Salem Village I, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 1, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 1015 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

SALEM VILLAGE 1, INC. 1015 Salem Village I, Inc., Salem Village II, Inc., and Salem Village III, Inc. and Professional and Health Care Employees Division, Local 1453, Retail Clerks Union, Chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 13-CA-20575 July 1, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge filed on November 10, 1980, by Professional and Health Care Employees Division, Local 1453, Retail Clerks Union, Chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers Internation- al Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called the Union, and duly served on Salem Village I, Inc., Salem Village II, Inc., and Salem Village III, Inc., herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re- gional Director for Region 13, issued a complaint on November 26, 1980, against Respondent, alleg- ing that Respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended. Copies of the charge and the complaint and notice of hearing before an ad- ministrative law judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that on October 31, 1980, following a Board election in Case 13-RC- 15219, the Union was duly certified as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of Re- spondent's employees in the unit found appropri- ate;' and that, commencing on or about November 7, 1980, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar- gaining representative, although the Union has re- quested and is requesting it to do so. On December 10, 1980, Respondent filed its answer to the com- plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al- legations in the complaint. On March 17, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on March 19, 1981, the Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum- L Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed- ing, Case 13-RC-15219, as the term "record" is defined in Sees 102.08 and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations Series 8, as amended See LTV Electrovstenms. Inc.. 166 NLRB 939 (1967). enfd 388 F 2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967). enfd 415 F2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Internppe Co. v Pnelhl, 269 F Supp 573 (D.C.Va 1967): Follel Corp., 164 NLRH 378 (1967). enfd 397 F 2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968): Sec 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended 256 NLRB No. 141 mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment and a response to the Notice To Show Cause. Respondent also filed a motion to amend its answer to the complaint to include a second affirmative defense. 2 Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment In its answer to the complaint, Respondent admits the procedural and jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and admits most of the operative factual allegations, but denies: (a) that the Union has been, and is now, the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit; (b) that the Union is entitled to certain information it requested concerning the present terms and con- ditions of employment of employees in the certified unit;3 and (c) that its refusal to bargain and refusal to supply information are violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In its answer and its amended answer, Respondent also alleges certain affirmative defenses; i.e., that the election of Octo- ber 5, 1979, in which the Union failed to gain a ma- jority of the votes cast was erroneously set aside and that, therefore, the representation election con- ducted on July 11, 1980, was without legal effect, and that the Board erroneously refused to set aside the results of the July 11, 1980, election or to con- duct a formal hearing on Respondent's objections to conduct affecting that election and that, there- fore, the election was without legal effect. The General Counsel argues that Respondent's conten- tions are without merit, and we agree. Review of the record herein, including the record in Case 13-RC-15219, reveals that, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, an election was held on October 5, 1979. The tally of ballots disclosed that there were 42 votes for the Union, 48 votes against the Union, and 11 determinative challenges. Thereafter, on October 15, 1979, the Union filed timely objections to the election alleging, inter alia, that during the preelection period Respondent had interrogated employees concerning their union activities (Objec- tion 2); had interrogated employees as to how they " We hereby grant Respondent's motion Hoseer. e find for the reasons noted below that Respondent's second affirmative defense does not affect our decision In this case. ' The infornmationl requestled included a list of all enmployees giving names. departments. starting dates of employment. and present rates of paly. current copies of any health and hospital insurance and pension pro- grail: a synopsis of Respolndent's policies regarding salary increases and cost Io emphloees for insurance and retirementl and a breakd,;own of holi- d.iss. sick dlas. ,icaionlln , lca,;ss of ahsence. sick lease. personal leave, and ultillilor allow ances SALEM VILLAGE I, INC. l l 1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were going to vote and kept a written record of their responses (Objection 3); had restricted the ac- tivities of an active union supporter while allowing antiunion employees to go freely about the facilities (Objection 4); and had told part-time employees that they were ineligible to vote even though their names appeared on the Excelsior list (Objection 5). Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 (1966). The objections alleged that "because of this and other conduct" the election should be set aside.4 On November 8, 1979, the Regional Director issued his "Report on Objections and Notice of Hearing" in which he ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised in the Union's Ob- jections 2, 3, 4, and 5.5 A hearing was conducted on November 28, 29, and 30, 1979. At the hearing, the Union raised other allegations of objectionable conduct, arguing, inter alia, that Respondent had discriminatorily promulgated and enforced a no-solicitation/no-dis- tribution rule, had enforced an invalid no-access rule, and had created the impression of surveillance of union activity among the employees. 6 On Febru- ary 27, 1980, the Hearing Officer issued his Report on Objections in which he recommended sustaining portions of the Union's Objections 2, 3, and 4 and the objections based on the no-solicitation/no-dis- tribution rule, the no-access rule, and the creation of the impression of surveillance. He further rec- ommended that the results of the October 5, 1979, election be set aside and a new election be ordered. Subsequently, on March 25, 1980, Respondent filed timely exceptions and a supporting brief to the Hearing Officer's Report on Objections. Respond- ent excepted to the Hearing Officer's sustaining of Objections 2, 3, and 4 and the objections first raised by the Union at the hearing. On June 9, 1980, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Second Election in Case 13-RC-15219 (not report- ed in volumes of Board Decisions) in which it adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recom- mendations. On June 16, 1980, the Regional Director for Region 13 issued a "Notice of Intention To Con- duct Rerun Election." A second election by secret ballot was thereafter held on July 11, 1980. The tally of ballots was 60 votes for, and 49 against, the Union with 12 determinative challenged ballots. The Union and Respondent thereafter filed timely 4 Respondent also filed timely ojections but later withdrew them with the permission of the Regional Director. s The Regional Director also noted in his report that the parties had stipulated that five of the voters whose ballots were challenged were eli- gible employees. Accordingly, their ballots had been opened and count- ed. The revised tally showed 42 votes for, and 53 votes against, the Union. The remaining challenged ballots were. therefore, no longer de- terminative of the election results. 6 At the close of the hearing the Union withdrew Objection 5. objections to conduct affecting the results of the second election. On August 19, 1980, the Union withdrew its objections. Respondent's objections alleged, inter alia, that shortly before the election the Union had (1) made significant false and mis- leading representations to the employees (Objection 1); (2) had threatened employees with reprisals if they refused to vote for the Union (Objection 2); and (3) had coerced the employees with the object of forcing them to vote for the Union or forcing them to cease campaigning against the Union (Ob- jection 3). On September 3, 1980, following an in- vestigation, the Acting Regional Director for Region 13 issued a "Supplemental Decision on Challenged Ballots and Objections." In his deci- sion, the Acting Regional Director sustained the challenges to the ballots of five individuals and concluded that the remaining seven challenged bal- lots were no longer determinative. The Acting Re- gional Director also overruled Respondent's Objec- tion 1, finding that the evidence presented failed to establish that any of the employees who allegedly had made false and misleading statements to em- ployees were agents of the Union. He further found that the conduct complained of constituted at most an exchange or discussion between employ- ees that was susceptible of evaluation as campaign propaganda and found that such statements had minimal impact on the election results. With re- spect to Objections 2 and 3, the Acting Regional Director found that the evidence presented failed to establish that the Union had threatened employ- ees with reprisal if they did not vote for the Union, and failed to establish that the Union had tried to force employees to vote for the Union or force them to cease campaigning against the Union. On September 28, 1980, Respondent filed excep- tions to the Regional Director's Supplemental De- cision on Challenged Ballots and Objections and a supporting brief. In its exceptions, Respondent as- serted with regard to Objection I that the Acting Regional Director had erred in finding that the statements objected to constituted only "exchanges or discussions" between employees that were of minimal impact. Respondent also excepted to the Acting Regional Director's failure to find that ade- quate evidence of agency between the Union and employees had been established by the evidence. Respondent further excepted to the Acting Region- al Director's failure to find that the Union had at- tempted to force employees to vote for the Union and his failure to find that the Union had tried to coerce employees into voting for the Union or had forced employees to stop working against the Union. Respondent argued that it had made a prima facie showing of objectionable conduct on SALEM VILLAGE , INC. 1017 each objection and that a hearing should have been held to resolve the factual issues in the case. On October 31, 1980, the Board issued its Supplemen- tal Decision and Certification of Representative in Case 13-RC-15219 (also not reported in volumes of Board Decisions) in which it adopted the Acting Regional Director's findings and recommendations and certified the Union as the representative of the employees in an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. In its memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent reiterates its contention that a hearing was required to resolve the substantial and material factual issues presented by its objections to the second election. This argu- ment was raised before and rejected by the Board in the underlying representation proceeding. It is well established that a party is not entitled to a hearing on objections absent a showing of substan- tial and material issues.7 The Board has held, with judicial approval, that evidentiary hearings are not required in unfair labor practice cases and that summary judgment is appropriate where, as here, there are no substantial or material facts to be de- termined.8 Accordingly, Respondent is not entitled to a hearing on its objections. It therefore appears that in this proceeding Re- spondent is attempting to relitigate issues fully liti- gated and finally determined in the representation proceeding. It is well settled that in the absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evi- dence or special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior representation pro- ceeding. 9 All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed- ing were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding and Respondent does not allege that any special circumstances exist herein which would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. '° We therefore find that Respondent has not raised any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we find that Respondent has at all times material herein re- fused to recognize and bargain with the Union, 7 National Benllia Corporation, 222 NLRB 1289 (1976), and cases cited therein. 8 Handy Hardware Wholesale. Inc.. 222 NLRB 373 (1976), and case. cited therein. 9 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.RB.. 313 U.S 146. 162 (1941): Rules and Regulations of the Board Sees 102 67(0 and 102 9(c). o Respondent does claim that it has "newly discovered evidence" concerning the agency status of one of the prounion employees Re- spondent has in no ay indicated what that evidence is or why it ,as not presented earlier Accordingly, its assertion of nles, ly discouiered evidence" is insufficient to defeat the Motion for Summary Judgment upon request, and that its refusal to do so is viola- tive of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In this proceeding, Respondent also denies that the Union is entitled to the employment informa- tion it seeks. It first denies that the information is necessary for and relevant to the Union's collec- tive-bargaining function. It further defends its re- fusal to furnish the requested information pertain- ing to the bargaining unit employees on the ground that the Union is not entitled to receive the infor- mation because it was improperly certified. As for Respondent's denial of the relevancy of the infor- mation requested, we note it is well settled that wage, fringe benefit, and employment data con- cerning bargaining unit employees are presumptive- ly relevant for the purposes of collective bargain- ing, and must be provided upon request to the em- ployees' bargaining representative. It is also well settled that a union is not required to show the pre- cise relevance of such information unless the em- ployer has submitted evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of relevance. 2 Here, Respondent has not attempted to rebut by proffer of proof the relevance of the information sought by the Union. Rather, Respondent simply contends that the Union is not entitled to the information. However, since the Union is the employees' designated bar- gaining representative, Respondent's contention is in error. Moreover, Respondent contends that the Union is not entitled to the information requested because the Union was improperly certified. Inasmuch as we have found the Union to be properly certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, we find Respond- ent's contention in error. Accordingly, we find that no material issues of fact exist with regard to Re- spondent's refusal to furnish the employment data sought by the Union and that its refusal to do so violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: Il Wccrarn Electric. Inc., 225 NLRB 1374 (1976): Ilotel Enterprives Inc d/h/a Royal Inn 'f South Bend. 224 NLR1 n10 (197h). IWarehouse lsds a Diviion of M E barter and Company. Inc., 223 NRB 506 (1176h) Building C'onstruciion Emplovers 4sweiation f Lincoln . e\hriso ar t . 185 NRB 34 (197): Cow-lcv Communicatioin Inc. 172 NI.RB ')9( (1968): Curtiris-Wright Corporation, 4'rirht Aelronautiial )iviirn. 145 NLRB 152 1963). enfd 347 F 2d 61 (3d Clr. 19'h5 12 Curto- Wrighi (Corporation, 347 F 2d at 61) Thus. if the ilfiornltilln is f potential or pri hahle rle iance. the (eneral Cotn,el need nrot make a sloAi llg tha.t the information sought is ,vlc l iis poitl c ll the ile llg ll- atili Issn es bhct'ceCll the parties Sc''ee t >,rl .frisdi iit' l iErlU (o n- panr. 22S NIR 67 (1'77) SALEM VILLAGE I, INC 1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Salem Village I, Inc., Salem Village II, Inc., and Salem Village III, Inc., is a not-for-profit Illinois corporation engaged in the business of providing residential nursing care. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint, Re- spondent had a gross volume of business in excess of $100,000, and, during the same period, Respond- ent purchased and received goods and services valued in excess of $10,000 directly from points lo- cated outside the State of Illinois. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re- spondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Professional and Health Care Employees Divi- sion, Local 1453, Retail Clerks Union, Chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Representation Proceeding 1. The unit The following employees of Respondent consti- tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All permanent part-time and permanent full- time nurses aides, orderlies, kitchen aides and cooks, diet assistants, housekeeping aides, laun- dry aides, activities employees, and mainte- nance employees employed by Respondent at its facility presently located at 1314 Rowell Avenue, Joliet, Illinois 60433; but excluding Administrator, Assistant Administrator, Busi- ness Manager, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Registered Nurses, Li- censed Practical Nurses, Activity Director, Assistant Activity Director, Social Service Di- rector, Office Supervisor, Director of Food Services, Assistant Director of Food Services, Housekeeping Supervisor, Dietician, Mainte- nance Supervisor, office clerical employees, on call employees, professionals, volunteers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. The certification On July 11, 1980, a majority of the employees of Respondent in said unit, in the second secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 13, designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent. The Union was certified as collective-bargaining representative of the employees in said unit on Oc- tober 31, 1980, and the Union continues to be such exclusive representative within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(a) of the Act. B. The Request To Bargain and To Furnish Relevant Information and Respondent's Refusal Commencing on or about November 4, 1980, and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re- spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit. Com- mencing on or about November 7, 1980, and con- tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre- sentative for collective bargaining of all employees in said unit, and has refused to furnish the Union information relevant to collective bargaining. Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since November 7, 1980, and at all times thereafter, re- fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the ap- propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its oper- ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of com- merce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is SALEM VIIAAGF , INC. 1019 reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. In order to insure that the employees in the ap- propriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi- fication as beginning on the date Respondent com- mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the ap- propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company. Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/h/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817; Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965). The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Salem Village I, Inc., Salem Village II, Inc., and Salem Village III, Inc., is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Professional and Health Care Employees Divi- sion, Local 1453, Retail Clerks Union, Chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All permanent part-time and permanent full- time nurses aides, orderlies, kitchen aides and cooks, diet assistants, housekeeping aides, laundry aides, activities employees, and maintenance em- ployees employed by Respondent at its facility presently located at 1314 Rowell Avenue, Joliet, Il- linois 60433, but excluding Administrator, Assistant Administrator, Business Manager, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Activity Direc- tor, Assistant Activity Director, Social Service Di- rector, Office Supervisor, Director of Food Serv- ices, Assistant Director of Food Services, House- keeping Supervisor, Dietician, Maintenance Super- visor, office clerical employees, on call employees, professionals, volunteers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Since October 31, 1980, the above-named labor organization has been and now is the certified and exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about November 7, 1980, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of all the employ- ees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Re- spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By refusing on or about November 7, 1980, and at all times material thereafter, to bargain col- lectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit by refusing to furnish said labor organization with information concerning the present terms and conditions of em- ployment of the employees in the above-described unit, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 7. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond- ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Salem Village I, Inc., Salem Village II, Inc., and Salem Village III, Inc., Joliet, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Professional and Health Care Employees Division, Local 1453, Retail Clerks Union, Chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of its employees in the following appro- priate unit: All permanent part-time and permanent full- time nurses aides, orderlies, kitchen aides and cooks, diet assistants, housekeeping aides, laun- dry aides, activities employees, and mainte- nance employees employed by Respondent at its facility presently located at 1314 Rowell Avenue, Joliet, Illinois 60433; but excluding Administrator, Assistant Administrator, Busi- ness Manager, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Registered Nurses, Li- censed Practical Nurses, Activity Director, SALEM VILLAGE I, INC. IoI' 1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Assistant Activity Director, Social Service Di- rector, Office Supervisor, Director of Food Services, Assistant Director of Food Services, Housekeeping Supervisor, Dietician, Mainte- nance Supervisor, office clerical employees, on call employees, professionals, volunteers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization by refusing to fur- nish the said labor organization with information concerning the present terms and conditions of em- ployment of the employees in the above-described unit. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effecuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing in a signed agreement. (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization by furnishing it with information concerning present terms and conditions of employment requested in its letter of November 4, 1980. (c) Post at its facilities at 1314 Rowell Avenue, Joliet, Illinois 60433, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by Repondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Is In the event that 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 Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order fo the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Professional and Health Care Employees Division, Local 1453, Retail Clerks Union, Chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO- CLC, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization by refusing to furnish it with information con- cerning present terms and conditions of em- ployment it has requested with respect to the employees in the unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargain- ing unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con- ditions of employment, and, if an understand- ing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization by furnishing it with information concerning pres- ent terms and conditions of employment re- quested in its letter of November 4, 1980. The bargaining unit is: All permanent part-time and permanent full- time nurses aides, orderlies, kitchen aides and cooks, diet assistants, housekeeping aides, laundry aides, activities employees, and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its facility presently located at 1314 Rowell Avenue, Joliet, Illinois 60433; but excluding Administrator, Assist- ant Administrator, Business Manager, Direc- tor of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nurs- ing, Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Activity Director, Assistant Activi- ty Director, Social Service Director, Office Supervisor, Director of Food Services, As- sistant Director of Food Services, House- SALEM VILLAGE I, INC. 1021 keeping Supervisor, Dietician, Maintenance Supervisor, office clerical employees, on call employees, professionals, volunteers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. SALEM VILLAGE I, INC., SALEM VIL- LAGE II, INC., AND SALEM VILLAGE III, INC.