Sanford Home For Adults

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1981

253 N.L.R.B. 1132 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sanford Home for Adults and Local 144, Hotel,
Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Health
Services Union, Service Employees Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO
Local 6, International Federation of Health Profes-
sionals, International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO and Local 144, Hotel, Hospi-
tal, Nursing Home and Allied Health Services
Union, Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO. Cases 29-CA-6759 and 29-CB-
3543
January 8, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On January 23, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas R. Wilks issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Sanford Home for
Adults (herein also called Respondent Employer)
filed exceptions and a supporting brief; the General
Counsel filed a cross-exception and brief in support
thereof and an answering brief; and Respondent
Employer filed a brief in answer to the General
Counsel's cross-exception. On March 17, 1980,
Local 6, International Federation of Health Profes-
sionals, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO (herein also called Respondent Union),
filed a special motion for disqualification of the
Administrative Law Judge. On March 25, 1980, the
General Counsel filed a response to Respondent
Union's motion and thereafter on April 3 and 4,
1980, Respondent Employer and Respondent
Union, respectively, filed responses thereto. Subse-
quently, the General Counsel filed a letter request-
ing that the Board, inter alia, reject the arguments
in the papers filed by Respondent Employer. Re-
spondent Employer thereafter filed a letter "reiter-
ating" its position.'
I Both Respondent Union and Respondent Employer contend, inter
alia, that during the course of the instant hearing the Administrative Law
Judge engaged in an ex pane communication with the Regional Director
for Region 29 and counsel for the the General Counsel which, at a mini-
mum, gave the appearance of impropriety, and requires that the Adminis-
trative Law Judge be disqualified. The General Counsel, in reply, asserts
that the Administrative Law Judge's private meeting with counsel for the
General Counsel and the Regional Director for Region 29 concerned
only the settlement of the instant case and therefore falls within the pur-
view of Sec. 102.130 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, which permits an administrative law judge to engage in ex
pare "oral or written communication proposing settlement or an agree-
ment for the disposition of any or all issues in the proceeding "
At the outset we note that these contentions are untimely raised inas-
much as the parties failed to comply with Sec. 102.37 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations which requires that any party wishing to request
an administrative law judge "to withdraw on ground of personal bias or
disqualification" must do so before the filing of his decision "by filing
with [the Administrative Law Judge] promptly upon the discovery of the
alleged facts a timely affidavit setting forth in detail the matters alleged
to constitute grounds for disqualification." Further, following the alleged
253 NLRB No. 153
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,2 find-
ings,3 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent Employer Sanford
Home for Adults, Flushing, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent
Union Local 6, International Federation of Health
Professionals, International Longshoremen's Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
improper communications, the Administrative Law Judge. on the record.
fully described what transpired during said converation Specifically, the
Administrative Law Judge informed Respondenlts, with the subsequent
concurrence of coulsel fotr tih General Counsel, that the conversation
was limited to settlement possibilities and particularly whether the Gener-
al Cotulsel would demand abrolgation of the contract ito remedy the al-
leged unfair labor practices There being n merit to Respondent m-
ployer's assertion that a cnvsersalion regarding the appropriateness of'
contract abrogatiioll as a remedy necessarily constitutes a discussion re-
garding the merit, if' a proceeding we find the record devoid of evi-
dence that the alleged improper conversatl n, which ccurred with the
knowledge f Respondents ad on the heels itf a settlement discussion
among all of the parties. ill any way involsed the merits of the complaint
allegations. We therefore find without merit Respondents' contention that
the Administrative Law Judge's conduct showsed bias and prejudice. Ac-
curdingly, we find no basis upon which to disqualify the Administrative
Law Judge
. Respondent Employer has excepted to certain credibility findings
made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established
policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with re-
spect t credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant
evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Drr
Wall Products, Inc. 91 NLRB 544 1950), enfd. 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir
1951) We have carefully examined the record and find n basis for re-
versing his findings
a Respondent Employer contends that the Administrative Law Judge
erred in relying on the closing statement of Respondent Union's presi-
dent. William Perry, that "[alleged employee Raymondl Murcia was a
plant," in reaching his conclusion that Murcia was not employed within
the bargaining unit To the extent that the Administrative Law Judge
relied upon Perry's closing statement, we find that the other factors
relied upon are sufficient to support his conclusion and find it unneces-
sary to pass upon Respondent Employer's exception in this regard.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS R. WILKS, Administrative Law Judge: Pursu-
ant to unfair labor practice charges filed by Local 144,
Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Health Serv-
ices Union, Service Employees International Union,
1132
SANFORD HOME FOR ADULTS
AFL-CIO (herein Local 144), a consolidated complaint
issued by the Regional Director for Region 29, an
answer filed by Sanford Home for Adults (herein Re-
spondent Employer), and an answer submitted at the
hearing by Local 6, International Federation of Health
Professionals, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO (herein Respondent Union), a hearing was
held in this matter in Brooklyn, New York, on May 7, 8,
9, and 22-23 and June 11-14, 1979. The complaint al-
leges that Respondent Employer recognized Respondent
Union as collective-bargaining agent for a unit of its em-
ployees and entered into and maintained a collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Respondent Union despite the
fact that Respondent Union did not possess the support
of an uncoerced majority of Respondent Employer's em-
ployees. The complaint alleges that, in pursuance of that
collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent Employer
deducted sums of money from the wages of its employ-
ees as union dues which it paid to Respondent Union de-
spite the lack of employee authorizations for such deduc-
tions. The complaint further alleges that Respondent
Employer, pursuant to the demand of Respondent Union,
discharged employees Blanca Llanos and Elena Mun-
teanu because they refused to join and become members
of Respondent Union pursuant to the union-security
clause of its collective-bargaining agreement with Re-
spondent Employer; and also that Respondent Employer
discharged said employees because they joined and as-
sisted Local 144 and refrained from joining or assisting
Respondent Union. The complaint further alleges that
Respondent Employer required and solicited its employ-
ees to execute written authorizations with respect to the
deduction of dues from employees' wages, that it threat-
ened its employees with discharge if they did not
become members of Respondent Union, and that it inter-
rogated its employees concerning their membership in,
activities on behalf of, and sympathy for Local 144; and
further alleges that Respondent Union threatened em-
ployees with discharge to be effectuated by Respondent
Employer for the purpose of inducing employees to sup-
port and assist Respondent Union. A brief was submitted
after the hearing by Respondent Employer. Counsel for
the General Counsel and William Perry, president of Re-
spondent Union, presented oral argument at the close of
the hearing.
On the entire record in this case, including my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor and my con-
sideration of the briefs, I make the following:'
I Counsel for the General Counsel presented six witnesses in support
of his case. One of these witnesses was impeached in part by counsel for
the General Counsel. All witnesses with the exception of Beverly Salmon
offered testimony which was uncontradicted and uncontroverted by Re-
spondents. The General Counsel's witnesses manifested difficulties with
respect to their oral testimony in regard to the ability to testify with cer-
tainty, clarity. assuredness, spontaneity, and consistency. Many of the dif-
ficulties were due in part to the need for translation of several of the wit-
nesses' testimony and in part through their lack of verbal fluency Also.
much of the confusion of the witnesses was due to courtroom conditions
which included, inter aia, prolonged. vociferous and acerbic argumenta-
tion. Although the testimony of the witnesses of counsel for the General
Counsel. particularly that of employees Munteanu and Llanos, did not i-
spire the utmost confidence. I am constrained to credit them in areas in
which they were not self-contradictory or foi other reasons noted herein
in view of the failure of Respondents to submit contradictory testimony
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
Respondent Employer is a copartnership composed of
Harry Mayer, Sidney Kopet, Israel Grauman, Yehedis
Grauman, and Alexander Sands, copartners doing busi-
ness under the trade name and style of the Sanford
Home for Adults.
At all times material Respondent Employer has main-
tained its principal office and place of business at 140-40
Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, where it is, and
has been at all times material herein, continuously en-
gaged in providing health care services and related serv-
ices for the elderly. During the calendar year preceding
the issuance of the complaint, which is a period of time
representative of its annual operations generally, Re-
spondent Employer, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, derived gross revenues in excess of
$100,000 and purchased supplies directly or indirectly
from outside the State of New York in excess of $5,000.
It is admitted and I find that Respondent Employer is,
and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6). and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find that Respondent Union and
Local 144 are, and have been at all times material herein,
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR I ABOR PRACTICES
Respondent Employer provides at its Sanford Avenue
address a home for adults which is licensed by the State
of New York to provide a residence for elderly persons,
but does not provide nursing care. It does provide serv-
ices for elderly residents who are capable of caring for
themselves. It is governed by the State of New York
rules of social welfare. Harry Mayer is, and has been at
all material times herein, the managing partner and ad-
ministrator of Respondent Employer and its admitted
agent. Mrs. Mayer is, and has been at all material times
herein, the assistant administrator of Respondent Em-
ployer and its admitted agent.
Local 144 attempted to organize Respondent Employ-
er's employees in the fall of 1977 but failed to win a
Board-conducted election for representation which was
held in September 1977.
The testimony as to the initiation of organizing efforts
by Local 144 of Respondent Employer's employees in
1978 is unclear, confusing, and inconsistent.
According to Organizer Grossi, an agent of Local 144,
his first efforts commenced on or about August 1, 1978,
and consisted of the solicitation of Respondent Employ-
er's employees down the street and around the corner
from Respondent Employer's establishment, referred to
herein as the Home. He testified that he attempted to
hold conversations with employees so as to avoid being
and in X iess of failure of Respondents to offer a compelling rasonl for
falling ito dto so
1133
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
observed by Respondent Employer's agents because of
the fears expressed by some employees. According to
Grossi, he held a half dozen meetings between August I
and October 1978 at a nearby fast-food restaurant. At a
meeting in the first or second week of September, ac-
cording to Grossi, he presented employee Blanca Llanos
with eight or nine union representation authorization
cards which she returned to him executed by other em-
ployees. In the same period of time, i.e., the first or
second week of September, he obtained signatures on
four or five union authorization cards through his own
efforts. Local 144 obtained 14 signed authorization cards
which it subsequently submitted to the Board in support
of a showing of interest in a representation proceeding.2
The import and thrust of Grossi's testimony suggest that
no other union agent personally obtained executed au-
thorization cards.
Llanos, an employee since 1974, testified that three
Local 144 agents solicited support from employees on
the street 60 feet from the entrance to the Home: Grossi
and two other individuals by the name of Duggan and
Santos. She testified that she talked to all three and that
it was Duggan who gave her a card which she later ex-
ecuted and returned to him at the end of July or in the
first week of August 1977. She did not fill in the date on
the card, which is dated September 3. She testified that
Grossi did not give her more than one card, on which
she solicited the signature of one other employee, a dish-
washer by the name of Jimmy.
Elena Munteanu testified that she was first approached
by Grossi at the end of June or early July and was asked
by him to execute a card on the street in front of the
Home. She initially refused but, after having been subse-
quently told by Llanos and an employee by the name of
Roberto that Local 144 was a "good union" for which
they also had executed cards, she later accepted a card
from Grossi on the street. Thereafter she signed the card
with the help of Llanos who filled it out for her. That
card appears to be dated "9-28"; the figure "9" is scrib-
bled over in a way as to raise some questions as to what
it actually is.
Following the General Counsel's refusal to produce
the remaining 13 cards, the parties stipulated to the dates
appearing thereon without stipulating as to the accuracy
of those cards. The dates range from September 3
through September 28. The General Counsel adduced no
further evidence to clarify the confusion as to when
Local 144 obtained executed union authorization cards,
despite his contention that the date of union activity by
Local 144 was an essential element of his case.
In view of Grossi's greater certainty as to the execu-
tion dates of the cards, I credit his testimony. However,
inasmuch as Llanos was certain that she did not obtain
more than one extra card from Grossi, I conclude that
she did not solicit more than one other employee to ex-
ecute an authorization card on behalf of Local 144.
There is no evidence that Respondent Employer was
aware of her activity in this regard.
Raymond Murcia, Jr., is alleged in the complaint and
admitted by Respondent Union to have been at all times
2 The record is silent as to the filing date of such a petition.
material herein its organizer who acted on its behalf and
also its agent. Murcia was hired on Sunday, August 27,
according to the testimony of Harry Mayer, and appears
on Respondent Employer's records as a kitchen helper
who held that position for 5 days until the following
Thursday. His employment thereafter ceased. Unlike
other employees Murcia dressed in slacks and a formal
business jacket. He was seen by kitchenworker Raul Al-
cides Echeverri on one occasion on Sunday, August 27,
washing dishes in the absence of the dishwasher. At all
other times Echeverri observed Murcia perform no
duties in the kitchen. Respondent Union's President
Perry in his closing argument admitted that Murcia was
utilized by Respondent Union as a "plant" who had been
placed in Respondent Employer's home for the purpose
of organizing Respondent Employer's employees.
Echeverri resides in the Home where he is provided a
private room of his own. On Monday, August 28, he was
enjoying a day off and was asleep in his room when at
one point Assistant Administrator Mayer, accompanied
by Murcia, visited him. On that occasion Murcia told
Echeverri in Mrs. Mayer's presence, "Boy . . . I'm here;
I want you to sign the card for me," referring to an au-
thorization card for Respondent Union. Echeverri re-
fused. Murcia and Mrs. Mayer departed. However,
shortly thereafter Echeverri was again visited by Murcia
who was this time accompanied by Harry Mayer. Mayer
told Echeverri that the card was "from the Union" and
would provide him with benefits and that "everybody"
had signed. Although Harry Mayer did not threaten
Echeverri directly with discharge, he did tell him that
anyone else who had not signed a card would be
"thrown out." Thereupon Echeverri executed the au-
thorization card for Respondent Union.
On August 28, employee Lucimira DeLucia, a waitress
at the Home, about the rest period time, was told by
Mrs. Mayer to follow her to the lunchroom where Mrs.
Mayer introduced and identified Murcia as "a man who
is coming in for a union." Murcia identified himself by
stating that he was present on behalf of Local 6 (Re-
spondent Union) in order to obtain work benefits for em-
ployees. As Murcia commenced to speak Mrs. Mayer
left. Pursuant to Murcia's request, DeLucia executed an
authorization card for Respondent Union which Murcia
accepted and placed with several other cards on a table
in the lunchroom.
On August 29, Jose Moreno sought employment
through the Chase Employment Agency, a private
entity. Chase sent Moreno to the offices of Respondent
Union on 40th Street in Manhattan where he was told
that a job as a porter was available for him at Respond-
ent Employer's Sanford Avenue facility. Moreno execut-
ed an authorization card for Respondent Union. He was
then sent to Respondent Employer's facility where he
was interviewed by Mrs. Mayer, who questioned him as
to his work references. He testified initially with certain-
ty that there was no further conversation. Counsel for
the General Counsel thereupon expressed his intention
and purpose of impeaching the witness and confronted
the witness with his pretrial affidavit which the witness
thereupon repudiated. Thereafter, however, Moreno tes-
1134
SANFORD HOME FOR ADULTS
tified in accord with his affidavit that Mrs. Mayer asked
him whether he were a union member; that he insisted
that he was and was a member of Local 6; that she hesi-
tated; that she left the room; and that she returned and
told him that he was hired. I do not credit that part of
the testimony as to the purported interrogation in light
of the witness' self-contradictory testimony.3
Beverly Salmon also sought the employment services
of Chase on August 30; she testified with great uncer-
tainty and confusion as to the events that transpired
there and thereafter. However, I credit her testimony to
the effect that she sought a nurses aide job; that Chase
sent her to an office in the vicinity of 40th Street; that
thereafter she was sent to Respondent Employer's facili-
ty where she was admittedly interviewed by Harry
Mayer; and that she signed a W-4 tax form and was told
by Mayer that she was hired as a chambermaid, which
position involved cleaning floors and preparing bed
linens.
I do not credit Salmon's testimony that she was asked
by Harry Mayer to sign an authorization card for Re-
spondent Union. I conclude that she, like Moreno, signed
the union card prior to the interview by Mayer. 4
Mayer testified that he showed her where to work and
that he thereupon left and assumed that she commenced
her employment and actually engaged in duties. This was
merely Mayer's assumption. It is Salmon's uncontradict-
ed testimony that she decided that she did not wish to
work as a chambermaid; that after she executed her tax
form she did not commence work; and that she left the
premises and never returned and received no pay from
Respondent Employer. I therefore conclude that Salmon
was never employed by Respondent Employer on
August 30 or thereafter.
On August 28, Llanos was engaged in her duties with
coworker Rosa Ituralde on the second floor of the
Home. Mrs. Mayer and Murcia confronted them and
told them to sign a union representation authorization
card for Local 6. Mrs. Mayer told the employees that if
the cards were not executed that there would be no fur-
ther work for them. She handed each employee a card.
As Murcia commenced to speak, Mrs. Mayer departed.
Murcia identified himself as an employee of Local 6.
Llanos told Murcia that she and Ituralde had work to do
but that they could converse later in the basement at
lunchtime. The conversation ended abruptly.
Later at lunch Murcia met employees Llanos and Itur-
aide as well as a third employee who was identified by
Llanos as Clair. They met in the basement at lunchtime.
Murcia asked them to execute authorization cards. They
refused. Subsequently Mr. Mayer came upon the scene
and told the employees in the presence of Murcia that he
was "making an agreement" with Respondent Union be-
cause it was "good" for him in that he did not have to
"pay too much money," whereas other unions "like 144"
were not good and would "kill" him. He asked the em-
ployees to execute the authorization cards. They refused.
I The affidavit was received into evidence as a prior inconsistent state-
ment. I rejected it as substantive evidence
4 Her confusion as to the substance and form of papers which she ex-
ecuted was such as to preclude me from relying on her testimony in this
regard, and I therefore credit Mayer.
Mayer left. Murcia remained and complained to Llanos
that many employees had refused to execute cards on
behalf of Respondent Union.
On August 29, Murcia again unsuccessfully solicited
Llanos' signature, informing her that Mr. Mayer desired
it. She refused. On August 30, he again attempted to
obtain her authorization and told her that employee
Pedro had refused to sign and that if Pedro continued to
refuse to execute an authorization card on behalf of Re-
spondent Union that it would be Pedro's last day of em-
ployment. Later that day Murcia confronted Llanos and
told her that Pedro had executed a card as did several
other employees, including Michael Mayer, son of Mr.
Mayer.
On Thursday, August 31, at 10 a.m., in the room of
one of the Home's residents, Murcia confronted Llanos
again as she was engaged in her work duties. This time
Murcia was accompanied by a Mr. Simmons who identi-
fied himself as an agent of Local 6. Simmons told Llanos
that he had signed "an agreement," and he requested that
she execute a document which, according to her, he
termed an "agreement." Llanos asked to see the agree-
ment. She was provided with a copy of an agreement
which she retained overnight and which, pursuant to
Simmons' instruction, she returned later to employee
Pedro on the following day. However, overnight she
glanced through the agreement and noted certain refer-
ences in the agreement to employee work benefits such
as holidays and sick benefits.
Elena Munteanu had been hired by Respondent in
March 1978. She testified that in July 1978 she had a
conversation with Mrs. Mayer and Murcia. Clearly the
conversation must have occurred during the week of
August 28 inasmuch as by all other accounts he had not
appeared at the Home prior to that time. I conclude that
Munteanu was in error in her testimony inasmuch as she
was uncertain, hesitant, and confused with respect to all
dates. Mr. Mayer told Munteanu that Murcia was a rep-
resentative of Local 6 and that she had to sign a "form,"
and that whoever refused to sign might lose their job.
Munteanu refused to execute the "form." Mayer and
Murcia departed. Ten minutes later Mrs. Mayer con-
fronted Munteanu in the basement of the Home in the
laundry room and asked her why she had refused to sign
"for Local 6." Munteanu insisted that it was important
for her to refuse to sign and that she was obliged only to
do such things in her native land but not in this country.
Mrs. Mayer listened and looked, but remained silent and
departed.
On August 31, 1978, nine authorization cards were
presented to Rabbi Chaim Sturm for a card check which
resulted in the issuance of a "certification" of Respond-
ent Union's majority status by the Rabbi on that date.
The nine cards were purportedly executed by the follow-
ing persons on the dates opposite their names:
Raul Alcides
Pedro Sanchez
Izes Del.uca
Michael Mayer
Raymond Murcia
Beverly Salmon
8-28-78
8-30-78
8-29-78
8-28-78
8-29-78
8-28-78
I 11 35
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Claircina Elize
Luzimira DeLucia
Jose Moreno
8-28-78
8-28-78
8-28-78
On August 31, 1978, Respondent Employer and Re-
spondent Union entered into a collective-bargaining
agreement covering hire, tenure, and other terms and
conditions of employment whereunder, inter alia, Re-
spondent Employer recognized Respondent Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in a
unit consisting of service and maintenance employees,
and which required membership in good standing in Re-
spondent Union as a condition of employment and tenure
of employment, and which required Respondent Em-
ployer to deduct duly authorized sums of money from
the wages of its employees as union dues and other obli-
gations and to pay the same to Respondent Union.
The complaint alleges and the answers admit that since
August 31, 1978, the collective-bargaining agreement has
been maintained and enforced.
On September 18, as Llanos was serving breakfast to
infirm residents at the Home, Murcia appeared and re-
quested that she execute a document which he represent-
ed to her as an authorization for the weekly deduction of
$2.40 in union dues. She refused, claiming that a union
representative should come and explain the Union to the
employees.
On September 28, Llanos was attending to the room of
one of the Home's residents. Simmons and Murcia ap-
peared and presented her with a pamphlet which recited
certain employment benefits and requested that she sign
an authorization. She refused and demanded an explana-
tion from the president of the Union. Murcia stated that
she must sign and that Mr. Mayer had told him that
whoever did not sign must "go out." She refused, claim-
ing that she would not sign for what she did not want.
Simmons gave her a "paper," and told her to read it and
that he would return later. She read something of the
"agreement" and formulated the opinion that only the
most senior employees would benefit therefrom. Appar-
ently that agreement was a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Her testimony is unclear as to whether the "au-
thorization" presented to her on September 28 was a
union membership card or a checkoff authorization.
By letter dated October 5, addressed to Harry Mayer
from Respondent Union's President Perry, Respondent
Union invoked the union-security clause provision of the
collective-bargaining agreement of August 31 and de-
manded that, unless eight named employees complied
with said provision within 1 week, Respondent Employ-
er "must take appropriate action which is required under
this agreement." Among the names thereon appeared
those of Llanos and Munteanu.
On October 16, Llanos encountered Local 144 Repre-
sentative Duggan on the street in front of the Home as
she was about to report for work. She talked with
Duggan. As they conversed Mrs. Mayer stood at the
doorway looking at them. When Llanos saw Mayer
looking at them she ended the conversation and entered
the Home. She saw Mr. and Mrs. Mayer hovering and
speaking to one another. Harry Mayer left. At that point
Mrs. Mayer went into her office. Llanos went into the
same office to obtain some items necessary for her work.
Mayer asked her the identity of the person with whom
she had been speaking on the sidewalk. Llanos replied
that it was a representative of Local 144 who had
wanted to know of her whether any employees desired
representation by Local 144. Mayer then made a facial
gesture but remained silent.
Later on the same day Llanos was present in the kitch-
en with Mr. Mayer and coworker Anna Maria who was
making inquiry of Mayer concerning lunchtime prepara-
tion. Mayer said to Anna Maria, "I don't want to talk
with you because you are trouble for me, but not only
you, more people here in the hotel." At that point he
looked at Llanos. She said to him, "Mr. Mayer you are
like that because this morning I saw 144." He thereupon
asked her, "Why you talk-what do you do with him."
She responded that she was merely on her way to work
after buying cigarettes when she encountered the Local
144 agent. Mayer then told her that she was not sup-
posed to talk with "anyone" but rather was to come "di-
rectly to work." There is no evidence that Anna Maria
had engaged in any union activities that were known to
Respondent Employer.
The next day, October 17, Llanos was summoned to
the office at the Home by Mr. and Mrs. Mayer. Mrs.
Mayer told her that she had to sign a "paper," or else
"leave." Llanos refused. Mr. Mayer told her that he had
to pay dues to Respondent Union; that Local 6 was the
"only union in the home"; and that Local 6 was pressing
him for "money" every day and that it was a "problem."
She told him to deduct her dues and Mr. Mayer respond-
ed that a written authorization was required for him to
do this. Llanos excused herself and attended to the needs
of one of the residents. On October 18 at II a.m. Mr.
Mayer again asked Llanos for a "paper." She refused to
sign anything. Mrs. Mayer called her to the office to sign
a "paper." She refused. Llanos departed but was again
summoned on the public address system by Mrs. Mayer.
Llanos contacted Mrs. Mayer on the house telephone
and was told to stay home the following day as there
was no work for her on that day. Subsequently, Mr.
Mayer rescinded that instruction and told Llanos that he
was hopeful of contacting his attorney who had been out
of the State, and that he would tell his attorney that the
employees did not want to sign "the paper."
On October 19, Llanos reported for work and worked
throughout the day. At 4:30 p.m. as she was finishing her
duties, she observed Elena Munteanu who was involved
in an emotional discussion with Mr. Mayer. Munteanu
exclaimed that she had been terminated. Shortly thereaf-
ter Llanos was summoned to the office of Mr. Mayer
and was told she must sign "the paper," or the Union
would "take people out from work." Llanos did not sign.
She proceeded to finish her duties. She returned to the
office. She was again instructed to sign a "paper." She
refused. She was then issued pay for 3 days' work for
that week and terminated. She protested that she did not
know anything about Local 6. Mayer said that he had a
contract with Local 6. Llanos offered to read the con-
tract over the weekend. Mayer told her to go home and
stay there if she did not sign "the paper." The next day,
Friday, she did not report for work because her work-
1136
SANFORD HOME FOR ADULTS
week had been reduced to 4 days as was her understand-
ing from her conversation with Mrs. Mayer.
On Sunday, October 22, Llanos telephoned Mr. Mayer
and told him that she would sign the "paper." However,
he told her that he would not take her back because she
was a "troublemaker" and that she had already been re-
placed.
In her testimony Llanos did not clearly explain or
identify or describe the forms and papers to which she
had reference. Thus, it cannot be determined whether
she was presented with and requested to sign union
membership cards or whether she was requested to sign
dues-checkoff authorization cards by either the Mayers
or the union representatives.
Munteanu testified that after her basement conversa-
tion with Mrs. Mayer she engaged in a conversation
with two representatives of Respondent Union approxi-
mately 2 weeks later. I conclude that, inasmuch as Mun-
teanu was extremely uncertain and unreliable as to the
dates of events, the conversation occurred sometime in
the month of September. The conversation occurred in
the Home at the elevator. Munteanu was approached by
Mrs. Mayer and two gentlemen. One of them was the
representative of Local 6 whom she had met earlier,
Murcia. The second gentleman was introduced to her by
Mrs. Mayer who said that he was representing Respond-
ent Union. She told Munteanu that Munteanu should join
the Union. The union representative gave her "a form to
complete." She did not sign the form. Mrs. Mayer told
her that she had to sign because everybody "is going to
sign." Munteanu refused, excused herself, and left. Mun-
teanu in her testimony did not identify or describe this
form and it is unclear whether it was a union member-
ship card or a dues-checkoff authorization. From the
context of the conversation it would appear that the
form was a union membership application.
According to Munteanu's uncertain testimony, the
next confrontation occurred in October sometime in the
first 2 weeks of that month. In the lunchroom at the
Home, Mr. Mayer told Munteanu that she had to "sign"
for "this Union" because all employees "must sign." She
refused. Two or three days later Munteanu was called to
the office of Mrs. Mayer who told her that she had to
"sign" for Local 6 inasmuch as all the "girls had signed"
and anyone who refused "might get fired." Munteanu re-
fused. Mrs. Mayer then said all right" but that she would
retain Local 6 dues from Munteanu's wages. Munteanu
replied that Mrs. Mayer could deduct the money but that
she would still refuse to sign. Munteanu then walked off
to perform her duties. Munteanu then called Mrs. Mayer
on the house telephone and asked for a copy of the
"form" from Local 6 in order that she could take it
home and discuss it with her husband and "see what's it
about." Munteanu was provided with the form by Mrs.
Mayer and she thereafter discussed it with her husband
at home. Her husband told her that the form was a "con-
tractual agreement between the nursing home and Local
6." In her testimony Munteanu was unable to effectively
describe or identify that form.
Subsequently, Munteanu was asked by Mrs. Mayer to
return the form, which she did. Mrs. Mayer, upon seeing
that the form was unexecuted, asked Munteanu why it
was unsigned. Mrs. Mayer accused Munteanu of ingrati-
tude inasmuch as she had been provided with employ-
ment but now she was her "enemy." Munteanu respond-
ed that she worked for her wages and that she was not
being given something "for nothing."
Several days later Munteanu was called into Mr.
Mayer's office and told that she had "to sign for Local 6
because Sanford was supposed to have one local." He re-
ferred to the table on which there were some forms.
Munteanu was unable in her testimony to describe the
size or content of those forms. Mr. Mayer further said
that Respondent Employer "had a union" and if she did
not join or sign the paper she would be fired. As Harry
Mayer spoke in English, Munteanu did not completely
understand what he said. (Apparently Mrs. Munteanu
spoke in Romanian.) Munteanu refused to sign the docu-
ment for Mr. Mayer. He then accused her of acting
"childish," and stated that he was satisfied with her job
performance but that if she did not sign she would have
to be fired. She refused. He advised her to "think twice."
She refused and departed.
On the same day at 4:30 p.m. she was terminated by
Mrs. Mayer who refused to state to her the reason for
her discharge.
Munteanu was inconsistent and evasive on cross-exam-
ination as to the reasons she gave to the Mayerses for
her refusal to sign forms or documents on behalf of Re-
spondent Union. Munteanu admitted that during the
basement conversation with the representatives of Local
6 they told her that Respondent Employer would be "in
the Union," and that she refused, stating that her hus-
band belonged to a union at a different place of employ-
ment and paid dues there and that she did not want to
pay union dues at Respondent Employer. No dues were
ever actually deducted from her pay. There is no evi-
dence that any dues were deducted from the pay of
Llanos or any employee who had failed to execute a
written authorization of dues deduction.
The parties stipulated that Respondent Employer's
payroll for the weekly period ending on August 31,
1978, consisted of the following 14 persons:
Michael Mayer
Blanca Llanos
Bertha Pagoutolas
Manuel Truillo
Clare Elizee
Jose Moreno
Rosa Iteralde
Raul Alcides
Roberto Gonzales
Pedro Sanchez
Anna Blackmun
Elena Munteanu
Maria DeLuca
Luzimira DeLucia
The parties are in dispute as to whether the following
persons were employed as employees within the bargain-
ing unit as of August 31, 1978: Raymond Murcia, Jr.,
Beverly Salmon, and Gisel Theodore.
With respect to Gisel Theodore, Respondent's pay re-
cords reflect an entry of a date of hire of August 31.
However. Theodore's W-4 tax form was executed on
September I and it is Harry Mayer's testimony, which I
credit, that Theodore was hired and started employment
on September 1, and that the payroll record entry is er-
roneous.
137
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I have concluded above that Beverly Salmon was at
no time employed by Respondent Employer. With re-
spect to Raymond Murcia, Jr., it is Respondent Employ-
er's assertion that such individual was employed by it on
the date of recognition, August 31. The General Counsel
has adduced evidence upon which a sound inference can
be reached that Murcia performed no regular duties for
Respondent Employer other than on a single occasion
when he helped out in the kitchen in the absence of a
regular employee. Such inference was in no manner re-
butted by any evidence submitted by Respondents other
than the fact that a payroll record was submitted indicat-
ing that a payment of a gross wage of $75 for the pay
period ending September 5 was made to Murcia. This is
so despite Mayer's testimony that Murcia actually
worked 5 days at $25 a day. The testimonial evidence,
however, indicates that Murcia spent most of his time so-
liciting employees to sign authorization cards for Re-
spondent Union. Indeed, Respondent Union conceded in
its closing argument that Murcia was a "plant"; i.e., an
agent placed in the ranks of the employees for the pur-
pose of organizing Respondent Employer's employees.
Murcia was identified to the employees as a representa-
tive of the Union and not as a coworker. Clearly,
Murcia, if he did perform any services for Respondent
Employer, cannot be characterized as an employee of a
permanent nature who had a sufficient community of in-
terest with fellow employees so as to be included in a
collective-bargaining unit. His duration of employment
was obviously limited in nature. I therefore do not con-
strue him to have been employed within the bargaining
unit on the date of recognition.
Accordingly, I conclude that on August 31, 1978, Re-
spondent Employer had employed within the recognized
bargaining unit of service and maintenance employees 14
employees. Of the nine authorization cards which formed
Respondent Union's basis of support, I would therefore
exclude the cards executed by Salmon and by Murcia.
Respondent Union therefore possessed only 7 authoriza-
tion cards in a unit of 14 employees, thus falling short of
a majority status. Moreover, I would exclude the card
signed by Echeverri (Raul Alcides) inasmuch as it had
been obtained through the coercive assistance of Mr. and
Mrs. Mayer. Harry Edison, Divadar Marovici and Bertrain
Fried, a Co-Partnership doing business as Seaview Manor
Home for Adults, 222 NLRB 596, 600 (1976).
Furthermore, I conclude that the balance of the cards
relied on by Respondent Union cannot be characterized
as having been obtained without the taint of coercion.
The Board has stated: "We further agree that it is not a
prerequisite for voiding the recognition to establish pre-
cisely the number of cards procured by means of the un-
lawful assistance and subtract that number from the total
number of otherwise valid cards submitted by [Respond-
ent Union] to prove its majority status." The Hartz
Mountain Corporation, 228 NLRB 492 (1977). 5 I con-
clude that the facts of this case establish that Respondent
Employer's coercive assistance of Respondent Union was
so pervasive as to taint the validity of all the cards ob-
' See also Amnalgamaled Local Union 355 [Russell Motors. Inc.] v.
N'L.R.B. 481 F2d 996, 1002, fn 8 (2d Cir 1973): Sav-On-Drugs. Inc.,
227 NLRB 1638, 1646 (1977)
tained by Respondent Union. Echeverri's card was ob-
tained through outright coercive tactics. Although
Llanos and Munteanu did not execute cards, they each
were coercively proselytized by Respondent Employer
and Respondent Union. On August 28, Rosa Ituralde and
Llanos were requested to execute cards under the threat
made to them by Mrs. Mayer of the lack of employment
for them if they refused. Union Agent Murcia on or
about August 29 announced to employee Llanos that
unless Pedro (Sanchez) executed a card it would be his
last date of employment. Thus the evidence in the record
establishes that at least four employees, Echeverri,
Llanos, Munteanu, and Ituralde, were exposed to coer-
cive attempts to obtain employee support of Respondent
Union. In view of the small size of the employee work
force and the circumstances under which the coercion
was manifested, i.e., during working hours at the situs of
employment, it is extremely likely that this course of
conduct was disseminated quickly to the other employ-
ees. Sav-On-Drugs, supra at 1646.
Accordingly, it is my conclusion and finding that Re-
spondent Union did not possess an uncoerced valid ma-
jority status of Respondent Employer's employees on
August 31, 1978, and that Respondent Employer unlaw-
fully extended recognition to Respondent Union in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act on that date.
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO
[Bernard-Altman Texas Corp.] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 731,
738-739 (1961). I further conclude that both Respondent
Union and Respondent Employer violated the Act by
entering into a collective-bargaining agreement and
maintaining the provisions thereof, particularly the
union-security provision. Accordingly, Respondent
Union and Respondent Employer violated the Act
whereby employees Llanos and Munteanu were dis-
charged because they failed to join and remain members
of Respondent Union pursuant to the unlawful union-se-
curity clause.
With respect to the General Counsel's alternative alle-
gation that Respondent Employer discharged, at the
behest of Respondent Union, employees Llanos and
Munteanu because of their activities on behalf of Local
144, 1 conclude that the evidence is insufficient upon
which to make a finding that they were discharged be-
cause of their known activities in support of Local 144.
The complaint in paragraph 12 alleges that Respond-
ent Employer required and solicited its employees to
sign checkoff cards authorizing the deduction from their
wages of dues and other moneys to be paid to Respond-
ent Union. Essentially this allegation rests on the testimo-
ny of Munteanu and Llanos. In this regard I found their
testimony too obscure, uncertain, hesitant, and confusing
and therefore too unreliable on which to premise a find-
ing. Accordingly, I conclude that the evidence is insuffi-
cient to support this allegation of the complaint.
Paragraph 14 of the complaint alleges that on or about
October 16 Respondent Employer, by its agents, Mr. and
Mrs. Mayer, and by other agents whose names were un-
known to the General Counsel, interrogated employees
concerning their membership in, activities on behalf of,
and sympathy for Local 144. It is Llanos' uncontradicted
1138
SANFORD HOME FOR ADU.TS
and credible testimony that on October 16 Mr. Mayer.
after having been informed by Llanos that she was talk-
ing to a representative of Local 144 on the street prior to
entering work, questioned her as to why she had en-
gaged in conversation with said representative, and or-
dered her to cease talking to any persons in front of the
Home prior to entering work. In view of the context of
Respondent Employer's coercive support of Respondent
Union and in view of Mr. Mayer's orders to an employee
concerning the use of her own time, I construe his con-
duct to be patently coercive and conclude that Respond-
ent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as al-
leged in paragraph 14 of the complaint.
Paragraph 18 of the complaint alleges that on or about
September 28 and on various other dates in the month of
September Respondent Union's agent, Murcia, and other
agents of Respondent Union threatened employees of
Respondent Employer with discharge by Respondent
Employer in order to coerce employees' support of Re-
spondent Union. I have concluded above that Murcia on
or about August 29 told Llanos that a coworker would
be discharged unless he executed a union authorization
card on behalf of Respondent Union. Such a statement
constitutes an implied threat to Llanos that she would be
discharged if she did not execute a similar authorization
card. On September 28 Respondent Union by its agent,
Murcia, threatened Llanos with discharge by his state-
ment that any employees who did not sign an "authoriza-
tion" on behalf of Respondent Union would "go out."
Such conduct by a union representative on Respondent
Employer's premises soliciting support on behalf of Re-
spondent Union with the assistance of Respondent Em-
ployer clearly constituted coercive conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Sav-On-Drugs, supra at
1644; Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America., AFL-
CIO, Local 990 [Troy Textiles, Inc.], 174 NLRB 1148
(1969), enfd. 430 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1970).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Employer is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and
Allied Health Services Union, Service Employees Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By recognizing Respondent Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative for the employees in the collec-
tive-bargaining unit consisting of service and mainte-
nance employees at Respondent Employer's facility on
Sanford Avenue in Flushing, New York, at a time when
said Union did not represent a valid majority of said em-
ployees, Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(2)
and (1) of the Act.
5. By entering into a collective-bargaining agreement
covering the service and maintenance employees em-
ployed at its Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, fa-
cility with Respondent Union which contains a union-se-
curity clause at a time when Respondent Union did not
represent a valid majority of the aforesaid employees and
by enforcing said union-security clause, Respondent Em-
ployer has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the
Act.
6. By threatening employees with loss of employment
if they did not join and remain members of Respondent
Union, Respondent Employer has violated Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
7. By accepting recognition as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the service and maintenance employees
employed by Respondent Employer at its Sanford
Avenue, Flushing, New York, facility and by entering
into a collective-bargaining agreement containing a
union-security clause covering said employees and by en-
forcing said agreement at a time when it did not repre-
sent a valid majority of the employees in the appropriate
unit, Respondent Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
8. By threatening employees with the loss of their em-
ployment if they did not join and remain members of Re-
spondent Union, Respondent Union has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
9. By coercively interrogating its employees concern-
ing its employees' union activities and sympathies, Re-
spondent Employer has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
10. By discharging employees Blanca Llanos and
Elena Munteanu on or about October 19, 1978, and
thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate those employ-
ees, said conduct having been engaged in pursuant to the
demand of Respondent Union because said employees re-
fused to join or assist Respondent Union, Respondent
Employer discriminated and is discriminating in regard
to hire, tenure, and terms of the condition of employ-
ment of its employees for the purposes of encouraging
membership in a labor organization and engaged and is
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3), (2), and (1) of the
Act.
11. By demanding and on or about October 5, 1978,
that Respondent Employer discharge Blanca Llanos and
Elena Munteanu because said employees refused to join
or become members of Respondent Union and by there-
after causing the discharge of said employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent Union has vio-
lated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act.
12. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents violated Sections
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and 8(b)(2) and ()(A) of the Act, I
shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
I shall recommend that Respondent Employer with-
draw and withhold all recognition from Respondent
Union as exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees employed in the service and maintenance unit at
its Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, facility, unless
1139
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and until the said labor organization has been certified by
the Board as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in question, and to cease and desist from
giving any force or effect to Respondents' collective-bar-
gaining agreement or to any extension, renewal, or modi-
fication thereof insofar as the employees in the service
and maintenance unit of the Sanford Avenue facility are
concerned. Nothing herein, however, shall authorize or
require the withdrawal or elimination of any wage in-
crease or other benefits or terms and conditions of em-
ployment which may have been established pursuant to
the performance of that agreement. I shall further recom-
mend that Respondent Union cease and desist from
acting as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the service and maintenance unit at the
Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, facility until said
labor organization shall have been certified by the Board
as the collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in question and cease giving force or effect to Re-
spondents' collective-bargaining agreement or to any ex-
tension, renewal, or modification thereof insofar as the
employees in the service and maintenance unit of the
Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, facility are con-
cerned. I shall further recommend that Respondent Em-
ployer and Respondent Union jointly and severaly reim-
burse all present and former employees employed in the
service and maintenance unit of the Sanford, Flushing,
New York, facility for all initiation fees, dues, and other
moneys which may have been exacted from them by or
on behalf of Respondent Union pursuant to the union-se-
curity provision of the aforementioned collective-bar-
gaining agreement, together with interest thereon, to be
computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers Interna-
tional Union of North America, Great Lakes District.
AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB 1142 (1962); Florida Steel Corpora-
tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
Inasmuch as I have found that Respondents unlawfully
effectuated the discharge of employees Blanca Llanos
and Elena Munteanu, I shall recommend that Respond-
ent Employer be required to offer them reinstatement to
their former positions of employment or to substantially
equivalent positions of employment without prejudice to
any of their seniority rights and that Respondent Em-
ployer and Respondent Union jointly and severally be
required to make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered because of the discrimination against
them, with interest, to be calculated in the manner set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and Florida Steel Corporation, supra.6
In light of the extensive and pervasive unfair labor
practices, I shall further recommend that Respondents be
ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any other
manner upon the rights guaranteed to employees under
the Act. Hansa Mold, Inc., 243 NLRB 853 (1979).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
s See hvol Plumbing Hlearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
ORDER 7
A. Respondent Sanford Home for Adults, Flushing,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees at its Sanford Avenue,
Flushing, New York, facility with loss of employment if
they do not become and remain members of Local 6, In-
ternational Federation of Health Professionals, Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO.
(b) Discharging or in any other manner discriminating
against employees who do not become and remain mem-
bers of Local 6, International Federation of Health Pro-
fessionals, International Longshoreman's Association,
AFL-CIO.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities and desires.
(d) Assisting or contributing support to Local 6, Inter-
national Federation of Health Professionals, International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, by recognizing
or bargaining with such labor organization as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees in the service and
maintenance unit at its Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New
York, facility, unless and until said union is certified by
the Board as the collective-bargaining representative of
said employees pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act.
(e) Maintaining or giving any force or effect at the
Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, facility to the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between Respondent Em-
ployer and Local 6, International Federation of Health
Professionals, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO, dated August 31, 1978, or any extension, re-
newal, or modification thereof; provided, however, that
nothing in this Order shall authorize or require the with-
drawal or elimination of any wage increase or other
benefits, terms, and conditions of employment which
may have been established pursuant to the performance
of said contract.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local
6, International Federation of Health Professionals, Inter-
national Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, as the
collective-bargaining representative of its service and
maintenance employees at its Sanford Avenue, Flushing,
New York, facility, unless and until said labor organiza-
tion has been duly certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the exclusive representative of such em-
ployees.
(b) Jointly and severally with Local 6, International
Federation of Health Professionals, International Long-
shoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, reimburse all former
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
1140
SANFORD HOME FOR ADUILTS
and present employees employed at the Sanford Avenue
Flushing, New York, facility for all initiation fees, dues,
assessments, and other moneys, if any, paid by or with-
held from them in the manner provided in "The
remedy" section of this Decision.
(c) Offer Blanca Llanos and Elena Munteanu immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and jointly and severally with Local 6, Inter-
national Federation of Health Professionals, International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, make them
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other docu-
ments necessary and relevant to analyze and compute the
amount of backpay and other moneys due under this
Order.
(e) Post at its Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York,
facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A" s (in English, Spanish, and Romanian). Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being duly signed by a representative of
Respondent Employer shall be posted by Respondent
Employer immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent Employer to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(f) Upon being furnished the same by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 29, post the notice marked "Appendix
B" in the same manner as "Appendix A."
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
wiiting, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Employer has taken to comply here-
with.
B. Respondent Local 6, International Federation of
Health Professionals, International Longshoremen's As-
sociation, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees at Sanford Home for
Adults in Flushing, New York, with loss of employment
if they do not become and remain members of Respond-
ent Union.
(b) Causing the discharge of or discrimination against
any employees of Respondent Employer at its facility on
Sanford Avenue in Flushing, New York, by Respondent
Employer if they do not become or remain members of
Respondent Union.
8 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 of the National Labor Relations Board "
(c) Maintaining or giving any force or effect at the
Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, facility of Re-
spondent Employer to the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between Respondent Union and Sanford Home for
Adults dated August 31, 1978, or any extension, renewal,
or modification thereof.
(d) Acting as exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees of Sanford Home for Adults at Sanford
Avenue, Flushing, New York, for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, unless and until said labor organization
shall have been certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining representative of said employees.
(e) In any other manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Sanford Home for
Adults reimburse all former and present employees at the
Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, facility for all ini-
tiation fees, assessments, and other moneys, if any, paid
by or withheld from them in the manner provided in
"The Remedy" section of this Decision.
(b) Jointly and severally with Sanford Home for
Adults reimburse Blanca Llanos and Elena Munteanu for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in
the Section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post in its office and meeting halls copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix B"9 (in English, Span-
ish, and Romanian). Said Appendix B, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 29. after being duly
signed by Respondent Union's official representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent Union and its agents
to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Forward to the said Regional Director signed
copies of Appendix B for posting by Sanford Home for
Adults at its Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York, fa-
cility for 60 consecutive days in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent Union has taken to comply
herewith.
See fn 8, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE Wl L NOT threaten our employees at the San-
ford Avenue, Flushing, New York, facility with the
loss of employment if they do not become and
remain members of Local 6, International Feder-
1141
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ation of Health Professionals, International Long-
shoremen's Association, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT discharge or in any other manner
discriminate against employees because they refuse
to become and remain members of Local 6, Interna-
tional Federation of Health Professionals, Interna-
tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO.
WE WI.I. NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union activities and sympa-
thies.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to
Local 6, International Federation of Health Profes-
sionals, International Longshoremen's Association,
AFL-CIO, by recognizing or contracting with such
labor organization as the bargaining representative
of our employees at the Sanford Avenue, Flushing,
New York, facility, unless and until it has been cer-
tified as such representative by the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT give effect at the Sanford Avenue,
Flushing, New York, facility to our August 31,
1978, contract with Local 6, Intenational Federation
of Health Professionals, International Longshore-
men's Association, AFL-CIO, or to any renewal,
extension, modification, or supplement thereof; but
we are not authorized or required to withdraw or
eliminate any wage rates or other benefits, terms,
and conditions of employment which we have
given to our employees under said contract.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition
from Local 6, International Federation of Health
Professionals, International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees at the Sanford Avenue,
Flushing, New York, facility.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Local 6, In-
ternational Federation of Health Professionals, In-
ternational Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,
reimburse all our employees, former and present,
employed at the sanford Avenue, Flushing, New
York, facility for dues and other moneys unlawfully
extracted from them under our contract with that
Union.
WE WILL offer Blanca Llanos and Elena Mun-
teanu immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if their jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without loss of se-
niority or other rights or privileges, and WE WIL.l
jointly and severally with Local 6, International
Federation of Health Professionals, International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them.
SANFORD HOME FOR ADUITS
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OFT HE
NATIONAIl LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten employees employed at
Sanford Home for Adults on Sanford Avenue,
Flushing, New York, that they will lose their jobs if
they do not become and remain members of Local
6, International Federation of Health Professionals,
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO.
WE WII.l NOT cause the discharge of or discrimi-
nation against any employee of Sznford Home for
Adults on Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York,
because they refuse to become and remain members
of Local 6, International Federation of Health Pro-
fessionals, International Longshoremen's Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO.
WE WIIL NOT give effect at the Sanford Avenue,
Flushing, New York, facility of Sanford Home for
Adults to our August 31, 1978, contract with San-
ford Home for Adults or to any renewal, extension,
modification, or supplement thereof.
WE WItl. NOT act as collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees at Sanford Home for
Adults on Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York,
unless and until we have been certified by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board as such representative.
WE WIILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WIl. jointly and severally with Sanford
Home for Adults reimburse all of the employees,
former and present, employed at Sanford Home for
Adults facility on Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New
York, for dues and any other moneys unlawfully ex-
tracted from them under our contract with Sanford
Home for Adults.
WE WILI. jointly and severally with Sanford
Home for Adults make whole Blanca Llanos and
Elena Munteanu for any loss of pay they may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them.
LOCAL 6, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INTERNATIONAl.
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-
CI).
1142