union did not
withdraw Salm’s April 2011 request, and in fact filed an unfair
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 13
labor practice charge against Encino over the matter in late
September 2011 (Tr. 111, 156, 621; GC Exh. 1(a)).
Nevertheless, the parties continued to bargain over
healthcare. As expected, in or around late 2011, Encino pro-
posed continuing the current plans, with an increase in employ-
ee premiums. Consistent with its previous information re-
quests, 121RN raised concerns about the proposal during nego-
tiations with respect to cost, access, and quality of care. Ap-
proximately 2 years later, in February 2014, the Union also
submitted its own “package proposal for wages and health care
benefits” to Encino. The Union’s proposal agreed to maintain
the current EPO and PPO plans for the life of the contract, but
with specified limits on the amounts, if any, employees would
pay for premiums, copays, and deductibles in each year. Enci-
no has not to date accepted the proposal, however, and the Un-
ion still wants the information Salm originally requested in
April 2011. (R. Exh. 755; Tr. 170–171, 556, 561, 616–617,
621–623.)
In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that Encino
had an obligation under the Act to provide 121RN with all of
the information requested in Salm’s April 2011 letter. There
was nothing unusual about Salm’s request for information
about Encino’s costs of providing healthcare to unit employees,
and the Board has repeatedly held that such information is pre-
sumptively relevant, particularly during contract negotiations.
See, e.g., One Stop Kosher Supermarket, 355 NLRB 1237
(2010) (the cost of health insurance to the company and to the
employees); Castle Hill Health Care Center, 355 NLRB No.
196, slip op. at 29 (2010) (cost to the employer for unit em-
ployees' single health insurance coverage); Saipan Grand Ho-
tel, 326 NLRB 80 (1998) (cost per hour of providing health
insurance to unit employees); Martin Marietta Energy Systems,
316 NLRB 868, 874 (1995) (employer’s costs under its self-
insured healthcare plan, particularly those including large
claims and the amounts paid to certain providers); General
Dynamics Corp., 270 NLRB 829, 833 (1984) (the amount of
the fee employer negotiated with the insurance company for
actuarial, consulting, and other administrative services rendered
with respect to the employer’s medical insurance program);
North American Soccer League, 245 NLRB 1301, 1306 (1979)
(the claim experience under each category of insurance provid-
ed to players and/or their families, the overall cost to the em-
ployers of each category of insurance provided, and a descrip-
tion by transaction of any claims denied by the insurance carri-
ers and/or the clubs providing the insurance for each category
in question); Nestle Co., 238 NLRB 92, 94 (1978) (insurance
claims and premiums paid at the plant); and Swift & Co., 124
NLRB 394 (1959), enfd. in relevant part, 277 F.2d 641, 645
(7th Cir. 1960) (cost to the employer of the healthcare benefits
paid to unit employees under the current plan).24
As for Salm’s requests for information about unit employ-
ees’ access to Prime facilities and the quality of care at those
facilities, that information was obviously relevant given that the

24 See also U.S. Testing Co., 324 NLRB 854, 859 (1997), enfd. 160
F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 1998), where the Board found that the union was
entitled to medical claim and payment information regarding nonunit
employees as well as unit employees.
employees were required under the Prime EPO plan to obtain
medical treatment at Prime facilities. And to be sure Encino
did not miss the obvious relevance of the information, Salm
clearly explained it to Schottmiller.
Further, Encino has failed to establish any legitimate basis
for not providing the requested information to 121RN. Encino
argues that it was not required to provide the requested infor-
mation because Salm failed to adequately respond to Schottmil-
ler’s requests for “a proper explanation” of its relevance or
produce information in response to her requests. However,
given that the information requested in Salm’s April 2011 letter
was presumptively and/or facially relevant, 121RN had no duty
to provide any further explanation or information regarding its
relevance to Schottmiller; rather, the burden was on Encino to
show why the information was not relevant. See, e.g., Castle
Hill Health Care Center, above; and Regency Service Carts,
Inc., 345 NLRB 671, 674 (2005). Encino has failed to do so.25
Encino also argues that it had no duty to provide the request-
ed cost information because Prime itself provided the
healthcare to employees, and thus the requested cost infor-
mation was “akin to” “proprietary” “profit and loss infor-
mation,” which an employer has no duty to disclose absent a
plea of poverty, citing American Polystyrene Corp., 341 NLRB
508 (2004), union’s ptn. for review granted and remanded 467
F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2006). However, as indicated by the cases
cited above, “it is not always necessary that the [c]ompany put
the cost of its proposals in issue, or even refuse [u]nion de-
mands on the ground that they are too costly,” to require disclo-
sure of information about the cost of insurance benefits. NLRB
v. General Electric Co.,. 418 F.2d 736, 750 (2d Cir. 1969), cert.
denied 90 S.Ct. 995 (1970). Encino cannot avoid its statutory
obligations to provide such presumptively relevant cost infor-
mation to the Union simply because it chooses to provide
healthcare to its employees directly through Prime, its parent
company, rather than through other providers. If Encino was
concerned about the potential disclosure of “proprietary” cost
information to competitors, it was obligated to timely raise
those concerns and seek an accommodation with the Union.
See, e.g., Howard Industries, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 111 (2014),
citing Pennsylvania Power Co., 301 NLRB 1104, 1105–1106
(1992). There is no evidence that it ever did so.
Encino also argues that it was not required to provide the re-
quested information because “the record evidence demon-
strates” that the request was “not made to facilitate good faith
bargaining, but instead to abuse the process.” In support, Enci-
no cites the fact that Salm requested Medicare discharge (MS-
DRG) data, the same type of data that UHW had requested at

25 Encino does not repeat Schottmiller’s initial argument, in her
April 15 response, that the information requested by Salm was irrele-
vant to the contract negotiations because Encino would never change its
position regarding the Prime EPO and PPO plans. In any event, the
argument is without merit. As the Board stated in Regency Service
Carts, 345 NLRB at 674–675:
Information concerning bargained matters is relevant precisely be-
cause such information can enhance the prospects for agreement. Ir-
respective of whether the information may prompt one party to yield
or the other party to do so, the information is equally relevant.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
Centinela and used to attack Prime’s quality of care and coding
practices.26 Encino argues that it therefore had “reason to be-
lieve” that 121RN’s request was made for a similar “nefarious
purpose.” However, the MS-DRG data requested by Salm
would have eventually become available from governmental or
other public sources (Tr. 167–168). Further, as discussed be-
low, Respondents have failed to establish that UHW’s reports
based on MS-DRG and other data were false or incorrect.
In any event, a union is presumed to act in good faith in re-
questing information. Mission Foods, 345 NLRB 788 (2005).
And the mere fact that UHW had used similar MS-DRG data to
issue critical reports about Prime was insufficient to rebut that
presumption or justify its failure to provide the information to
121RN. See also AK Steel Corp., 324 NLRB 173, 184 (1997);
Central Manor Home for Adults, 320 NLRB 1009, 1011
(1996); and Associated General Contractors of California, 242
NLRB 891 (1979), enfd. in relevant part 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir.
1980), cert. denied 101 S.Ct. 3049 (1981) and cases cited there
(employer must provide requested information to the union if it
is relevant to and requested for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining, even if the union also has other reasons for requesting
the information).27
Finally, Encino argues that the subsequent history, specifi-
cally “the parties’ continued negotiations regarding the EPO
and PPO health plans” after Salm’s April 2011 request, proves
that the requested information was not relevant and necessary
to bargaining. However, this argument is likewise without
merit. See Castle Hill Health Care Center, and Regency Ser-
vices Carts, above, and cases cited therein. See also Oil, Chem-
ical & Atomic Workers Local 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348,
357 fn. 17 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
2. The January 12 and 25, 2012 information requests by UHW
During 2011, Prime made its healthcare benefits expert,
Tammy Valle, available at a few of the bargaining sessions to
answer UHW’s questions. However, on November 15, 2011,
Schottmiller notified Ruppert by email that Valle would not be
attending any further sessions, and that if UHW had any further
healthcare questions for her, they should be submitted in writ-
ing (Jt. Exh. 11; Tr. 580–581, 635–636).
A few months later, Ruppert gave Schottmiller the subject
January 12 and 25, 2012 written information requests. The
requests were identical except that one was for Encino and the
other for Garden Grove, and sought a variety of information
regarding employee access to care at Prime facilities and the
premium and other costs of the EPO and PPO plans. Specifi-
cally, Ruppert requested the following:
1. What distance limits are there before a referral to an An-

26 Encino also argues (somewhat inconsistently) that MS-DRG data
is irrelevant to evaluating quality of care. However, it bases this argu-
ment solely on Schottmiller’s testimony that her chief nursing officer
told her so (Tr. 583). Needless to say, such uncorroborated, self-
serving, and conclusory hearsay is entitled to little if any weight.
27 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Chicago, 311 NLRB 424 (1993), cited
by Encino, is clearly distinguishable. There, the union’s information
request for retirement-benefit cost information indicated on its face that
it was made at the behest of the employer’s competitors.
them physician can be made?
2. What is the referral process for physicians out of the Prime
network?
3. What is the appeal process for referrals?
4. Who determines these appeals?
5. How many referrals were approved / denied in the plan re-
ferral review process in the last plan year for which this in-
formation is available?
In bargaining discussions, Tammy Valle explained that pre-
mium amounts were determined by census data, group expe-
rience data and actuarial calculations.
6. How were the premiums determined for the EPO? Please
provide supporting data.
7. How were the premiums determined for the PPO? Please
provide supporting data.
8. What percentage of the total premiums are the proposed
employee premiums?
9. What is the annual or monthly cost of the plan to the hospi-
tal. Please break this information down for each plan and for
each plan coverage option available.
10. How are the fee-for-service charges determined for par-
ticipating physicians in the Prime Network?
11. Are these the "allowable charges" in the definitions sec-
tion of the SPD [summary plan description]?
12. What urgent care facilities participate in the EPO plan?
13. What were the costs of the three categories in the pre-
scription plan for over the last two plan years?
14. Please provide the step process guidelines for approval of
out of formulary drugs[.]
15. Documents showing the dollar amount of monthly ad-
ministrative costs (including the definition of "administrative
costs") during the prior 2 insurance contract years and show-
ing these costs as a percent of the amount of claims paid and
additionally, all documents showing any other costs incurred
other than claims paid.
16. Documentation as to the reserves maintained for the
payment of claims and for any stop-loss insurance carried by
the employer including coverage terms and cost.
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 15
(Jt. Exhs. 12, 15; Tr. 190–192, 203–204.)28
Schottmiller responded approximately a month later, on Feb-
ruary 20. As with 121RN’s previous request, she did not at-
tach or provide the foregoing requested information.29 Rather,
with respect to access to care, she objected to Ruppert’s failure
to “identify the issues which have given rise to [UHW’s] con-
cerns or detail any specific problems under the EPO plan,” and
made a “formal request” that UHW provide “all information
regarding and documentation underlying [UHW’s] purported
access to care concerns.” She also argued that UHW could
make alternative bargaining demands without the information,
and that “none of the information” that UHW requested was “in
any way relevant to any plan that may be proposed by the un-
ion.” With respect to the requested information regarding pre-
miums, Schottmiller stated that the premium costs were “based
on a determination made in the best judgment of the company
as to what would make [the hospitals] an attractive employer.”
As for the requested information regarding the cost of the EPO
plan to the hospitals, physician fee-for-service charges, and
reserves for payment of claims, she argued that such infor-
mation is likewise “not relevant to the parties’ bargaining, and
asked Ruppert to “explain the purpose for which [UHW] is
requesting this information.” (Jt.Exh. 13, 16; Tr. 192.)
Ruppert replied a month later, on March 20. He explained
that the information requests were based on discussions the
union’s bargaining team had previously had at the bargaining
table with Valle. He also explained at length the relevance and
necessity of the requested information:
The costs for utilizing Anthem physicians under the EPO are
greater than those incurred with participating Prime physi-
cians. There are two obvious reasons one might need to utilize
this option, services or specialists not available in the Prime
Network or at too great a distance. Accordingly we asked
questions addressing the availability of doctors and specialists
and what the distance policy was for referrals to an Anthem
provider. This information could be in the form of claims
amounts and diagnostic codes for all claims performed at a
Prime facility and separately the same information for claims
at Anthem providers and out of the network.
Additionally you will recall discussion of the referrals to An-
them doctors. Our members were initially led to believe that
they could continue to see their Anthem doctors if they select-
ed the EPO plan, primary care physician (PCP) referral re-
quirements notwithstanding. Now they are receiving bills in-
dicating the plan will not pay their Anthem doctors due to a
lack of a PCP referral. In our discussion, Ms. Valle reported
the healthcare plan was working through these issues but that
the PCP referral requirement was going to be strictly adhered

28 Ruppert testified that he did not ask for information about the
quality of care at Prime facilities because he had already asked for such
information at Centinela, and because he wanted to minimize Prime’s
concerns about UHW’s motives for requesting information at Encino
and Garden Grove (Tr. 230–231, 247).
29 Schottmiller did, however, provide other information requested in
Ruppert’s January 12 and 25 letters.
to.
Our questions addressing the referral process, the appeal pro-
cess for referrals, the individuals who determine these appeals
and the history of appeal results are based on these very real
concerns and experiences. You may recall that during our
discussion of these "specific problems" at the bargaining table
was [sic] suggested to be an HR issue, yet your letter main-
tains we have not brought [any] specific issues or general
concerns to the bargaining table.
During the discussions Ms. Valle explained the elements con-
sidered to determine the premium amounts for the proposed
plans. (Census data, claims experience, custom group experi-
ence, actuarial projections, etc.) We were told these calcula-
tions could be made available and asked for them in our re-
quest.
Your proposal includes a closed formulary for prescription
coverage and eliminates current plans with different levels of
prescription coverage. We have requested "step process
guidelines" for drugs not in the formulary and historical costs
for of the three categories of prescriptions in the current plan.
Since you are proposing a different coverage structure with
cost shifting we need to know what those costs have been.
As a self-insured provider, Prime is required to maintain stop
loss insurance for claims. This is in part for the protection of
our members. Documentation of the reserves is an appropriate
request.
Costs of the plan are a topic of bargaining. When we asked
why deductibles and other charges are so high for the pro-
posed PPO plan the answer was because we want employees
to be in the EPO. We need to understand the basis of the
charges and the actual costs of the medical services and ad-
ministrative charges to value your proposal before we can
propose changes to ensure that our members are not priced
out of coverage for their families or necessary coverage for
themselves. Accordingly we asked for the annual or monthly
cost to the hospital of each plan and for each plan coverage
option available.
Documents showing the dollar amount of monthly adminis-
trative costs (including the definition of "administrative
costs") during the prior two insurance contract years, showing
these costs as a percent of the amount of claims paid were re-
quested.
We requested urgent care locations participating in the EPO.
In most healthcare plans preventive care is an element and ef-
forts to reduce costs are integrated into the plan. Urgent care
is a common cost reduction. If costs are reduced the pressure
is usually reduced for premiums or other cost shifting.
. . . .
Your letter states that answers to our questions are in the SPD
and if something is unclear our question should be specific.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
We asked about the fee for service charges in the Prime net-
work and whether or not they were the “Allowable charges”
in the definitions section of the SPD without receiving an an-
swer. At your suggestion we will work our way through the
2011 SPD again while we wait for a copy of the 2012 SPD.
(Jt. Exh. 14.)30
Ruppert never received a response from Schottmiller. Nor
did UHW ever receive the requested information. Accordingly,
like 121RN, on July 15, 2012, UHW filed an unfair labor prac-
tice charge over the matter. (Tr. 193–196, 205–207, 249–250;
GC Exh. 1(v).)
In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that Encino
and Garden Grove were obligated under the Act to provide
UHW with the information requested in Ruppert’s January
2012 letters. Like Salm’s earlier requests on behalf of 121RN,
Ruppert’s requests for information about access and costs under
Prime’s EPO and PPO plans were plainly relevant on their face.
Moreover, like Salm, Ruppert fully explained their relevance.
Further, as with Salm’s requests, Respondents have failed to
establish a legitimate basis for not providing any of the infor-
mation requested by Ruppert. Respondents assert that the
information was not relevant or necessary for UHW to prepare
a bargaining proposal as Respondents had already provided
UHW with the SPDs and made Valle available to answer ques-
tions during bargaining sessions. However, Respondents do
not contend that the SPDs or Valle provided all of the infor-
mation Ruppert requested, and Ruppert’s March 20 response to
Schottmiller fully explained why the additional information
remained relevant and necessary. In these circumstances, Re-
spondents could not simply ignore Ruppert’s request, but were
required to comply with the request to the extent it encom-
passed additional relevant and necessary information that had
not already been provided. See Mission Foods, 345 NLRB at
789; and Keauhou Beach Hotel, 298 NLRB 702 (1990), and
cases cited there.
Respondents also argue that the hospitals’ costs of providing
healthcare constitute confidential proprietary information.
However, I reject this argument for the same reasons I rejected
it with respect to Salm’s request for similar information.
Again, there is no evidence that Respondents ever raised their
confidentiality concerns or sought an accommodation with
UHW.
III. THE RESPONDENTS’ DISQUALIFICATION DEFENSE
As indicated above, Respondents also assert that they lawful-
ly ceased anniversary step wage increases in the service and
technical units and refused to provide UHW with the requested
healthcare information because UHW was disqualified from
representing the unit employees due to its participation in the
Coalition’s strategic partnership with Kaiser and its corporate
campaign to disparage Prime’s reputation. I reject this defense
for the following reasons.
First, Respondents failed to present any evidence that
UHW’s asserted disqualifying conflict of interest and/or con-

30 See also the similar reply Ruppert sent to Schottmiller on March
28 with respect to the Garden Grove negotiations (Jt. Exh. 17).
duct had anything whatsoever to do with Respondents’ alleged
unlawful actions. As discussed above, the record shows that
Respondents ceased the anniversary step wage increases based
on their interpretation of the expired contract language, and that
they refused to provide UHW with the requested information
about the Prime EPO and PPO plans because they did not be-
lieve it was relevant or necessary to the parties’ new contract
negotiations. Although Respondents at one point questioned
and requested information from UHW about whether bargain-
ing had been compromised by the relationship between UHW,
SEIU, and Kaiser, and subsequently even filed a federal anti-
trust action against them, there is no evidence that Respondents
ever actually asserted that UHW was disqualified from repre-
senting the unit employees. As of the hearing, Respondents
continued to recognize and bargain with UHW.31
In these circumstances, Respondents cannot now assert as a
defense to the discrete 8(a)(5) allegations in this proceeding
that they never had to recognize and bargain with UHW in the
first place. Until such time as they lawfully refuse to bargain
and withdraw recognition from UHW, they must comply with
their bargaining obligations under the Act. See Greyhound
Lines, Inc., 319 NLRB 554, 556–557 (1995) (rejecting, for the
same reasons, the employer’s defense that the union was dis-
qualified due to its conflict-of-interest and violent conduct), and
cases cited there. Compare also the following cases where the
Board found that the employer properly raised and established
that the union was disqualified: Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.,
108 NLRB 1555 (1954) (employer refused to bargain with the
union because it established a company that directly competed
with the employer); Catalytic Industrial Maintenance Co., 209
NLRB 641 (1974) (employer filed motion to revoke the union’s
certification and refused to recognize and bargain with the un-
ion, which also represented the employees of the company that
contracted the work to the employer, because the union sought
to end the subcontract and have the contractor’s employees,
rather than the employer’s employees, perform the work); Val-
ley West Welding Co., 265 NLRB 1597 (1982) (employer filed
petition to revoke the union’s certification and withdrew recog-
nition from the union for essentially the same reasons as in
Catalytic); and Pony Express Courier Corp., 297 NLRB 171
(1989) (employer refused to recognize and bargain with the
newly certified union because, among other things, the union’s
founder and business agent was the owner and president of a
consulting firm that advised respondent’s customers and com-
petitors).32

31 UHW likewise continued to serve as the unit employees’ repre-
sentative at Encino and Garden Grove, and presumably expended sub-
stantial resources, garnered from unit employees’ dues, in doing so.
32 The Board, of course, has also addressed the conflict-of-interest
issue when it has been timely raised by the employer in the initial rep-
resentation proceeding. See, e.g., Visiting Nurses Association, Inc., 254
NLRB 49 (1981) (finding that union was disqualified because its re-
gional association had established a nurses registry that directly com-
peted with the employer in providing nursing services). See also Mas-
sachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 334 NLRB
No. 141 fn. 1 (2001), enfd. 297 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2002) (rejecting em-
ployer’s contention, in test-of-certification refusal-to-bargain proceed-
ing, that the union had a disqualifying conflict of interest, because the
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 17
Second, even assuming arguendo that Respondents may
properly assert a disqualification defense in the present circum-
stances, they have failed to prove the defense.33 As indicated
by Respondents, the cited provisions of the LMP and related
action plans, as well as the substantial financial contributions
by Kaiser and its employees to the joint labor-management
partnership trust fund, indicate that the Coalition and Kaiser
have partnered in a serious and meaningful way to make Kaiser
the preeminent healthcare provider and employer at the expense
of competitors, including Prime. However, labor-management
partnerships to enhance employer competitiveness are encour-
aged under the Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978.34
As the Board stated in addressing the lawfulness of a joint em-
ployer/union logo in BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. 335
NLRB 1066, 1070 (2001), enf. denied Lee v. NLRB, 393 F.3d
491 (4th Cir. 2005):
[T]he Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 encour-
ages joint labor-management initiatives. The stated purposes
of the Act are, inter alia, to expand and improve working rela-
tionships between workers and managers in the organized
sector of the economy, to improve communication between
representatives of labor and management, and to enhance the
involvement of workers in workplace decisions. The underly-
ing policy assumption is that innovative joint approaches will
enhance organizational effectiveness and competitiveness.
By agreeing to the joint logo display, BellSouth and the CWA
were demonstrating to the public their commitment to work-
ing together to enhance the Company's competitive ad-
vantage. In this respect, they were acting in accord with fed-
eral labor policy.
It may be that the Kaiser LMP stretches the purposes and
policies of the Labor Management Cooperation Act too far by
obligating UHW and other members of the Coalition to assist
Kaiser, not only in meeting the competition through increased
cooperation in the workplace, but in beating the competition
through marketing and mergers and acquisitions. Indeed, the
LMP is arguably inconsistent with the purposes and policies of
that Act to the extent it may effectively preclude Prime and
other healthcare providers from entering into a similar partner-
ship agreement with UHW or other signatory unions in the
Coalition.35 After all, there can be only one preeminent
healthcare provider and employer. But, Respondents (who as

employer failed to raise the issue in the underlying representation pro-
ceeding).
33 It is the employer’s burden to prove the affirmative defense, and
the burden is a heavy one. Supershuttle International Denver, Inc., 357
NLRB 68, 69 (2011), citing Garrison Nursing Home, 293 NLRB 122
(1989).
34 29 U.S.C. § 175(a). See also 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(9), which pro-
vides that payments to labor management committees established for
the purposes of the Labor Management Cooperation Act are excepted
from the restrictions on employer payments to unions.
35 UHW is not unique in representing employees of competing em-
ployers. Indeed, it is common for unions to do so. See Supershuttle,
above, slip op. at 3; and CMT, Inc., 333 NLRB 1307, 1308 (2001), and
cases cited there.
indicated above bear the burden of persuasion regarding their
affirmative defense) do not make this argument; indeed, they
do not even acknowledge, much less address, the Labor Man-
agement Cooperation Act.36 Nor do they cite any authority
disqualifying a union because of a labor-management partner-
ship agreement with a competitor.
As for UHW’s “corporate accountability campaign” against
Prime, Respondents have failed to establish that there was any-
thing disqualifying about it. Public campaigns to pressure an
employer to accede to employee bargaining demands are noth-
ing new. See, e.g., Rochester Telephone Corp., 333 NLRB 30
(2001) (union engaged in corporate campaign to pressure em-
ployer to modify its last bargaining proposal).37 And, within
certain bounds, they are protected by the Act. See Jimmy
John’s, 361 NLRB No. 27 (2014); Valley Hospital Medical
Center, 351 NLRB 1250, 1252 (2007), enfd. 358 Fed. Appx.
783 (9th Cir. 2009); and Montauk Bus Co., 324 NLRB 1128
(1997), and cases cited there.
Here, although UHW’s press releases and reports were high-
ly critical of Prime, they addressed matters plainly relevant to
the unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment. In-
fection control is obviously of concern to hospital staff as well
as patients, and the unit employees themselves obtained medi-
cal care at Prime facilities under the terms of the hospitals’
EPO plan. Moreover, the reports and press releases specifically
stated that the Union was involved in labor disputes with Prime
and explained the relationship or connection between those
labor disputes and the concerns raised in the reports. Indeed,
Prime itself publicly stated at the time, and continues to take
the position, that UHW’s corporate campaign was intended to
pressure the hospitals to accede to the Union’s bargaining de-
mands.
Further, Respondents have failed to show that UHW’s re-
ports and related actions to prevent Prime from acquiring addi-
tional hospitals exceeded the bounds of protected conduct. As
indicated above, the reports relied on publicly available Medi-
care data, and there is no contention or evidence that UHW
misreported that data. As for the reports’ conclusions, Re-
spondents never established that they were incorrect. As previ-
ously noted, Respondents offered into evidence a December
2010 letter from a private accreditation organization stating that
the organization had conducted a 1-day “on-site survey” re-
garding allegations of upcoding/overbilling for diagnosis and
serious infection control issues at one of Prime’s hospitals and
found them “not substantiated.” However, Respondents pre-
sented no testimony or evidence explicating the referenced

36 The Respondents failure to address the Labor Management Coop-
eration Act is remarkable, not only because UHW has repeatedly cited
it as grounds for rejecting Respondents’ disqualification/conflict-of-
interest defense (see, e.g., GC Exh. 1(eeee)), but because it was one of
the grounds cited by the federal district court for dismissing Prime’s
amended complaint in the antitrust case. See 2013 WL 3873074 at *8.
37 See also James Brudney, Collateral Conflict: Employer Claims of
Rico Extortion Against Union Comprehensive Campaigns, 83 S. Cal. L.
Rev. 731 (2010); Cynthia Estlund, The Ossification of American Labor
Law, 102 Colum. L. Rev. 1527, 1605 (2002); and Elizabeth Mullikin,
The Corporate Organizing Campaign: A Double-Edged Sword, 40 S.C.
L. Rev. 449 (1989).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
allegations or the organization’s “on-site survey” or findings.
Moreover, the letter itself states that the survey was done at
only one hospital. Thus, the letter is plainly insufficient to
establish that UHW’s conclusions were incorrect.
Respondents also presented a statistician38 to testify as an
expert about the reports. However, the statistician did not testi-
fy that the reports’ conclusions about the septicemia and malnu-
trition data were incorrect; indeed, he admitted that he did not
even attempt to determine if they were incorrect (Tr. 666).
Rather, he testified that he only examined the reports to deter-
mine if they applied “accepted statistical principles” by differ-
entiating between actual and reported statistics, adequately
considering every alternative explanation for the data, and criti-
cally examining the underlying assumptions for the conclusions
reached. Although he testified without contradiction that the
reports failed to do so,39 Respondents cite no authority holding
union representatives to the same standards as statisticians. Cf.
Jimmy John’s, above (rejecting the dissent’s argument that
certain public statements made by the sandwich-shop employ-
ees, which suggested that the employer’s failure to grant them
sick leave could result in contaminated sandwiches, were un-
protected because they were not supported by statistical proof
or empirical analysis).
Finally, Sahara Datsun, Inc., 278 NLRB 1044, 1046 (1986),
the primary case cited by Respondents, is clearly distinguisha-
ble. There, the Board held that the employer was not required

38 William B. Farley, PhD, president of Analysis & Inference, Inc., a
company providing consulting services in statistics to corporations,
government agencies, and nonprofit organizations.
39 At Respondents’ request, I barred both UHW and the General
Counsel from cross-examining Respondents’ witnesses or presenting
any contrary evidence regarding Respondents’ disqualification defense
as a sanction for UHW’s admitted contumacious refusal to produce
documents responsive to several paragraphs of Respondents’ subpoenas
duces tecum or to present UHW President Dave Regan to testify in
response to Respondents’ subpoena ad testificandum. I also ruled that
Respondents would be entitled to adverse inferences that the undis-
closed documents and Regan’s testimony would have supported Re-
spondents’ defense. However, I reserved ruling on precisely what those
adverse inferences would be, advising the parties to address the matter
in their post-hearing briefs. See Tr. 19–76, 270–275, 284–307, and my
previous unpublished orders dated April 29, 2013 (Jt. Exh. 24(I)), Oc-
tober 29, 2013 (GC Exh. 1(iiii), exh. C), December 4, 2013 (GC Exh.
1(dddd)), March 7, 2014 (GC Exh. 1(jjjj)), and May 23, 2014 (GC Exh.
1(ggggg)); and the Board’s unpublished orders dated June 28, 2013
(2013 WL 3293565) and February 25, 2014 (2014 WL 722107) deny-
ing UHW’s special/interlocutory appeals.) In their post-hearing brief,
Respondents argue that an adverse inference should be made that
“UHW’s allegations of fraud and pervasive patient care problems are
baseless and designed for no other purpose than to damage Prime.”
However, I find that such an adverse inference is inappropriate under
the circumstances. As discussed above, the reports relied on public
Medicare data and Respondents admit that at least one objective of the
reports was to bring pressure on the hospitals to accede to UHW’s
collective-bargaining demands. Thus, like an economic strike, the fact
that the reports and related actions were intended to cause economic
harm to the company does not necessarily render them unprotected or
disqualifying. Further, Respondents and their parent Prime, who own
and manage the hospitals, are uniquely in possession of all the infor-
mation relevant to whether the stated conclusions in UHW’s reports
about Prime are baseless.
to negotiate or otherwise deal with a union agent who published
personal allegations against the employer’s owner that were
unsubstantiated, based on rumors and innuendos, and unrelated
to the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. Here,
as discussed above, the Union’s reports addressed issues rele-
vant to the unit employees’ own healthcare, and accurately
cited publicly available Medicare data. Further, while the re-
ports may not have fully considered every alternative explana-
tion for Prime’s unusually high rates of septicemia and malnu-
trition other than upcoding or infection control problems, they
did consider alternative explanations. Moreover, the reports
convinced state and federal authorities familiar with the field to
initiate formal investigations, at least some of which are appar-
ently still ongoing (see fn. 14, supra). See also St. Johns Hospi-
tal, 281 NLRB 1163 fn. 1 (1986) (finding it unnecessary to pass
on the judge’s discussion of whether a union’s unsubstantiated
disparaging public comments about an employer would warrant
disqualifying the union as representative of the employer’s
employees).
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I reject the Re-
spondents’ disqualification defense to the allegations involving
UHW, and find that Respondents violated the Act as alleged in
all respects.40
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Encino has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, by:
(a) Unilaterally ceasing, since March 31, 2011, to grant an-
niversary step wage increases to eligible employees in the reg-
istered nurses unit without providing 121RN notice or an op-
portunity to bargain;
(b) Unilaterally ceasing, since November 17, 2011, to grant
anniversary step wage increases to eligible employees in the
service and technical unit without providing UHW notice or an
opportunity to bargain;
(c) Failing and refusing to furnish 121RN the relevant and
necessary information it requested on April 5, 2011; and
(d) Failing and refusing to furnish UHW the relevant and
necessary information it requested on January 12, 2012.
2. Respondent Garden Grove has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, by:
(a) Unilaterally ceasing, since November 17, 2011, to grant
anniversary step wage increases to eligible employees in the
service and technical unit without providing UHW notice or an
opportunity to bargain;
(b) Failing and refusing to furnish UHW the relevant and
necessary information it requested on January 25, 2012.
REMEDY
The appropriate remedy for the violations found are orders
requiring Respondents Encino and Garden Grove to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action, including provid-
ing the Unions with the requested information and making
whole eligible unit employees for the failure to pay them anni-

40 I also deny Respondents’ request for fees and costs.
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 19
versary step wage increases. Backpay shall be computed in
accordance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest com-
pounded daily as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB 6 (2010). As set forth in Tortillas Don Chavas, 361
NLRB No. 10 (2014), Respondents must also compensate the
employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiv-
ing a lump-sum backpay award and file a report with the Social
Security Administration allocating the backpay awards to the
appropriate calendar quarters.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the follow-
ing recommended41
ORDER
A. Respondent, Prime Healthcare Services–Encino, LLC
d/b/a Encino Hospital Medical Center, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employ-
ment of its employees in the registered nurses unit and service
and technical unit represented by 121RN and UHW, respective-
ly.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide 121RN and UHW rele-
vant and necessary information on request.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide 121RN with the information it requested on April
5, 2011.
(b) Provide UHW with the information it requested on Janu-
ary 12, 2012.
(c) Resume granting anniversary step wage increases to eli-
gible employees in the registered nurses unit and service and
technical unit, and continue to grant such increases until such
time as it has complied with its bargaining obligations under
the Act.
(d) Make whole eligible employees in the registered nurses
unit and service and technical unit for its failure to grant them
anniversary step wage increases since March 31 and November
17, 2011, respectively, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.

41 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Encino, California copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix A.”42 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by 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 physical posting of paper
notices, the 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 customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, 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 employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since March 31, 2011.
(g) 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.
B. Respondent, Prime Healthcare Services–Garden Grove,
LLC d/b/a Garden Grove Hospital & Medical Center, its offic-
ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employ-
ment of its employees in the service and technical unit repre-
sented by UHW.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide UHW relevant and neces-
sary information on request.
(c) 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) Provide UHW with the information it requested on Janu-
ary 25, 2012.
(b) Resume granting anniversary step wage increases to eli-
gible employees in the service and technical unit, and continue
to grant such increases until such time as it has complied with
its bargaining obligations under the Act.
(c) Make whole eligible employees in the service and tech-
nical unit for its failure to grant them anniversary step wage
increases since November 17, 2011, in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-

42 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Encino, California copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix B.”43 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by 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 physical posting of paper
notices, the 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 customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, 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 employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since March 31, 2011.
(f) 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 13, 2014
APPENDIX A
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 unilaterally change the terms and conditions of
employment of our employees in the registered nurses unit and
service and technical unit represented by SEIU Local 121RN

43 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
and SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West (UHW), respec-
tively.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide 121RN and UHW
relevant and necessary information on request.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL resume granting anniversary step wage increases to
eligible employees in the registered nurses unit and service and
technical unit, and continue to grant such increases until such
time as we have complied with our bargaining obligations un-
der the Act.
WE WILL make whole eligible employees in the registered
nurses unit and service and technical unit for our failure to
grant them anniversary step wage increases since March 31 and
November 17, 2011, respectively, in the manner set forth in the
Board’s decision.
WE WILL provide 121RN with the information it requested on
April 5, 2011.
WE WILL provide UHW with the information it requested on
January 12, 2012.
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A
ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-066061 or by using the QR code be-
low. 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.
APPENDIX B
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
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–ENCINO, LLC D/B/A ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 21
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the terms and conditions of
employment of our employees in service and technical unit
represented by SEIU United Healthcare Workers–West
(UHW).
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide UHW relevant and
necessary information on request.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL resume granting anniversary step wage increases to
eligible employees in the service and technical unit, and con-
tinue to grant such increases until such time as we have com-
plied with our bargaining obligations under the Act.
WE WILL make whole eligible employees in the service and
technical unit for our failure to grant them anniversary step
wage increases since November 17, 2011, in the manner set
forth in the Board’s decision.
WE WILL provide UHW with the information it requested on
January 25, 2012.
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES–GARDEN GROVE, LLC
D/B/A GARDEN GROVE HOSPITAL & MEDICAL
CENTER
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-066061 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.