Professional Medical Transport

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 8, 2009

28-CA-022175 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 8, 2009)

JD(SF)–38–09
(Tempe, Arizona)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC.
and Cases 28-CA-22175
28-CA-22289
INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED EMERGENCY 28-CA-22338
PROFESSIONALS OF ARIZONA, LOCAL #1 28-CA-22350
28-CA-22519
Sandra L. Lyons, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Robert J. Deeny, and Michael C. Grubbs, Esqs.,
(Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.) of Phoenix, Arizona,
for the Respondent.
Joshua Barkley, President, for the Union
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM G. KOCOL, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Phoenix,
Arizona, on July 21-23, 2009. The initial charge was filed by the Independent Certified
Emergency Professionals of Arizona, Local #1, (herein the Union or ICEP) on October 15, 2008
and the order further consolidating cases, third amended consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing (herein the complaint) was issued July 6, 2009.
The complaint, as further amended at the hearing, alleges that Professional Medical
Transport, Inc. (herein PMT) violated Section 8(a)(1) by disparaging the Union, threatening
employees with unspecified reprisals, promulgating an overly-broad and discriminatory rule
prohibiting employees from posting anything that “is divisive, inflammatory or derogative toward
employees [or the] management of the Company,” interrogating employees about their union
sympathies by posting a sign up sheet for employees to sign if they did not want information
about themselves to be provided to the Union, undermining the Union by telling employees that
the Union never gained the confidence of a majority of the employees and that PMT doubted
that the Union ever represented a majority of the employees in the unit, dealing directly with
employees by telling them that negotiations have been a disaster, and inviting employees to
decertify the Union, threatening employees with removal from active duty for engaging in union
activities, and promulgating an overly-broad and discriminatory rule requiring Union officials to
obtain prior approval for using electronic communications to employees.
The complaint alleges that PMT violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) taking away shifts,
including overtime shifts and other work hours, from five named employees and others and
giving the work to part-time employees, and taking away the BlackBerry that PMT had
previously supplied to the Union president because PMT’s employees supported the Union.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Finally, the complaint alleges that PMT violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by dealing
directly with employees by asking them to approve a proposed contract and posting a sign up
sheet for employees to sign if they did not want information about themselves provided to the
Union, presenting a collective-bargaining proposal that had to be accepted or rejected in its
entirety, failing and refusing to provide requested information, unilaterally changing terms and
conditions of employment by reassigning unit work to nonunit part-time employees, installing
surveillance cameras, closing Station 606 and Station 607, removing the BlackBerry from the
Union president, increasing health insurance costs paid by unit employees, engaging in bad
faith bargaining, and withdrawing recognition from the Union.
PMT filed a timely answer that, as amended at the hearing, admitted the allegations in
the complaint concerning the filing and service of the charges, jurisdiction, labor organization
status, and agency and supervisory status. PMT denied the allegations in the complaint
concerning appropriate unit and the Union’s Section 9(a) status.
Before the hearing opened PMT filed a motion for summary judgment with the Board.
The motion argued that PMT had no duty to bargain with the Union since PMT’s recognition of
the Union in July 2006 was invalid because, according to PMT, the Union did not represent a
majority of unit employees at that time. The Board, citing Alpha Associates, 344 LRB 782
(2005), rejected that argument on its merits. At the trial I therefore precluded PMT (and the
General Counsel) from presenting evidence concerning the Union’s majority status at the time
of recognition.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, PMT, and the Union I make the
following.
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
PMT, a corporation, provides emergency transportation and medical care from its
facilities in and around Tempe, Arizona, where it annually it annually purchases and receives
goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of Arizona. PMT admits and I
find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
PMT contracts with municipalities in the Phoenix area to provide emergency ambulance
services (911 services). PMT also provides general transport services to individuals traveling to
and from hospitals, nursing homes, etc. (GT services). It employs registered nurses,
paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. It also hires off-duty firefighters to provide
general transportation services. These firefighters already have customer service skills in
dealing with patients, families, and hospital personnel; they also have routing skills that are
useful in determining how to get around the area efficiently. These firefighters have historically
been excluded from the bargaining unit; they are generally paid at higher hourly rate than unit
employees, but they do not receive the full range of benefits PMT provides to the unit
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
employees. The alleged increase in using firefighters instead of unit employees is an issue in
this case.
PMT has grown from about 150-160 employees In July 2006 to over 400 employees at
the time of the hearing in this case. PMT’s employees work regular time, scheduled overtime,
and unscheduled overtime. All full-time employees work scheduled overtime as they generally
average 56 hours per week. In addition, they may work unscheduled overtime when vacancies
in the regular schedules.
PMT has stations located throughout its service areas that house PMT’s vehicles.
Employees report to these stations where they await calls and rest between calls. The stations
typically include bedrooms, food preparation areas, and a rest area to watch television. At the
stations the employees talk to each other concerning work issues, and inspect their vehicles
and complete a check-off form that is faxed to a central office upon completion. Employees are
also required to clean the stations. The stations have supplies that the employees use to
restock their vehicles after a call; employees also perform work-related paperwork there.
Employees are paid for the time they spend at the stations.
Starwest Associates is PMT’s parent company. Bob Ramsey is PMT’s president; he is
employed by Starwest. Joy Carpenter, also employed by Starwest, is PMT’s director of human
resources. Patrick Cantelme is PMT’s CEO for its 911 Emergency Services; he is also part
owner. James R. Roeder is PMT’s vice president of clinical services. Robert J. Deeny is an
attorney and represented PMT in certain dealings with the Union. Joshua Barkley works for
PMT as a paramedic; he is also president of the Union. Before working for PMT Barkley worked
for 13 years as a firefighter.
B. Bargaining History
On July 7, 2006, PMT recognized the Union as the bargaining representative for “full
time field paramedics, EMT’s, IEMT’s, and registered nurses, but excluding administrative staff
individuals, support services or personnel not directly operating in the field as an EMS provider.”
Since that time until February 2009 PMT recognized the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative for the employees in the unit.
On about February 23, 2007, the Union presented PMT with a proposed comprehensive
collective-bargaining agreement. In a cover letter accompanying the contract proposal Union
President Barkley complained:1
Over the past 4 months, we have had several meetings concerning labor
mangements arrangements and relationships. However, we have made no
headway on a contract for our membership. We have taken the initiative to
create and propose our Inaugural Contract for PMT employees and
members. . . .
About three days later Ramsey called Barkley and angrily rejected the proposal. On March 27,
2007, Barkley sent Ramsey another contract proposal Barkley called a “Temporary
Compromise.” Ramsey did not respond to this proposal. Actual face-to-face bargaining for a
complete contract did not begin until September 2007.

1 I do not highlight or correct any of the numerous grammatical or other errors contained in
the documents quoted in this decision.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Meanwhile, on March 15, 2007, the parties reached a Memorandum of Understanding
that provided:
This MOU will serve as an interim document to recognize the labor management
arrangement between the ICEP and the PMT administration. It will serve as an
outline to basic labor management goals, operational objectives and
organizational behavior in dealing with each other, while contract negotiations
continue. Both parties recognize and adhere to the goals and objectives outlined
in the Organizations mission statement and Operational behavior.
1. The administration recognizes the ICEP as the bargaining unit for the
employees of PMT.
2. The ICEP recognizes the Adminstrations rights to make Business decisions
in the best interest of the company.
3. The Administration recognizes the rights of the ICEP to represent the best
interest of the membership.[2]
4. Both parties will observe and refer to all Federal labor laws when dealing with
membership issues, including HIPPA, OSHA and EEOC guidelines that
directly effect ICEP membership.
5. Both parties agree that any personnel facing discipline above the level of
documented oral reprimand, will have the right to Union representation.
6. The Administration refers to the Organization’s Discipline Process when
administering discipline to ICEP members.
7. The union will use the Hierarchy of discipline to determine the level of
representation needed for the member. Trustees to be used at initial
discipline meetings and initial grievances. The business manager will handle
all discipline above that level.
8. The administration agrees to notify the union in cases of written reprimands,
or above, as noted in the disciplinary process.
9. The Administration agrees to a meet and confer system for all union
committees to better increase communications between labor and
management.
10. The Union may have reasonable access to all communication and electronic
devices, to be limited to the Union President or his designee, and the receiver
of such message, on an as needed basis. All messages must be in
compliance with applicable laws governing the use of such devices.
11. The union may have confidential access to the courier system with the
understanding that no material transferred in this system will be derogatory in
nature to the Administration, executive board or The Company, (PMT), and
complies with all laws governing the use of such a system.
The parties met about six times during September through December 2007 and they
made some tentative agreements. The parties discussed Weingarten rights. PMT took the
position that the right to union representation during investigatory interviews would be permitted
only when PMT completed its investigation, interviewed witnesses, and was ready to mete out
discipline. On December 8, 2007, Barkley sent Ramsey a message that read:

2 Although certain documents refer to “members” other documents make clear that this
means employees in the unit.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
The wages and benefit package has been significantly reduced since the inception of
the PMT Deployment Program in 2005-2006.
The company had decreased Healthcare availability and increased Co-payments for
their employees. The cost of living has risen 12.2% since 2004 and PMT has not
offered any relief to their employees. Holiday pay is non-existent for field employees
and the PTO changes made on 2006 makes PMT one of the worst in the Industry.
Further: PMT has cut the 911 workforce and it’s resources while simultaneously
increasing the coverage area and changing the status of units to GT/911 units,
increasing the workload for all involved in the system. PMT has repeatedly refused
to pull manpower from the GT sector to staff a dedicated 911 ride, further increasing
the workload for the remaining units who have to cover the area of the “downed unit”.
The average wage in 2004 roughly equals 44500$ in 2004. After adjusted for inflation
and increases in healthcare benefits, The PMT employee has lost 6540$ of
expendable income while receiving less benefits at the same time.
…
Healthcare benefits, cost to employee, has risen on average $100 a month for just
an individual with 1 dependent. The average wages are $10,000 dollars below
regional averages, (Jems wage survey by region, Arizona is region 9) To just get
back to where we started, The employee would have to get a 15% increase in the
wage and benefit package, (conservative estimate) and the workload increases
and resource reduction would have to stop. Demand list to be implemented
immediately. December 8th 2007
1. Career Firefighters (except as described in current municipal contracts) working on
starwest ambulances are to be terminated from starwest as employees.
2. 18 hour cars are to be paid 1 ½ their pay rate for any hours worked in day past 8
hours, or change the schedule back to 24 hour Kelly schedule, (4 concurrent days
off).
3. Reschedule a 5 day break, without loss of income, for 18 hour cars, at least once
monthly.
4. 18 hour cars are to be given a posting station with the same amenities as required by
state law for 24 hour cars with opportunity to use them.
5. 2 hour exhaustion breaks when needed (paid).
6. ½ hour paid lunch and 1 hour paid dinner break for all 24 hour cars.
7. No further manipulation of union intervention in discipline or re-definitions of
weingarten rights.
8. Time and half for everyone working a holiday, to include Christmas and Christmas
Eve of 2007, new years eve and new years day.
9. No further decreases in work hours.
10. Any other changes in system management that negatively affects field employees
will be considered as further degradation of relations between labor and
management.
The same day, December 8, Barkley sent Joe Gibbons, the lead negotiator for PMT’s
bargaining team, a message that read:
After reading the proposal brought forth for signatures 2 weeks ago, we reject
your contract proposal based on principal and presentation. We have submitted
to you 2 contract proposals almost a year ago with no response. You agreed to
begin negotiations in September only after it was made clear to you that we
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
would be bringing in additional help. After 3 months of reviewing your articles, it
appears that your chosen method of negotiations will produce no results. After
agreeing to collective bargaining on July 6th, 2006, you still haven’t offered us
anything. Quite the contrary, you spent 3 months telling us how you were going
to remove more of our rights as a union. There is nothing in your contract that
benefits, improves or increases anything for our members.You are formally put
on notice that we will be seeking federal mediation from the Phoenix branch of
Federal mediation and conciliation services in 15 days, declaring an “Impasse”, if
things don’t drastically change. I will not sign off on any of your proposal. It is an
unheard of practice to sign off on parts of a contract prior to completion. At this
late stage, I expect that our contract proposal be accepted. I will attach our last
proposal.
On December 10, 2007, Ramsey advised Barkley that PMT had negotiated in good faith and
had agreed on certain sections for a new contract but there appeared to be a “stumbling block”
on the Union’s interpretation of the law versus PMT’s interpretation. Ramsey offered the use of
PMT’s attorney to resolve the difference. Barkley responded by attributing the failure to reach a
contract on the positions PMT had taken at the bargaining table and asked for a full, written
counter-proposal.
C. Section 8(a)(5) Allegations
Barkley then contacted the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and spoke to a
mediator in January, 2008, but the mediator was unsuccessful in arranging any meeting with
PMT so in May 2008 the Union filed its first unfair labor practice charge. PMT then agreed to
send the Union a contract proposal and the Union agreed to withdraw the charge. However, by
Friday June 13, 2006, the Union had not received any contract proposal so that day Barkley
sent the following message to PMT:
Today is the last day for PMT to send the “contract” that we have been promised
for 2 ½ years but still haven’t seen. As directed to [PMT’s attorney] by the NLRB,
we are to return to refile the complaint on Monday. Please send it to this e-mail
address by 3 o clock.
Thank you.
The complaint alleges that on June 16, 2008, PMT unlawfully presented a proposed
collective-bargaining agreement that had to be accepted or rejected in its entirety and bypassed
the Union and dealt directly with unit employees by asking them to approve proposed collective-
bargaining agreement. That Monday, June 16, in the late afternoon under a cover letter
addressed to “Independent Certified Emergency Professionals, Local 1 Josh Barkley President”
and “To the Bargaining Unit of ICEP, Local 1” PMT sent the Union a proposed complete
collective-bargaining agreement. In that cover letter Ramsey indicated, among other things,
“PMT is submitting the attached contract for your approval.” and “This contract is presented as a
package deal and can only be accepted or rejected in its entirety.” Notwithstanding the fact that
the cover letter was addressed to the “bargaining unit” as well of Barkley, the uncontradicted
evidence is that the proposed contract was only sent to Barkley and there is no evidence that
the cover letter was sent to or received by any unit employee.
At the trial Ramsey testified that he made the contract proposal in that fashion because
Barkley indicated “that he did not want to negotiate article by article. He wanted a full contract
to be either accepted or rejected, so we held him at what he was requesting.” But Barkley
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
credibly denied he ever asked for a contract proposal that the Union could only accept or reject
in its entirety. On June 17 the Union sent PMT a message that stated in pertinent part:
As you know, the ICEP received PMT’s contract proposal yesterday. Per your
cover letter, you stated that this contract must either be accepted or rejected in
it’s entirety. It is with much regret then the ICEP must reject your proposal based
on these conditions. There are many areas that we feel must be addressed
before this or any contract can be approved. There is no discussion of base pay
rate for any employees, no allowance for improved PTO, and the pay differentials
you offer do not even cover inflation over the last two and a half years we have
been in negotiations, not to mention the economical difficulties we currently
faced. Also noted was the distinct lack of allowance for the union to be involved
in discipline, and certain verbiage which must be addressed. We feel that this is
a distinctly pro-company contract, and offers little or no benefit to the ICEP
members. This is unacceptable. However, we are willing to negotiate a contract
with this document as a starting point. Please contact me at your earliest
convenience to set up a meeting for negotiations to begin. I feel confident that
we can reach an agreement that is fair and beneficial to all parties involved.
On June 18 Barkley sent PMT a message indicating that the Union was looking forward to
further negotiations based on PMT’s contract proposal but confirmed that the Union could not
accept the contract as presented. The Union stated that it was looking forward to moving to a
rapid conclusion. PMT responded as follows:
Thank you for confirming your position on the contract proposal.
As you are aware the contract was presented to accept or reject in its entirety.
Your response indicates that there are probably portions of the proposal that you
found acceptable. We assume that there are portions that are unacceptable and
portions that may be acceptable with minor changes. Please send us an email
identifying those articles in each of those categories to further clarify the ICEP
position. This will help us move forward with the process.
That same day the Union answered with a detailed listing of the issues it had with PMT’s
contract proposal. PMT did not insist on its initial position that the contract had to be accepted
or rejected in its entirety. Instead, as described above and below, the parties went through the
proposal section by section.
On June 16, the same day when PMT presented its contract proposal to the Union, PMT
sent a message to the unit employees informing them that it had presented the Union with the
proposed contract. The message concluded:
We want you to fully understand our proposal, so we are having focus group
meetings on Thursday, June 19th and Friday, June 20th at 10:00 AM to explain
our proposal and answer any questions you may have.
Barkley sent PMT a message the next day, June 17, protesting that the scheduled meetings
were unlawful and were hurting his standing in the Union and at PMT.
PMT held the “focus group” meetings with the employees as announced. The
centerpiece of the meetings was a power point presentation. PMT gave its version of the
collective bargaining history with the Union, beginning with its recognition of the Union on
July 7, 2006, and noting the Memorandum of Understanding on March 15, 2007 and the start of
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
formal negotiations on September 7, 2007. The presentation continued, explaining how the
parties reached tentative agreements on several issues and then in November 2007 PMT
“asked Josh Barkley to reconfirm” the tentative agreements by signing those articles but that he
refused. Then, on December 8, 2008, Josh Barkley notified the company that the union was
breaking off negotiations,” the union rejected all tentative agreements and submitted a list of
demands, the union leadership stated they would no longer negotiate individual articles and
demanded that the company submit a new complete contract proposal. “We no longer had a
sense of acceptable common ground … We had to start over!” PMT explained to the
employees how it continued to award employees with annual raises, provided education and
training, purchased and implemented new technologies, and secured more that 100 new jobs
for its employees. PMT told employees how it and the Union agreed to create employee
committees to allow input into policies and procedures only to have the Union file a “formal
demand” that the committees be disbanded. The presentation then turned to PMT’s June 16
contract proposal, describing how it establishes base pay, provides for raises, and creates
additional pay raise opportunities. PMT highlighted how its contract proposal provides for
employee participation in its decision making process through a series of committees dealing
with policies and procedures, scheduling and shift bids, and employee safety. The presentation
ended:
The Executive Board of ICEP notified the company 21.5 hours after receiving the
proposed contract that the leadership was rejecting the contract proposal without
submitting it to the employees for their review or giving us an opportunity answer
questions.
Once again, the union leadership is changing directions. They have now
indicated a desire to return to negotiating individual items of the contract instead
of following their last demanded path of submitting a counter proposal.
Where are we now?
The company remains committed to negotiating a contract that is acceptable to
the company and our employees. We have asked the union to identify items and
Articles in the proposed contract that are:
Acceptable, as is;
Acceptable with modification;
Unacceptable “We are starting over again”
As indicated, the General Counsel argues that two violations occurred on June 16. The
allegation concerning direct dealing is premised on the unsupported factual assertion that either
the June 16 cover letter from Ramsey or the contract proposal itself was sent directly to unit
employees. I therefore dismiss that allegation. In his brief the General Counsel seems to imply
that the “focus group” meetings were unlawful, but this issue was not raised by the pleadings
and I therefore do not resolve it. Moreover, the Board has consistently held that an employer
may communicate its contract proposals to its employees. The Proctor & Gamble
Manufacturing Co., 160 NLRB 334, 340 (1966). Concerning the second allegation that PMT’s
conduct was unlawful the General Counsel relies on General Electric Co., 150 NLRB 192
(1964), enfd. 418 F.2d 736 (2d. Cir. 1969) and its progeny. But the harm identified in those
cases was the employer’s persistence in a “take it or leave it” attitude that is inconsistent with
the statutory obligation to bargain in good faith. Here, while PMT did present it contract
proposal in that fashion, after the Union rejected the contract PMT quickly resumed bargaining
in a normal fashion. In other words, in a matter of days PMT abandoned any “take it or leave it”
attitude that it may have initially conveyed to the Union. Under these circumstances PMT’s
conduct appears to be a bargaining ploy and does not, by itself, rise to the level of an unfair
labor practice. I dismiss this allegation of the complaint too.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
The complaint alleges that on about July 25, 2008, PMT unlawfully failed and refused to
provide the Union with information concerning “call volume” and a roster and contact information
for unit employees and all employee performing unit work. On July 25, 2008, the Union
requested information from PMT, including “Call volume in its entirety” and “Roster for all PMT
employees, including contact information.” “Call volume” is understood to mean the number of
calls or requests for service received by PMT for a given period of time. Barkley explained at
the trial that the Union requested this information to assess the work load for unit employees; “if
your call volume goes up and your available units and emergency personnel go down, then your
work load increases.” The Union wanted to include provisions in the contract that dealt with
work load for unit employees. On July 28 Deeny responded:
Your request for information has been reviewed. On its face, it does not obligate
the client to give you anything. If you feel differently, please respond with
reasons why you are entitled to the information requested.
The Union is entitled to information that is useful to it in the performance of its duties as
the collective-bargaining representative of the employees. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385
U.S. 432 (1967). The contact information for unit employees is presumptively relevant to the
purpose. Maple View Manor, 320 NLRB 1149 (1996). Barkley’s testimony establishes the
relevance of the information concerning call volumes. The fact the Union’s information request
was overbroad does not excuse an employer from providing information that is required. Id. By
refusing to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant to the performance of
the Union’s duties as the collective-bargaining representative of employees, PMT violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
The complaint alleges that in or about August 2008, PMT through Carpenter bypassed
the Union and dealt directly with employees by posting a sign-up sheet for employees to sign if
they did not want information about themselves to be provided to the Union.3 Justin Lisonbee
has worked as a fulltime emergency medical technician for PMT since January 2008. Lisonbee
also is a trustee for the Union; as such he represented employees during disciplinary matters.
About a year ago he began working periodically at Station 1, PMT’s main administrative office,
assisting in dispatching. Lisonbee also assisted in the scheduling office at Station 1 from
February through August 2008. Lisonbee credibly testified that in around July 2008, and
continuing through the end of 2008, he saw a message posted on PMT’s bulletin board in
Station 1 advising employees that PMT would be providing addresses and telephone numbers
to the Union. The message invited employees to fill out a “Request to Withhold Personal
Information” form if an employee did not want PMT to provide that information. That form, which
was not posted but was kept in the scheduling office, read:
I, _________, request that my personal information not be provided to the
[Union]. I understand that this request will stay in effect until I authorize in writing
that my information may be given to the [Union].
Employee Signature ___________________
Date _______________________________

3 The complaint also alleges that by this conduct PMT interrogated its employees about their
union sympathies, thereby independently violating Section 8(a)(1). I need not resolve that
matter because I find a violation under Section 8(a)(5) and the remedy I provide for that violation
subsumes any remedy I might provide under Section 8(a)(1).
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
As pointed out both above and below, the Union is entitled to the addresses and
telephone numbers of the unit employees; PMT may not fail to provide this information for
objecting employees. The Union’s right to this information stems from it role as the
representative of the employees and PMT must deal solely with the Union as such. PMT admits
to the posting, but claims the Union agreed to it. According to Carpenter, at a bargaining
session PMT raised its concern about giving out the contact information so it proposed a notice
to employees that would allow the employees to opt out if they objected and the Union agreed.
Later when I questioned Carpenter about this matter she testified that what PMT suggested was
the employees be given notice that PMT would be giving employee contact information to the
Union and the Union agreed. No other member of PMT’s bargaining team corroborated this
testimony. I do not credit Carpenter’s testimony; her demeanor was unconvincing and her
testimony shifting. Moreover, I describe below more difficulties I have with Carpenter’s
testimony. Barkley, on the other hand, credibly testified that he never agreed to permit PMT to
allow employees to opt out of having their contact information provided to the Union. Based on
this credibility resolution, I reject the notion that the Union agreed to allow PMT to permit
employees to opt out of having their contact information provided. Next, PMT argues that any
violation is barred by Section 10(b). But I have credited testimony that PMT continued to have
the message posted on its bulletin board through the end of 2008, well within the Section 10(b)
period. The message thus operated as a continued effort by PMT to deal directly with
employees rather than the Union. Continuing, PMT argues that its conduct in this regard
created “no harm.” This argument might be worthy of consideration if this was the only violation
alleged to have occurred. Here, this unlawful conduct is part of a much bigger picture that
therefore must be addressed and remedied. In The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 332
NLRB 1143, (2000), the Board identified the criteria for finding a direct-dealing violation as
follows:
They are: (1) that the Respondent was communicating directly with union-
represented employees; (2) the discussion was for the purpose of . . .
undercutting the Union’s role in bargaining; and (3) such communication was
made to the exclusion of the Union.
Id. at 1144. The facts described satisfy each standard. By dealing directly with employees
instead of with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees, PMT
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
On September 10, 2008, PMT sent the unit employees a contract progress report that
indicated that PMT and the Union were going to resume negotiations with the help of a federal
mediator. The report also outlined PMT’s version of the history of dealing with the Union. The
Union and PMT met with a federal mediator in late September; not much was accomplished at
this meeting. At the next bargaining session PMT agreed on language on fairly uncontroversial
matters such as nondiscrimination and Union rights.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
The complaint alleges that since on about mid-September 2008, PMT has unilaterally
taken away shifts, including overtime shifts, from full-time unit employees and given them to
nonunit firefighters and reduced the number of hours assigned to full-time unit employees.4
I now review the conflicting evidence on this allegation and determine what evidence is
credible.5 Barkley testified the when he started with PMT 3½ years ago there were about 100-
150 unit employees and about 10-20 firefighters that filled in on a day-to-day basis as vacancies
occurred in the regular schedule due to sick leave, family emergencies, and the like; bargaining
unit employees also worked additional overtime to fill those vacancies. Barkley testified that
PMT began to use more firefighters and created a firefighter general transportation sector and
vehicles assigned to that sector were only staffed by firefighters; PMT excluded unit employees
from working on these vehicles. Also, firefighters began to work more unscheduled overtime,
thereby depriving unit employees from this work. According to Barkley, this process began in
late 2007. Then, according to Barkley on September 13, 2008, another company, Medcare,
ceased operations. Medcare was staffed exclusively by firefighters. Later that month Barkley
was at PMT’s main facility when he noticed about 20 former Medcare employees in PMT’s
training room; he knew some of them from his years working as a firefighter. These former
Medcare employees were undergoing new employee training. After that, according to Barkley,
unscheduled overtime opportunities for unit employees began to diminish. Justin Lisonbee has
worked as a fulltime emergency medical technician for PMT since January 2008. As indicated
above, about a year ago he began working periodically at Station 1, the main administrative
office, assisting in dispatching. Lisonbee also assisted in the scheduling office from February
through August 2008. Lisonbee worked unscheduled overtime before September 2008 and was
also familiar with PMT’s scheduling procedures; he testified that his unscheduled overtime
decreased after that time period. Jason Wayne Seyferth works for PMT as a paramedic after
having first been hired as an emergency medical technician. Seyferth is also a trustee for the
Union for the general transport portion of PMT’s employees. He testified that for a period of
time he was able to work unscheduled overtime almost as frequently as he wanted, but that
around the time PMT hired a large number of firefighters from Medcare the unscheduled
overtime opportunities for him diminished. Todd Robert Wais has worked as an emergency
medical technician for PMT for about two years. Wais testified that he regularly requested and
received unscheduled overtime work until around September 2008.6 After that time he rarely
received unscheduled overtime work. Ryan Joseph Nolan works as a paramedic for PMT; he is

4 The complaint also alleges that PMT violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by engaging in this
conduct because employees supported the Union. Because, as described below, I find a
violation based on Section 8(a)(5) I need not resolve the Section 8(a)(3) allegation. It follows
that I also do not resolve PMT’s argument that the Section 8(a)(3) allegation is barred by
Section 10(b).
5 In his brief the General Counsel complains that I improperly failed to receive into evidence
GC Ex. 8. Barkley testified that that exhibit was an attachment to an email message he sent to
PMT. The actual email message showing GC Ex. 8 as an attachment was not offered by the
General Counsel. Barkley, moreover, was unable to identify specifically who at PMT he sent
the email message or the email address of the person he sent it to. I ruled that the General
Counsel had failed to meet his burden of showing that the message was properly sent so as to
create a presumption that it was received. I adhere to that ruling. The General Counsel cites
FRE 1001(1) and FRE 901(a) to argue that the message has been authenticated. That is
entirely correct but completely misses the point. Instead, the issue is whether the message was
sent, and that is where I conclude the evidence is lacking.
6 In September and October 2008, Wais did not seek unscheduled overtime due to family
related matters; he resumed requesting that overtime in late November.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
also an employee representative for the Union. He too testified that he was able to easily work
unscheduled overtime until around September 2008, after which time there was a big decline in
that overtime. The payroll records he retained from PMT support his testimony. I find the
testimony of these witnesses to be credible. Their demeanor convinced me that they were
doing the best they could to accurately relate the facts. Their testimony was generally mutually
corroborative. I note that they are current employees of PMT testifying against their employer’s
interest. Importantly, as explained below, given the fact that PMT admits to hiring a large
number of firefighters during this time frame and absent some other plausible explanation, it
seems likely that this would have an effect on the amount of work available to unit employees.
PMT offered the testimony of several witnesses on this issue. As indicated, Bob
Ramsey is PMT’s president. Ramsey testified that in around September 2008 PMT won some
new contracts and consequently hired a large contingent of full-time bargaining unit employees,
“as many as we could get,” to fill positions on those contracts and that PMT also hired full-time
firefighters to work on some of those positions while some 50-60 of the newly hired employees
were undergoing training. Ramsey asserted that no one lost a position as a result of using the
firefighters. Yet he also testified that these firefighters were not hired as temporary employees
to be employed only until the completion of the training period. He explained that because PMT
was a growing organization it could continue to employ those firefighters as part-time
employees who were excluded from the bargaining unit. Ramsey was asked to “please explain
the relationship with the hiring of added firefighters in September 2008 and the reason for doing
that?” Ramsey replied:
Well during that summertime is, we had contractual – a new contract that had
recently come in, so what happens when a contract comes in it displaces, you
move certain employees to that contract and displaces positions that we need to
take care of, so we would have hired at that time basically because we increased
staffing of the bargaining unit.
…
And, excuse me. The secondary is that September is the time in which inherent
in the valley we have a curve of need that starts around September and ends the
end of May, and that has to do with our winter visitors coming in. It’s a natural
curve of – if any volume figures were ever figured about every area, it’s during
that period of time that the need for ambulance service is higher . . . and so you
have to reorganize what, for that seasonality that comes up.
In his brief the General Counsel describes Ramsey’s testimony as “confused and rambling.”
I agree. I find Ramsey’s testimony to be wholly incredible; he appeared to fabricating it as he
testified. James R. Roeder is PMT’s vice president of clinical services; his duties included the
approval of unscheduled overtime. He explained PMT’s policy for selecting employees to work
unscheduled overtime. Roeder admitted that in September 2008 PMT may have hired up to 25
firefighters from Medcare, but he denied that this had any impact on the amount of unscheduled
overtime worked by unit employees. He explained that the newly hired firefighters would have
been undergoing training and therefore would not be taking away work from unit employees.
He also explained that some of the unit employees might have worked less hours during this
time period because they were attending medic school for training during their off duty hours.
I note Roeder’s explanation concerning why the additional firefighters would not have taken
away unit work is unique, uncorroborated, and not credible. Joy Carpenter, PMT’s director of
human resources, testified that she was unaware of a large group of firefighters being hired in
September 2008. Kellie J. O’Connor works for PMT as director of quality assurance and
staffing. As such she manages the scheduling department, among other things. When asked
at the hearing on July 23, 2009, whether it was true that in around September 2008 PMT hired a
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
large contingent of firefighters O’Connor answered: “That’s a long time ago. You’ll have to build
on that a little bit. I hire everyday. I hire people – I do the hiring, so --. I find the testimony of
Carpenter and O’Connor so incredible that I am reluctant to credit anything they said without
credible corroboration. To summarize, PMT’s evidence on this issue was contradictory and
generally not credible. I conclude that PMT reduced the unscheduled overtime hours for unit
employees by assigning that work to nonunit firefighters.
I now assess whether PMT’s conduct in this regard was unlawful. It is well settled that
an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally assigning unit work to nonunit
employees. Summa Health Systems, Inc., 330 NLRB 1379. 1388 (2000). Citing The Post-
Tribune Co., 337 NLRB 1279 (2002), PMT argues that it did not change conditions because it
has historically used firefighters to perform unit work. While in fact PMT has used firefighters in
the past to perform unit, PMT has failed to show that such use in the past was similar to the size
and scope of what occurred in around September 2008, when it hired so many firefighters after
Medcare went out of business. In other words, the amount of unit work assigned to firefighters
during that period of time was significantly higher that in the past and therefore required prior
notice to the Union. Summa Health, supra at 1387. By unilaterally assigning unit work to
nonunit firefighters, PMT violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
The complaint alleges that on about January 15, 2009, PMT unlawfully failed to provide
the Union with certain information it had requested. On January 15, 2009, the Union again
requested that PMT provide it with certain information. Among the items requested were:
An up to date accounting of all ambulance and transportation vehicle runs in
2008, to include total run numbers and Pt transported runs.
…
Also: we need and are officially requesting a “roster” of ALL PMT employees, to
include full time and part time: to include all that you allowed to sign the “do not
release personal information to the Union” document that you created. Please
include in with the roster the following:
Name and address of the employee.
Phone number of the employee. email address of the employee
Any and all ways of contacting the employees that were provided to you
At trial Barkley explained that he needed the contact information because the number of unit
employees had dramatically increases and the Union needed to be able to contact these new
employees. PMT replied “Your request for information dated January 15, 2009, is denied.”
For reasons described above in the earlier information request issue, PMT again
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to give the Union the information concerning the
vehicle runs and the contact information as it relates to unit employees
The complaint alleges that in about January 2009, PMT unilaterally installed surveillance
cameras in the living quarters of several stations. In January and February 2009, PMT installed
new security cameras at several of its facilities. The scope of the area to be surveilled by the
cameras appeared to include the areas where the employees rested and watched television.
Apparently these cameras were never operational. Ryan Brockhaus works as an emergency
medical technician for PMT; he too is a trustee with the Union. Brockhaus had occasion to work
at Station 605, one the stations with new security cameras. He saw a camera in the living area
where the employees rested and watched television and another situated in the hallway by the
front door. Several weeks later the camera directed at the living area was removed. Todd
Robert Wais has worked as an emergency medical technician for PMT for about two years. He
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
worked out of Station 275, also one of the stations that had the new security cameras. One of
the cameras was placed so as to observe the living room area of the facility and a second
camera was placed near the room that stored the cleaning supplies. After several weeks the
cameras were repositioned so that one observed the hallway leading to the front entrance and
the second toward the rear entrance.
Ramsey testified that he informed the Union that PMT was going to be installing the
security cameras, but when asked to identify with specificity when this was done, Ramsey spent
several pages in the transcript attempting to evade answering. I do not credit Ramsey’s
testimony; he again seemed to be creating the answer as he was testifying rather than relating
historical facts. Roeder testified that in February 2009, after the security cameras were installed
in the two stations, PMT held meetings with certain employees and explained that the security
cameras at certain stations had been improperly installed and were not operational and that the
cameras were to be focused on the doors only and that shields on the cameras would ensure
that they would not screen any living areas. On February 11, 2009, PMT sent its employees a
message concerning its efforts to update information technology. The message described
some new equipment and stated “For the protection of this equipment and your personal
protection, we will place security cameras at the front and rear entrances (if applicable) of our
stations.”
I now assess whether the placement of the security cameras violated Section 8(a)(5). In
Colgate-Palmolive Co., 323 NLRB 515 (1997), the Board held that the installation of security
cameras is a mandatory subject of bargaining because security cameras are an investigative
tool or method used to ascertain whether employees engage in misconduct. The Board also
held that the cameras aimed at restrooms and at a fitness center raised issues of privacy that
deserve to addressed in the bargaining process. PMT argues that it never turned on the
cameras, but the short response to this is that it never told the employees or the Union that the
cameras would not be operational. PMT also argues that it relocated the cameras. While this
negates the need for an order to remove the cameras,7 it does not negate the fact the cameras
were initially installed without giving the Union a chance to bargain. By unilaterally placing
security cameras in the living quarters of employees at several stations, PMT violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1).
The complaint alleges that in about January 2009, PMT closed Stations 606 and 607
without giving the Union an opportunity to bargain about the closure or its effects. The leases
PMT had for Stations 606 and 607, both located in Scottsdale, expired in January 2009. PMT
decided not to renew the leases and, after months of searching, found new locations and moved
the operations and employees from those stations to the new locations. The transitions
occurred after the employees were housed at temporary locations for a period of about three
months. The temporary location for Station 606 was located about 10 miles from the old station.
The new permanent location for Station 606 is about one-half mile from the old location. The
first temporary location for Station 607 was existing Station 604. For about two weeks the
intermingling of employees and furniture from Station 607 at Station 604 caused crowded
conditions at Station 604. Then, for the remainder of the three month period, the Station 607
employees were temporarily housed at another location about eight to ten miles from old Station

7 In his brief the General Counsel argues the relocation of the cameras weeks later also
violated the Act. But the complaint does not cover this allegation and the General Counsel has
not moved to amend the complaint. A properly drawn complaint assures that a respondent is
provided due process and the General Counsel has failed to provide PMT with due process on
this assertion.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
607. The new Station 607 is about three-quarters mile from the old location; the new facility
included a shower available to employees that the old facility did not have. PMT did not give the
Union a meaningful opportunity to bargain about the effects of this series of relocations on unit
employees.
In his brief the General Counsel does not argue that PMT had an obligation to bargain
over the decision to relocate Stations 606 and 607; rather, the General Counsel argues that
PMT failed to give the Union a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the effects of the
relocation on unit employees. I agree. As described above, the relocation clearly had an
impact on the working conditions of unit employees. The Union was entitled to sufficient notice
of the relocations to allow meaningful bargaining over that impact. First National Maintenance
Corp., v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 681 (1981). By failing to give the Union an opportunity to bargain
over the effects of the relocation of Stations 606 and 607 on the working conditions of unit
employees, PMT violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
The complaint alleges that on about February 11, 2009, PMT unlawfully withdrew
recognition from the Union. At the February 11, 2009, bargaining session with the federal
mediator, Robert Deeny, PMT’s attorney and a member of its bargaining team, began
questioning the Union committee about the Union formation. Because unfair labor practice
charges had already been filed, Barkley replied that he was there to bargain for a contract.
Deeny then said that PMT did not believe that the Union represented a majority of the unit
employees. PMT admits that it withdrew recognition from the Union. On February 12, 2009,
PMT filed an RM petition with Region 28. The unit of employees described in that petition is:
Included:
All full-time Arizona Certified Medical Technicians (EMT, IEMT, EMT-P, RN, and
EMT-Basics, EMT-Intermediates, or EMT-Paramedics who have duty assignments
as Field Training Officers) working assigned full-time schedules delivering patient
care on Ambulances in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Excluded:
All part-time employees, office and clerical employees, support services
employees, fleet service employees, dispatch employees and supervisors.
PMT argued that under Levitz Furniture Co., 333 NLRB 717 (2001), it had a “good faith
reasonable uncertainty” that the Union represented a majority of unit employees.
On March 31, 2009, the Regional Director dismissed the petition because PMT failed to
establish the requisite good faith uncertainty. On April 14, 2009, PMT appealed the dismissal
and as of the close of the hearing in this case the Board had not yet ruled on the appeal.
Under settled Board law the Union is entitled to a rebutable presumption that it continues
to enjoy the support of a majority of employees in the unit; this presumption stems from PMT’s
recognition of the Union in 2006. Under Levitz an employer may rebut that presumption and
lawfully withdraw recognition from a union if the employer shows objective evidence that the
union no longer has majority support. In this case PMT has failed to show actual loss of
majority support. It follows that by withdrawing recognition from the Union, PMT violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
Because I shall order PMT to resume its recognition of the Union I now address an issue
raised by the General Counsel concerning the appropriate unit. As described above, PMT
recognized the Union as the collective-bargaining representative for certain full time employees.
The General Counsel argues that the unit should also include part time employees who are not
also employed as firefighters in those classifications. The General Counsel argues that the
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
record shows that a unit that includes part time employees would be an appropriate unit.
Indeed, that appears to be the case. But the issue is not whether such a unit could be
appropriate; rather the task is to identify the historical unit and then determine if the historical
unit is also appropriate. No party contends that the historical unit is inappropriate and
I therefore find no reason to alter the agreed upon unit.
The complaint alleges that on about May 28, 2009, PMT unlawfully changed the
healthcare benefits it provides to unit employees by increasing employee contributions for
premiums and co-pays for emergency room expenses. After PMT withdrew recognition from
the Union it made a number of unilateral changes to the health insurance benefits it provides to
unit employees, including the addition of $250 co-payments by employees for emergency room
visits and requiring employees to pay 50 percent of the cost for co-insurance. But PMT also
made changes in healthcare benefits in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and the Union never requested to
bargain about those changes.
Healthcare benefits are mandatory subjects of bargaining that, absent waiver by a union,
cannot be unilaterally altered by an employer. Coastal Derby Refining CO., 312 NLRB 495
(1993). PMT argues that the Union did waive its right to bargain about the most recent changes
it made to healthcare benefits due to the Union’s acquiescence to its unilateral changes to those
benefits in the past. However, even if the Union did waive past bargaining opportunities, this
kind of waiver does not continue forever. The waiver is broken by a demand to bargain over
future changes. Roll and Hold Warehouse, 325 NLRB 41, 42 (1997). Here the Union did not
request to bargain about the changes that PMT made in mid 2009, but any such request would
have been entirely futile because PMT had unlawfully withdrawn recognition from the Union and
any ambiguity over the matter should be resolved against the wrongdoer, in this case PMT. Or
put differently, an unlawful withdrawal of recognition has the foreseeable consequence of
barring a union from requesting bargain about practices that the union opted not to bargain
about in the past. To remedy that foreseeable consequence the status quo ante must be
restored as far as possible to allow the process to proceed as if there had been no unlawful
withdrawal of recognition. The full restoration the status quo ante must include making
employees whole for the losses they suffered as a result of the changes. In its brief PMT relies
heavily on Post-Tribune Co., 337 NLRB 1279, 1280-81 (2002). But that case did not involve
changes to health benefits that occurred after an unlawful withdrawal of recognition. By
changing healthcare benefits without first allowing the Union an opportunity to bargain about the
changes, PMT violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
The complaint alleges that on about May 9, 2009, PMT unlawfully discontinued allowing
Union President Barkley and his designees use of PMT’s electronic communications equipment
contrary to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.8 It will be recalled that the
Memorandum of Understanding signed by the parties and described above included the
following provision:
The Union may have reasonable access to all communication and electronic
devices, to be limited to the Union President or his designee, and the receiver of
such message, on an as needed basis.
All messages must be in compliance with applicable laws governing the use of
such devices.

8 The complaint also alleges that this conduct violated Section 8(a)(3). Because I conclude
below that PMT’s conduct violated Section 8(a)(5), I need not decide allegation because the
remedies are substantially similar.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
PMT provided certain unit employees, including Barkley, with a BlackBerry. PMT also
has BlackBerrys that are assigned to each station. PMT and its employees use the BlackBerrys
to communicate with each other. For several years Barkley used his personal computer to send
messages to employees concerning union business. But in 2009 Barkley began using his PMT
BlackBerry to communicate with employees about union business. On May 9, 2009, Barkley
sent a message via the BlackBerry to other PMT vehicles; the message urged the employees to
use the Union’s website to “[e]ducate yourself on real deal issues, facts and documents. Icep vs
PMT in federal labor court mid june.” That same day Ramsey sent Barkley the following
message:
Josh you are ordered to cease from using PMT’s active communication
equipment for personal communication. The business of PMT’s ON-DUTY Staff,
Ambulance and technology is for EMS only.
Do you understand that you are on duty and you are an FTO. Remember your
position in EMS and the REAL-TIME reason AMBULANCES are on alert, on duty
available and on calls.
I have no recourse but to request removal of you from active duty today until the
issue is resolved administratively, if you do not cease these actions.
Please cease IMMEDIATELY.
THIS IS AN EXTREME VIOLATION. I hope you may not know and may not
understand fully what you are doing, but you must cease your actions on duty. I
respect your right to have different views than PMT but this is neither the forum
or the place.
Please Confirm your understanding of this order now. We can resolve your
personal views legally later in the correct format in the proper and respectful
place. If you need to and wish to access field employees in our designated
proper tools please use the proper channel and submit your information and the
notice to be sent out to HR and our legal staff.
Barkley replied “Copy.” Shortly thereafter PMT disabled and then collected the BlackBerrys that
it had provided to certain employees, including Barkley’s.9 Barkley credibly denied that PMT
ever gave the Union notice of its intent to disable and remove the BlackBerrys.
As noted, Ramsey’s message instructs Barkley to stop using the BlackBerry for
“personal communication.” At the trial PMT failed to produce subpoenaed documents that
would show the purposes for which the BlackBerrys had been used. PMT agreed that I could
draw an adverse inference and find that the BlackBerrys had been used by employees for non-
work matters, and I do so. This inference is supported by the credible testimony of Linda
Combs, who works as a paramedic for PMT at Station 605. Combs is also the Union’s business
manager; before that she was a member of the Union’s negotiating team. At the time she was
given a BlackBerry Combs expressed reluctance to be responsible for yet another electronic
device. In an effort to persuade Combs to use the Blackberry her direct supervisor told Combs
that she could use it for personal matters as well as work. Thereafter she used it for a wide
variety of personal matters.

9 In his brief, the General Counsel argues that PMT violated Section 8(a)(5) by “unilaterally
removing Blackberries from Unit employees.” I again reject the efforts by the General Counsel
to resolve issues not encompassed by the complaint.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
An employer may not unilaterally change conditions of employment. NLRB v. Katz, 369
U.S. 736 (1962).10 Here PMT and the Union agreed that Barkley could use PMT’s electronic
communications systems for union business yet PMT unilaterally terminated that agreement. In
its brief PMT stresses that its agreement with the Union allows “reasonable” access to its
electronic communications systems. It argues that because Ramsey’s message allowed
Barkley to continue to use the BlackBerry if he submitted his “information and the notice to be
sent out to HR and our legal staff” reasonable access was not denied. But Barkley’s use of the
BlackBerry was entirely consistent with the manner in which BlackBerrys were used for other
nonwork related matters. No other type of communication among employees required that
communications first be routed through PMT’s human relations department and PMT’s legal
staff before it could be sent. Applying PMT’s own standard for using BlackBerrys, the
restrictions it placed on Barkley’s use was unreasonable. By unilaterally disallowing the Union
president or his designee reasonable access to all PMT’s communication and electronic
devices, PMT violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
E. Section 8(a)(1) Allegations.
The complaint alleges that on about September 2, 2008, PMT disparaged the Union in
order to discourage employees from supporting or assisting the Union by informing its
employees that the Union president had engaged in bad behavior and was spreading untruths.
On September 2, 2008, Ramsey sent an email message to unit employees that read:
If you have received an email recently from Joshua Barkley through the
companies email system, I need to make a simple comment. His emails are a
product of misinformation and false statements by him. I hope you will disregard
his untruths. . . .
I am so sorry that it was necessary to send you this email tonight but I can no
longer wait for his bad behavior to return to the positive attitude that he displayed
in earlier days and I do not believe his attitude will change. Just to make sure
that the record is correct, I have recognized the union and hope that they will
return to the Management Employee Labor processes that was agreed to in our
Memo of Understanding that we both signed. This organization has all legal
authority to communicate to our employees, hold meetings and to provide high
performance quality care to our customers. We still provide service and operate
in the State of Arizona and the United States of America.
…
Special Note: Remember that Joshua walked away from negotiations and
Employee/Management processes despite his commitment to earlier agreements
and in the signed Memo of Understanding. Management’s continued invitation to
Joshua Barkley to participate is still valid.
The next day, September 3, PMT sent another email message to unit employees that also
criticized Barkley for making “baseless accusations” to unit employees. The message gives
specific examples of the baseless accusations and then continues:

10 In The Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007), the Board held that employees do not
have a Section 7 right to use an employer’s email system to send union-related messages.
That decision does not apply in this case because PMT and the Union negotiated an agreement
to permit Barkley to send emails to employees concerning union-related messages.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
In the final paragraph of Josh’s letter he refers to the IAFF firefighters as “blue
collar heroes we all know and love” and calls upon them to stop working for PMT.
These ‘heroes” are the same employees that on December 8, 2007, Josh
DEMANDED that PMT terminate employment of all career firefighters. PMT’s
leadership team have been ardent supporters of the firefighters in the valley for
over 20 years.
We continue to support them and value their support and employment as
professional members of our employee team.
…
We continue to recognize the union and encourage them to return to the
bargaining table and participation in management labor processes. We look
forward to reaching an agreement and enjoying a long cooperative relationship.
We will be providing you with periodic updates of the process of our efforts to
negotiate a contract with the ICEP as well as dispelling additional false and
misleading comments by Josh Barkley.
In assessing11 this issue, I note that the General Counsel cites Sears, Roebuck, and
Co., 305 NLRB 193 (1991). In that case the Board held that “Words of disparagement alone
concerning a union or its officials are insufficient for finding a violation of Section 8(a)(1).” In the
footnote that accompanied this statement the Board expressly overruled Future Ambulette, 293
NLRB 884 (1989), to the extent that it held that statements of disparagement alone may support
a violation of Section 8(a)(1). The General Counsel also cites M.K. Morse Co., 302 NLRB 924
(1991), but in that case the Board dismissed allegation that an employer unlawfully disparaged
union supporters by calling them “liars.” Id. at 945. Having correctly cited precedent to show
there is no support for this allegation, I am puzzled as to why the General Counsel continues to
argue in favor of a violation. As PMT points out in its brief, in Children’s Center for Behavioral
Development, 347 NLRB 35 (2006), the Board held that:
[A]n employer may criticize, disparage, or denigrate a union without running afoul
of Section 8(a)(1) provided that its expression of opinion does not threaten
employees or otherwise interfere with the Section 7 rights of employees.
Id. I dismiss this allegation.
The complaint alleges that on about September 4, 2008, PMT unlawfully threatened an
employee with unspecified reprisals (presumably because of union or protected concerted
activities) and promulgated an overly-broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting employees from
posting anything that is “divisive, inflammatory or derogative towards employees [of the]
management.” On September 4, 2008, Patrick Cantelme, PMT’s CEO for its 911 Emergency
Services, sent Barkley the following message:

11 At the trial I rejected GC Ex. 38. I ruled that the General Counsel had failed to show the
relevance of that document because he failed to show that PMT was aware of the document’s
content. At the trial the General Counsel conceded that he had not shown that PMT was aware
of the content of GC Ex. 38. Now, in his brief the General Counsel argues that PMT’s
September 4 message was in response to GC Ex. 38. I adhere to my ruling. I must rely on the
parties to explain the relevance of proffered documents; if they cannot do so at the time they are
offered, or at least before the hearing closes, they will be and remain rejected
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
Re: Posting materials in PMT work sites
Joshua,
I am in receipt of a letter sent via email from you to the members of ICEP. The
letter begins “My fellow Americans.” Although the letter is not dated, the email
was sent this morning, September 4, 2008. The email asks members to “please
post everywhere, hand out to new people. . . .” PMT recognizes and respects
the right of the Union to post information at all PMT work sites. That however
does not include the right to post anything that is “divisive, inflammatory or
derogative towards employees, management or the Company”. In the attached
referenced letter sent by you with the request that members post it at work sites I
am highlighting the sentences I consider to be derogatory and inflammatory
towards management.
I am going to ask all Field Training Officers to remove this letter from all PMT
work sites as long as the highlighted phrases are included. Please do not take
this as an attempt to restrict the union from posting relevant Union materials so
long as they do not violate the above referenced lawful guidelines. I am available
at your convenience to discuss the matter at length if you so desire.
Attached was the message Barkley sent to employees; he prepared it at home on his personal
computer and sent it to the personal computers of the unit members. I have underlined the
sentences that Cantelme highlighted.
My fellow Americans:
It is indeed a great time to be a union member and all should take pride in our
accomplishments. The outcry of support from all of you has been most comforting
and yes, motivating. As you all know, we are scheduled to have our contract
mediated by the Federal Mediation and conciliation services. Our first meeting is
on the 12th and the next on the 30th. A mediator from the federal government will
assist us in hashing out our differences with PMT management. This process is
an American institution provided to us by the founding fathers of organized labor.
We should all remember them at this time in the same regard we hold all American
heroes.
Their road was unmarked, their path undiscovered and the journey was not
describable in any words that I can convey to you now. Please understand that
we are following in the footsteps of men and women who have paved our way
through the Nation Labor relations Act 1935. We intend to protect your rights and
freedoms as EMS professionals in private Industry. In no way will we sacrifice the
integrity or mission of this union. I will not allow it. For others who choose to resort
to low road politics, I bid you adieu. We have, and we will maintain the position that
we are a group of Professionals that deserve to be heard and treated as such. We
are the ICEP. Deal with it.
I believe that recent events have outlined our success in protecting our position.
We aren’t asking for anything unreasonable. We are asking to consummate our
relationship with a contract. I want to be able to spend time with my children,
provide them the things they need and protect them in times of pain and sickness.
I want to retire from the EMS industry, proud of what we have done, what I have
done, the people that we helped, the comfort we have provided, the trauma
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
we responded to. I want to look back on these days with no regret, no remorse.
The individuals that run our industry have forgotten us. We are not worthy of
weingarten rights, health benefits, pay scales or time off without providing that our
family is sick or in need of our help. We are not worthy of their respect, their regard
for human rights or the needs that our members require to simply live life. This is
intolerable as a person, as a family man and as an EMS professional and definitely
not tolerable as a Union President. I call on all of you, to maintain your integrity,
your honor and the cohesiveness of our Union. Please do not get involved in debate
with management or disagreements that were designed for you to participate in.
Divide and conquer has been replaced with intelligence and grace under fire,
performance under duress and Adversity Management. We move forward and will
continue to serve with honor and pride. We are second to no one and will accept
no other scenario. Godspeed my friends.
After Barkley received the message he called Cantelme and expressed his anger that PMT was
reading the personal email from his home personal computer to Union members. Cantelme
explained that he was not insinuating that Barkley would be disciplined but only that PMT would
remove the message wherever it was posted because of the derogatory language. Barkley
asked how Cantelme knew that he had asked that the message to be posted; Cantelme said
that he would have to get back to Barkley for the answer to the question. About three hours
later Cantelme told Barkley that Barkley’s message had been “stolen by a Union rat.” Cantelme
said that he does not work that way and therefore would not follow-up on anything concerning
Barkley’s message. Barkley said that he appreciated that, that he and Cantelme were “good to
go.”
I begin the analysis of this issue by observing that a union does not have a statutory
right to post materials on an employer’s premises. Eastex, Inc., 215 NLRB 271, 272 (1974),
enfd. as modified 556 F. 2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1977), affd. 437 U.S. 556 (1978). An employer must
therefore agree to allow a union to post materials on its premises. These agreements typically
arise either pursuant to collective-bargaining agreement or by past practice, and the employer
may also place limits on the matters posted. However, once collective-bargaining agreement or
past practice establishes those parameters, an employer violates the Act if it removes posting
that fairly fall within the established parameters. Special Machine & Engineering, Inc., 247
NLRB 884 (1980). Here the General Counsel has failed to show what the past practice has
been, if any, regarding the posting of union-generated matters. This compels the dismissal of
this allegation. Stevens Graphics, Inc., 339 NLRB 457 (2003). As indicated, the General
Counsel also alleges that this communication contains an unlawful threat, but he fails to identify
exactly what the threat is. I cannot pinpoint any threat, so I dismiss this allegation too.
The complaint alleges that on about February 11, 2009, PMT undermined the Union by
telling employees the Union never gained the confidence of a majority of the employees and
that PMT doubted that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the unit, dealt
directly with employees by telling them that negotiations had been a disaster, and invited
employees to decertify the Union. It will be recalled that on February 11, 2009, PMT withdrew
recognition from the Union. Later that day PMT sent out the following message:
As we look back to July 2006, when we recognized ICEP as your bargaining
agent, we now realize that many things could have been done better. What
started out as a well-intentioned management decision has evolved over time
into a failed experiment of good labor relations with ICEP leadership.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
The ICEP never gained the confidence of a majority of you who still have not
designated the ICEP as your bargaining agent. Our negotiations with ICEP have
been a disaster. ICEP first agreed to most contract language by December 2007
and then reneged on all prior agreements. In subsequent negotiations, Josh
Barkley, as head of ICEP, had made demands to fire our part-time firefighter
employees. He has also demanded the termination of contracted city employee
rescue units which are required by the city and our DRS-approved city contracts.
Our lack of trust and confidence in the ICEP leadership grew to the point that we
now doubt that they represent a majority in the bargaining unit or ever did. Ill-
considered conduct by the ICEP leadership has resulted in threats to field
employees, who are members of the bargaining unit, forcing management to
complain to the NLRB by filing unfair labor practice charges against ICEP leader,
Josh Barkley. Our doubts regarding ICEP’s status as a bona fide labor union
having majority status has lead us to filing a petition for an election with the
NLRB.
Unions must file government reports accounting for dues money they collect.
Our request for this information from Josh and the ICEP is still pending before
the Department of Labor. We met with Josh and the ICEP on Wednesday,
February 11, 2009 and insisted that he demonstrate the Union’s lawful status
as your representative either through a card check by a third party neutral or by
a secret ballot NLRB election. Josh refused and walked out, ending the meeting.
The General Counsel sees an invitation to decertify the Union in this communication, but
again does not pinpoint the language he relies on. The other arguments made concerning this
allegation are without merit. I dismiss this allegation.
The complaint alleges that on about May 9, 2009, PMT threatened employees with
removal from active duty for engaging in union activity. The General Counsel relies on the
email message, described above, to Barkley from Ramsey concerning Barkley’s use of the
BlackBerry. I have already concluded that PMT violated Section 8(a)(5) when it unlawfully
refused to permit Barkley to use the BlackBerry for union business. I also conclude that the
message Barkley sent to employees was protected union activity. PMT response was to
threaten Barkley with removal from duty if he did not stop that protected activity. By threatening
to remove an employee from active duty because he engaged in union activity, PMT violated
Section 8(a)(1).
The complaint also alleges that on about May 9, 2009, promulgated an overly-broad and
discriminatory rule prohibiting Union officials from using electronic communications while
allowing electronic communications against union activities. But the General Counsel presented
no evidence to support this allegation. See, The Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007).
I dismiss this allegation
The complaint alleges that on about May 9, 2009, PMT promulgated an overly broad and
discriminatory rule requiring Union officials to obtain PMT’s prior approval for electronic
communications to employees. The General Counsel does not present any argument to
support this allegation. To the extent that this argument is premised on a restriction of an
independent Section 7 right to use PMT’s, the argument is inconsistent with The Register
Guard, id. I dismiss this allegation.
E. Bad Faith Bargaining Allegation
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
Finally, the complaint alleges that by the course of the unlawful conduct described in the
complaint PMT has engaged in overall bad faith bargaining. I examine the totality of PMT’s
conduct, both at and away from the bargaining table. Mid-Continent Concrete, 336 NLRB 258
(2001), enfd. sub. nom. NLRB v. Hardesty Co., 308 F. 3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002); Atlanta Hilton &
Tower, 271 NLRB 1600 (1984). I have concluded that on two occasions PMT unlawfully
refused to provide the Union with information and dealt directly with employees concerning its
obligation to provide that information. I have also concluded that PMT unilaterally assigned unit
work to nonunit firefighters and installed security cameras for a period of time in the living
quarters of employees. PMT also relocated two stations without bargaining over the effects of
the relocation on unit employees. However, I have dismissed the allegation that PMT unlawfully
bargained in a “take it or leave it” fashion and dismissed all allegations concerning Section
8(a)(1) conduct prior to PMT’s unlawful withdrawal of recognition.
The parties have been unable to reach a complete contract despite the passage of over
two and a half years from recognition to withdrawal of recognition. And while PMT certainly
must bear much responsibility for the slow pace of negotiations, the Union also contributed to
delays, especially initially as it found its footing. While no complete contract was reached, PMT
and the Union did sign the Memorandum of Understanding described above. PMT did finally
accede to the Union’s demands by submitting a comprehensive proposed contract and meeting
with the federal mediator. The General Counsel argues that PMT sought to “bargain away
legitimate rights of employees.” The record does contain some evidence concerning a dispute
between the Union and PMT over Weingarten rights as described above, but the record is too
thin for me to make any more definite findings on this issue. I acknowledge that the issue of
whether PMT engaged in overall bad-faith bargaining is a close one, but assessing all the
relevant factors I cannot conclude the General Counsel has met his burden. I dismiss this
allegation.
Conclusions of Law
1. By the following conduct the Respondent 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.
(a) Withdrawing recognition from the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following unit:
Full time field paramedics, EMT’s, IEMT’s, and registered nurses, but
excluding administrative staff individuals, support services or personnel not
directly operating in the field as an EMS provider.
(b) Refusing to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant to the
performance of the Union’s duties as the collective-bargaining representative of employees.
(c) Failing to give the Union an opportunity to bargain over the effects of the
relocation of Stations 606 and 607 on the working conditions of unit employees.
(d) Changing healthcare benefits without first allowing the Union an opportunity to
bargain about the changes.
(e) Unilaterally placing security cameras in the living quarters of employees at
several stations.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
(f) Dealing directly with employees instead of with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees.
(g) Unilaterally assigning unit work to nonunit firefighters.
(h) Unilaterally disallowing the Union president or his designee reasonable access to
all PMT’s communication and electronic devices.
2. By threatening to remove an employee from active duty because he engaged in
union activity, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the PMT has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it
must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. I have concluded that PMT unlawfully failed to provide the
Union with an opportunity to bargain concerning the effects of the relocation of Stations 606 and
607. The General Counsel contends that to adequately remedy this unlawful conduct PMT
should be ordered to provide the employees with a remedy consistent with Transmarine
Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968). But here, unlike in Transmarine and its progeny,
there is no loss of employment. The General Counsel counters by claiming that this does not
make a difference, citing Live Oak Skilled Care, 300 NLRB 1040, 1042 (1990). In that case the
Board ordered a Transmarine remedy for employees who were terminated but were
immediately hired by a successor employer. So in Live Oak, unlike here, the employees were
terminated. Under the circumstances here the employees were not terminated and the
automatic minimum of two weeks back pay seems disproportionate. On the other hand,
I recognize that a mere order to bargain over the effects of the relocation, coming as it will
months if not years after the relocations happened, cannot hope to recreate the situation as it
existed at the time. While I shall order bargaining over the effects, I make it clear that
bargaining must include, at the option of the Union, the payment of some monetary
compensation to the unit employees whose working conditions suffered as a result of the
relocations.
I have concluded that beginning in September 2008 PMT unlawfully transferred unit
work to nonunit firefighters, thereby depriving unit employees of unscheduled overtime. I shall
therefore order PMT to rescind that transfer, restore that work to unit employees as it existed
prior to its unlawful conduct, and make whole all unit employees who at the compliance stage of
this proceeding are determined to have lost earnings and other benefits as a result of the
unlawful transfer of bargaining unit work. Back pay shall be computed in accordance with Ogle
Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
I have found that PMT unlawfully changed healthcare benefits for unit employees in
2009. I shall order PMT to rescind those changes and restore, and make available to unit
employees, the same healthcare benefits that were available to such employees immediately
prior to its unlawful conduct. In addition, PMT must make the unit employees whole by
reimbursing them for any losses resulting from the unlawful conduct, with interest as prescribed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, id.
Citing Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, 334 NLRB 487, 490-491 (2001), the General
Counsel requests an order that PMT not only post a notice but also to send the notice on the
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
email system that it uses to communicate to employees. I agree. The record shows that PMT
communicates to its employees primarily by electronic messaging. Moreover, it appears that
employees visit PMT’s main office on an infrequent basis and thus may never see a notice
posted there. I shall therefore order that PMT also send, on the first day of notice posting as
required herein, a copy of this notice to employees on the same basis as it electronically
communicates to its employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended.12
ORDER
The Respondent, Professional Medical Transport, Inc., of Tempe, Arizona, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the unit described above.
(b) Refusing to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant to the
performance of the Union’s duties as the collective-bargaining representative of employees.
(c) Failing to give the Union an opportunity to bargain over the effects of the
relocation of Stations 606 and 607 on the working conditions of unit employees.
(d) Changing healthcare benefits without first allowing the Union an opportunity to
bargain about the changes.
(e) Unilaterally placing security cameras in the living quarters of employees at
several stations.
(f) Dealing directly with employees instead of with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees.
(g) Discontinuing employees use of PMT’s electronic communication devices
because employees engaged in union activity.
(h) Unilaterally assigning unit work to nonunit firefighters.
(i) Unilaterally disallowing the Union president or his designee reasonable access to
all PMT’s communication and electronic devices.
(j) Threatening to remove an employee from active duty because he engaged in
union activity.

12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
(k) 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 effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union13 as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
Full time field paramedics, EMT’s, IEMT’s, and registered nurses, but
excluding administrative staff individuals, support services or personnel not
directly operating in the field as an EMS provider.
(b) Provide the Union with requested information that is relevant to the performance
of the Union’s duties as the collective-bargaining representative of employees.
(c) Remove the message concerning a “Request to Withhold Personal Information”
from all bulletin boards.
(d) Bargain with the Union over the effects of the relocation of Stations 606 and 607
on the working conditions of unit employees.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, notify the Union president in writing
that he or his designee is permitted reasonable access to all PMT’s communication and
electronic devices.
(f) Rescind the transfer of unit work to nonunit firefighters that began in
September 2008, restore that work to unit employees in the manner that existed prior to that
unlawful conduct and make whole all unit employees who at the compliance stage of this
proceeding are determined to have lost earnings and other benefits as a result of the unlawful
transfer of bargaining unit work as described in the Remedy section of this decision.
(g) Rescind the unlawful changes in healthcare benefits for unit employees in 2009
and restore, and make available to unit employees, the same health care benefits that were
available to such employees immediately prior to its unlawful conduct and make the unit
employees whole by reimbursing them for any losses resulting from the unlawful conduct, with
interest.
(h) 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 designated
by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,

13 An affirmative bargaining order is typical in cases involving unlawful withdrawal of
recognition. For the last several years the Board has done a Gissel like analysis to justify to the
courts its imposition of this entirely typical remedy. In all cases, to my knowledge, after the
analysis the result has been the same. The Board does this because a Court of Appeals,
without serious justification in my view, conflated unlawful withdrawal of recognition cases with
Gissel cases. This seems a waste of time and resources and a distraction from the many
legitimate issues that arise in litigation. I therefore decline to go through this perfunctory but
time consuming analysis.
JD(SF)–38–09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
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.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its stations in and about
Tempe, Arizona, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”14 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 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 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 July 25, 2008. PMT shall also send, on the first day of notice posting as
required herein, a copy of this notice to employees on the same basis as it electronically
communicates to its employees.
(j) 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C.
____________________
William G. Kocol
Administrative Law Judge

14 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(SF)–38–09
(Tempe, Arizona)
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the Independent Certified Emergency
Professionals of Arizona, Local #1 as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the unit described below.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Union with requested information that is relevant to the
performance of the Union’s duties as the collective-bargaining representative of employees.
WE WILL NOT fail to give the Union an opportunity to bargain over the effects of the relocation
of Stations 606 and 607 on the working conditions of unit employees.
WE WILL NOT change healthcare benefits without first allowing the Union an opportunity to
bargain about the changes.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally place security cameras in the living quarters of employees at their
work stations.
WE WILL NOT deal directly with employees instead of with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally assign unit work to nonunit firefighters.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally disallow the Union president or his designee reasonable access to all
our communication and electronic devices.
WE WILL NOT threaten to remove an employee from active duty because he engaged in union
activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Independent Certified Emergency Professionals of
Arizona , Local #1 as the exclusive representative of the employees in the following appropriate
unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
JD(SF)–38–09
(Tempe, Arizona)
Full time field paramedics, EMT’s, IEMT’s, and registered nurses, but excluding
administrative staff individuals, support services or personnel not directly
operating in the field as an EMS provider.
WE WILL provide the Union with requested information that is relevant to the performance of
the Union’s duties as the collective-bargaining representative of employees.
WE WILL remove the message concerning a “Request to Withhold Personal Information” from
all bulletin boards.
WE WILL bargain with the Union over the effects of the relocation of Stations 606 and 607 on
the working conditions of unit employees.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, notify the Union president in writing that he
or his designee is permitted reasonable access to all our communication and electronic devices.
WE WILL rescind the transfer of unit work to nonunit firefighters that began in September 2008,
restore that work to unit employees in the manner that existed prior to that unlawful conduct and
make whole all unit employees who at the compliance stage of this proceeding are determined
to have lost earnings and other benefits as a result of the unlawful transfer of bargaining unit
work as described in the Remedy section of this decision.
WE WILL rescind the unlawful changes in healthcare benefits for unit employees in 2009 and
restore, and make available to unit employees, the same health care benefits that were
available to such employees immediately prior to the unlawful conduct and make the unit
employees whole by reimbursing them for any losses resulting from the unlawful conduct, with
interest.
Professional Medical Transport, Inc.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
602-640-2160.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE
OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 602-640-2146.