Southside Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 3, 2010

29-CA-029806 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 3, 2010)

JD(NY)-31-10
Bay Shore, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
SOUTHSIDE HOSPITAL
and Case No. 29-CA-29806
NEW YORK STATE NURSES
ASSOCIATION
Linda Harris Crovella, Esq., Brooklyn, NY,
for the General Counsel.
Mark A. Gloade, Esq., North Shore Long Island
Jewish Health System, Great Neck, NY,
for the Respondent.
Denis P. Duffey, Jr., Esq. (Spivak, Lipton, LLP),
New York, NY, for the Union.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge: Based on a charge filed by the New York
State Nurses Association (Union) on September 1, 2009, a complaint was issued on January
29, 2010 against the Southside Hospital/North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System.
(Respondent or Employer).1
The complaint alleges essentially that the Respondent, which has a collective-bargaining
relationship with the Union, prohibited its employees from wearing union buttons in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The complaint further alleges that the subject of wearing union
buttons is a mandatory subject for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, by prohibiting
its employees from wearing union buttons, it imposed a dress code without prior notice to the
Union, and without affording it an opportunity to bargain regarding such actions in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent unlawfully directed employees not to
talk about Union affairs, while at no time has it maintained a valid rule prohibiting talking or
solicitation.
The Respondent’s answer denied the material allegations of the complaint and on May
4, 2010, a hearing was held before me in Brooklyn, New York.2 On the entire record, including

1 At the hearing, the name of the Respondent was amended to Southside Hospital.
2 Pursuant to a procedure agreed upon at the hearing, the Respondent, following the close
of the hearing, served a document identified as Respondent’s Exhibit 2, its “Personal
Appearance Policy” which was in effect at the time of the matters at issue here. The General
Counsel and Charging Party objected to the exhibit on the grounds of relevance. I received it in
evidence. ALJ Exhibit 1.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the
General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following3
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction and Labor Organization Status
The Respondent, a domestic corporation, has its principal office and place of business at
301 East Main Street, Bay Shore, New York, where it operates an acute care hospital providing
inpatient and outpatient medical care. The hospital has about 350 beds and employs about 600
registered nurses. The Employer also provides managerial, clinical and other services to the
Brentwood Family Health Center, an outpatient facility operated by the County of Suffolk,
located at 1869 Brentwood Road, Brentwood, New York. The Employer employs 20 to 25
registered nurses at Brentwood, and the County employs about 15 registered nurses at that
location.
During the past twelve months, the Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of
$250,000, and purchased and received at its two facilities, goods, products and materials
valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points located outside New York State. The
Respondent admits and I find that it has been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act, and that it has been a healthcare institution
within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
The Respondent also admits and I find that the Union has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
The Respondent admits that the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the following appropriate bargaining unit as set forth in its
collective-bargaining agreement:
Each full-time, part-time and per diem employee, licensed or
otherwise lawfully entitled to practice as a registered professional
nurse employed by Southside Hospital in the titles of Staff Nurse,
Assistant Head Nurse, Head Nurse, Nurse Anesthetist, Staff
Development Educator/Instructor, Nurse Clinician, Clinical Care
Coordinator, and Infection Control Nurse, including employees in
these titles at the Brentwood and Central Islip Family Health
Centers, excluding the Director of Nursing, the Director of Staff
Development, Assistant Director of Nursing, Nurse Manager,
Assistant Nurse Manager, Supervisors, Assistant Supervisors or
temporary employees as defined herein and all other job
classifications as provided in Section 4.05.

3 The General Counsel’s unopposed Motion to Correct the Transcript is granted, with certain
material errors being corrected herein, except that “regalia” on page 12, line 23 shall not be
changed to “insignia” as requested by the General Counsel.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
A contract between the parties ran from March 1, 2006 to February 28, 2009. Bargaining
for a new agreement, which began in about November, 2008, was lengthy and “acrimonious.”
The parties bargained at about 28 sessions over 14 months. The Respondent and the Union
reached a tentative agreement in early December, 2009 which was rejected by the Union
membership. Following mediation sessions, the Employer made a “last, best and final” offer in
early January, 2010 which was also rejected. The Respondent implemented that offer in late
January, 2010.
B. The Alleged Ban on Union Buttons
1. Past Practice Regarding the Wearing of Buttons or Pins
a. Union Buttons
Historically, for at least a number of years before May, 2009, the Employer’s nurses
have worn buttons of all types, described below, including Union buttons and other buttons
publicizing cancer awareness, supporting presidential candidates, and buttons distributed by the
Employer. The nurses wore these buttons while on duty throughout the hospital, in patient care
and nonpatient care areas, without restriction or prohibition until May, 2009.
A number of Union buttons have been worn by the nurses for years prior to the start of
the November, 2008 negotiations. They include a 1¾” diameter pin with the legend “Proud to be
an RN – New York State Nurses Association,” and a 1½” button with the legend “No Givebacks
– NYSNA.” Both buttons were also worn in the current campaign. In June, 2008, Union
representative Joan Sommermeyer gave out a 1¾” pin which said “Respect – NYSNA.”
In April or May, 2009, when, according to Sommermeyer, the nurses were “really fighting
for our healthcare,” she distributed, and the nurses wore, a 2¼” pin which said “Hands off our
benefits - NYSNA RNs.” This pin was apparently prompted by the Respondent’s request for
“significant givebacks” and its demand that the Union’s health benefit plan be replaced by an
Employer plan, and also by the Respondent’s proposed changes in flex-scheduling and pension
benefits. Another 1¾” pin issued by the Union and worn at the time said “Patients BEFORE
Profits – NYSNA.”
In about May and June, 2009, the Union publicly displayed its displeasure with the
course of bargaining by conducting a two-hour informational picket on about June 11, 2009 at
which it displayed a large inflated rat at the hospital entrance, running radio and television
advertisements, and engaging a small airplane to fly over two hospital-sponsored events with a
banner reading “Southside nurses deserve a fair contract.”4
Virginia Meyers, an employee clinical care coordinator, was a member of the Union’s
executive committee and co-president of the bargaining unit. As co-president, she represented
the nurses at disciplinary meetings and distributed Union pins and flyers, and provided the
nurses with updates on the negotiations.
Meyers stated that in 2009, she wore on her uniform coat lapels, and distributed to other

4 Garlic, silver bullets and crucifixes were placed on the bargaining table by a Union member
who sought to demonstrate how she believed she was treated by the Employer. This was
apparently a reference to items used to repel the fictional Count Dracula. At the Employer’s
request, those items were removed from the table.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
nurses the following buttons, described above: Respect, Hands off our benefits, Patients before
profits, No Givebacks, and Proud to be an RN. She stated that she wore the “hands off” button
when she was in patient care areas, and had not been told to remove that button or any others.
She removed it and the other buttons specific to the negotiations such as “hands off, no
givebacks and patients before profits” following the conclusion of contract negotiations. She
continues to wear the “proud to be an RN” and “Respect” buttons.
b. Other Buttons
Nurses Meyers and Elizabeth (Betty) Busch-Joss testified that, in addition to Union
buttons, they wore personal pins promoting breast and ovarian cancer awareness.
Nurses Busch-Joss, Madeline Maniscalco, and Linda Umlauf have seen other nurses,
while on duty prior to the presidential election in November, 2008, wearing political pins
supporting the presidential candidates. Umlauf stated that she had not heard of anyone being
told to remove their political buttons.
Maniscalco also saw nurses and managers wearing a 3” “Strive for 5” pins, distributed
by the Employer, which refer to the highest score that could be awarded by patients when
assessing hospital services. Other pins distributed by the Employer include breast cancer and
heart disease awareness buttons. Jodi DiCostanzo, the department director for cardiac
services, denied that her managers wore the “Strive for 5” buttons. The Employer also
distributed a 2½” button which stated “Southside Hospital Nurses are ‘Hard Core’ when it comes
to Measures!” Nurses wore that button but when the Union complained about the button it was
“recalled” by the Respondent.
Thus, it is undisputed that prior to May, 2009, the Employer did not prohibit the wearing
of Union buttons of any type, or the wearing of any other buttons or pins in any areas of the
Hospital while employees were on duty.
2. Hospital Directors’ Meeting and Orders to Remove the Buttons
Kathleen Cappellino, the director of the dialysis unit, testified that the wearing of buttons
was discussed at a meeting of the hospital’s directors in about early June, 2009, at which it was
agreed that the “hands off” button “could make the patient uncomfortable with the setting in
which they were receiving their health care.” However, none of the directors said that they had
received complaints from patients regarding that button. Director DiCostanzo testified that she
did not receive any such complaints. According to Cappellino, “it was a matter of just concerns
about patient perception.” Cappellino also personally believed that the “hands off” button “could
be upsetting to the patients” and for that reason told the nurses to remove it. She noted that she
prohibited the wearing of the button based on her “perception” of what the patients would feel –
she was looking out for the patients’ interests. She admitted, however, that no patients had
complained to her about that button, but she noted that the buttons had only recently been
worn, implying that the patients had not yet had an opportunity to complain. Cappellino had no
complaint about the “respect” button because “everyone wants, offers, and values respect.”
Nurse LeeAnn Mucci testified that in early June, 2009 she was sitting in the hospital
cafeteria having breakfast, and wearing the "respect” and “hands off” buttons. She observed two
administrators, Heather Lewis, the director of neurology, and Kathy Devlin, looking at her
buttons as they walked through the cafeteria. Although nothing was said, Mucci felt an air of
“tension.” Later that day, she was in the staff lounge or break room having lunch. The lounge is
on the same floor as the cardiology department, but “away from” the labs and the patient care
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
area. It contains tables, a refrigerator, microwave oven, coffee pot and a couch. DiCostanzo,
Mucci’s supervisor, entered the lounge and said “Oh no, oh no, you can’t wear that button here
in a patient care area.”
Later that day, Mucci told Union agent Sommermeyer what happened. Sommermeyer
told her to remove the button and Mucci took off the “hands off” button. Mucci testified that,
although she was not told by DiCostanzo which button to remove, she believed that the “hands
off” button was the one that was objectionable because it was the only pin she had not been
wearing for a long time, and thus had a “very strong suspicion that that was the button that was
causing the stir.” In fact, she had begun wearing it only within the past one or two weeks. She
did not wear that pin after that time. She continued to wear the other buttons, including a pin
with a heart for women’s cardiac awareness and another pin related to electrophysiology, given
to her by the Employer.
Sommermeyer stated that she called Anthony Lumia, the Respondent’s manager of
employee and labor relations, telling him that the Employer was violating employee rights by
demanding that the nurses remove the buttons. Lumia spoke loudly in reply, stating that “the
buttons were not union insignia. [The nurses] didn’t have a right to wear the buttons.”
Nurse Maniscalco wore the “proud to be an RN” button prior to the start of contract
negotiations in November, 2008. When bargaining began, she wore the “respect” button, and in
about May, 2009, she began wearing the “hands off our benefits” pin, as did other nurses.
Maniscalco stated that she has worn various Union buttons every day while on duty in patient
care areas since she began work in 2001, and had never been told to remove any of them until
May or June, 2009, as set forth below.
Maniscalco testified that in late May or early June, 2009, she was sitting on a couch in
the lounge, having just returned from lunch, and preparing to return to work. As she was talking
to Mucci and other co-workers, DiCostanzo entered and said “no, you can’t wear those buttons,”
pointing in her direction to the “hands off our benefits button” which she was wearing on her left
upper chest area. Maniscalco replied “Is that legal or is that allowed? Isn’t that a violation of our
rights?” DiCostanzo answered that she “didn’t want us to be wearing the buttons in the patient
care areas.” Maniscalco removed the “hands off” button, but continued to wear the other
buttons. At the time, Maniscalco was speaking with two District 1199 nurses who wore two
buttons, one which said “POP” – “protect our pension” and another reading “save our pension.”
DiCostanzo did not tell them to remove those buttons.
About one month later, in late June or early July, Maniscalco resumed wearing the
“hands off button.” She stated that assistant director of patient care services Joan Muller
approached her in the “holding area” which is the initial patient contact area where the nurses
prepare the patients for their procedures and where they recover from their procedures. Muller
pointed at the button and said “you’re not supposed to be wearing that. Maniscalco asked
“which one?” Muller smiled, shook her head and left. Maniscalco did not remove the button.
Muller testified that she observed Maniscalco’s numerous buttons which were “very
visible” and were “all over her shirt” covering her chest. She did not read any of the pins, but told
Maniscalco “that’s quite a lot of buttons, and it doesn’t look very nice.” At hearing, Muller stated
that she was not concerned with the message on the pins. Rather, she was concerned only with
“the number of buttons” she was wearing. She did not ask Maniscalco to remove any of them.
Maniscalco stated that the following day, her manager, Dan Governanti, entered a room
where she was performing a medical procedure on a patient and informed her that DiCostanzo
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
wanted to speak to her in her office, possibly about one of her buttons. Governanti relieved
Maniscalco and she went to the office where DiCostanzo said that she “could not be wearing
the ‘hands off our benefits’ button. I needed it to be taken off.” Maniscalco replied that she has
observed nurses “throughout the hospital wearing their buttons. They haven’t been asked to
take them off. So how could you ask one or two people in a specific department to remove
theirs? Isn’t that disparate treatment?” DiCostanzo answered that “nobody should be wearing
them. It is inflammatory.” Maniscalco replied “I thought the ‘patients before profits’ was more
inflammatory.” DiCostanzo said “no, they believed the ‘hands off our benefits’ was worse.”
Maniscalco answered “it’s a violation of my First Amendment right, and I’m going to file a
complaint about it.” Maniscalco removed the button and left the office.
DiCostanzo testified that she addressed only those nurses who wore the “hands off”
button. Specifically, she testified that, in early June, while the parties were “in the middle of
negotiations” she saw nurses wearing the “hands off” button for the first time. She told a group
of nurses having breakfast in the staff lounge who were wearing that button that she “did not
want them wearing that in the patient care area. I respected what [you are] fighting for.” At
hearing, DiCostanzo stated that she asked them to remove their buttons in the lounge and they
did so - “they took them off and there were no issues.” She stated that although the staff lounge
was not a patient care area, the nurses were on their break or they were walking in that area on
their way to patient care areas. She conceded, however, that some nurses are at lunch in the
lounge and some go there following their shift prior to leaving the hospital.
DiCostanzo also stated that she told other nurses, at other times, including in the patient
recovery room, that she did not want them wearing the “hands off” button in patient care areas.
The nurses removed the buttons at her direction. She did not ask them to remove any other
buttons they wore. She did not recall seeing anyone wear the “patients before profits” button or
any political pins being worn, or any members of other unions wearing pins.
DiCostanzo explained that the nurses could keep the buttons on their pocketbooks when
they were in the cafeteria, but she did not want them to wear them “around the patients.” She
noted that her instruction was consistent with hospital policy as set forth in the “personal
appearance policy” set forth below. She believed that the “hands off” button was “undermining
the confidence of the patients…. and I was concerned for that. I want my patients to come to my
area, and feel safe and have confidence in the staff that’s caring for them.”
Nurse Busch-Joss testified that the majority of her time at the Brentwood facility is spent
in her office where she coordinates patient care and maintains records. She stated that in late
June, 2009, she began wearing the “hands off” button on her right lapel. She also wears other
buttons including a union pin that says “whatever it takes.”
Busch-Joss wore the “hands off” button for about one week when, while on duty, she
was leaving her office to go to the medical records department and stopped to talk to her
supervisor, Cappellino. Apparently, Cappellino noticed the “hands off” button and said
“something about you can’t wear that. Human resources is telling us that you shouldn’t have this
on your uniform.”
Busch-Joss removed the button and has not worn it thereafter. She told nurse Umlauf,
the Union’s grievance-chairperson at Brentwood what Cappellino said. Umlauf then asked
Cappellino whether she told Busch-Joss to remove the button. Cappellino said “yes, you know
we’ve gotten direction from human resources that you’re not allowed to wear the buttons.”
Umlauf replied that such a direction “goes against the First Amendment.” Cappellino repeated
that “you can’t wear the buttons … take them off.” At hearing, Umlauf stated that Cappellino did
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
not specify in which hospital areas she could not wear the buttons.
Umlauf stated that, at that time, she was also wearing union buttons since she recalls
Cappellino saying “I will tell you the same thing. You would have to take your button off also.”
Umlauf then removed her “respect” button, and told the other nurses to remove their buttons.
Busch-Joss stated that Cappellino never said anything about the other pins she wore, including
a pin which says “nysna,” which she wears every day, and other, personal pins, such as those
for breast awareness and multiple sclerosis.
Cappellino testified that she was speaking to Busch-Joss about an unrelated topic and
noticed that she was wearing the “hands off” button. Cappellino told her “I did not want [you] to
wear it in patient care areas,” which, she stated, encompassed most of the facility except the
cafeteria and break room. Cappellino did not tell her to remove the other pins she was wearing,
such as the “respect” button. Cappellino stated that she told Umlauf that she directed Busch-
Joss not to wear the button, and would report the matter to the director of human resources.
Nurses Maniscalco, Mucci and Umlauf stated that other employees who work at the
Employer but are represented by another union, District 1199, wore union pins in about June
2009, one of which, an approximately three inch button, says “POP” which they believe means
“pay our pension” or “protect our pension”, and another which says “save our pension.”
Maniscalco stated that she was not aware that those workers were told to remove their buttons.
3. The Respondent’s “Personal Appearance” Policy
The Respondent’s “personal appearance” policy which was in effect during the period of
time involved herein, states in relevant part:
Employees may not wear buttons or stickers that are offensive to
any ethnic group; that offend the sensibilities of patients, visitors
or staff; that undermine patients’ confidence; or that undermine
the health system or its staff members’ reputation.
Manager Mary Moreira identified the rule set forth above as one which was originally in
the North Shore-LIJ Health System’s manual, and when the Respondent was merged with that
organization in about 2006, the rule became a part of the Employer’s policy manual. Moreira
stated that when policies are revised, they are sent to each manager who advises her staff of
the new policy and tells them where they can find it, but she did not disseminate the above rule
to the staff in her department.
Manager DiCostanzo testified that this policy was on-line on “healthport” on the North
Shore-LIJ Health System website. She became aware of the personal appearance policy and
examined it on-line after she told her nurses to stop wearing the “hands off” button. She did not
know if that policy was disseminated to the employees of the Respondent, but she believed that
her instruction to the nurses not to wear the “hands off” button in patient care areas was
consistent with hospital policy as set forth in the personal appearance policy. Specifically, she
stated that the button was undermining the confidence of the patients in the nursing staff.
Nurse Meyers stated that in her case management department, any written change in a
policy or procedure is sent to all the employees who must sign a statement that they read it. She
stated that she did not see the rule set forth above until it was shown to her at this hearing.
Nurses Maniscalco and Meyers testified that they never received this rule or heard of it, and
they were unaware of anyone being disciplined for a dress code violation.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Union agent Sommermeyer testified that during the last series of collective-bargaining
negotiations, the Employer made no proposal concerning a dress code, and neither the expired
collective-bargaining agreement nor the implemented final offer contains any reference to a
dress code.
C. The Direction that Employees not Talk about Union Matters
The parties’ collective-bargaining agreement which was in effect in June, 2009, states as
follows:
A duly authorized general representative of the Association
[Union] may visit the Employer’s premises, upon notification to the
Director of Personnel, at a reasonable time, to discharge
Association’s duties as the employees’ collective bargaining
representative so long as the representative does not interfere
with the work of the employees and the operation of the Hospital.
Union agent Sommermeyer testified that in May, 2009, during the period of time that
bargaining was ongoing, she frequently met with nurses at the hospital. She visited the hospital
about two to three times per week, or on occasion, every day. She also had many union
meetings there with employees throughout the campaign, for which she was given space by the
Employer.
Meyers, the clinical care coordinator and Union co-president, stated that, as a member
of the negotiating committee, she spoke to the nurses about the progress of the 2009
negotiations. Whenever she entered a nursing unit on a patient care floor, the nurses who were
on duty approached her for information on the contract talks. She also stated that supervisors,
including her own supervisor Lucia Swan, and manager Moreira asked her, in patient care areas
during their work time, about the status of the contract negotiations.
Meyers testified that in early June, 2009, while she was on her break, she visited the
labor and delivery floor to inform the nurses about an upcoming Union meeting and the
informational picket line. As she approached the nurses’ station, about four or five nurses came
towards her and asked about the status of the negotiations. Meyers stated that the nurses were
on duty but the area was “very quiet” at the time, there being only one patient in the delivery
room.
Meyers stated that after speaking to the nurses for about one minute, she heard
manager Moreira “yell” from her office adjacent to the nurses’ station, that “these nurses were
not on their breaks, they needed to stop speaking to [you] and they couldn’t be talking union
business. I hear you talking union business. You’re not on your breaks.” Meyers and the nurses
continued their discussion for about one more minute and then Meyers heard Moreira “yell”
again “I still hear you speaking about union business. You’re not on your breaks.” Meyers
believed that the nurses became “very nervous and intimidated” and said they had to stop
speaking. They then left the area.
Meyers went to Moreira’s office and told her that, since she was on her break, she had
“every right” to speak to the nurses, stating that the nurses were not giving patient care,
charting, or picking up doctors’ orders. On cross examination, Meyers conceded that the nurses
could have been performing other tasks since they were on duty.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
Moreira testified that as she was entering the labor and delivery unit she saw Meyers
standing at the nurses’ station speaking with one nurse, and handing her flyers for Union
meetings. As she entered her office, Moreira told Meyers: “Virginia, you know you’re not
supposed to be here at this time.” Moreira went into her office and Meyers “continued to speak
to my nurse regarding union matters.” She then addressed Meyers, saying “my nurse is not on
her break.” Meyers replied that she [Meyers] was on her break. Moreira answered that she was
not Meyers’ manager and “wouldn’t know that.” The staff nurse left, and Meyers approached
Moreira and asked for her name. Moreira conceded that, prior to that time, she never told
Meyers to leave her unit.
Moreira conceded that Meyers typically comes to her unit and others to distribute and
leave flyers and other information concerning upcoming Union meetings and events. Moreira
testified that the Respondent has a “no-talking rule about Union matters in a patient area,” but
conceded that there is no broad rule prohibiting talking while working.
Meyers stated that before and after that incident she delivered flyers and spoke about
contract negotiations with nurses who were at the nurses’ station in that unit. She added that
while working, the nurses discuss a wide range of issues such as family, politics, sports and
shopping. In addition, during the negotiations, nurses visited other units to discuss personal
matters with their colleagues and also distribute Girl Scout cookies and raffle tickets, and had
not been told that they could not do so.
Meyers testified that, aside from this incident, she had never been prohibited from
discussing any topic with the nurses, or told that she could not do so because the nurses were
on duty. Meyers further added that other nurse managers saw her on many occasions speaking
to nurses and giving them flyers while they were on duty without being reprimanded for doing
so.
Nurse Maniscalco testified that in about mid-July, 2009, after the airplane carrying a
Union banner about the negotiations flew over a baseball game, about five nurses, in a group
gathered at the nurses’ station, asked her questions about the event while she was on duty.
Manager DiCostanzo approached and said “no, you can’t discuss union business in a patient
care area.” Maniscalco stated that supervisors Tom Brando and Dan Governanti were present
during the discussion and did not tell her to stop speaking to the nurses. Maniscalco stated that
prior to this instruction by DiCostanzo she had never been told that she could not discuss union
business while on duty in patient care areas.
Maniscalco stated that employees discuss a wide variety of topics while on duty in
patient care areas, including politics, personal matters and family issues, but she never heard
supervisors instruct them not to speak about such matters. In fact, she stated that supervisors
Brando, DiCostanzo and Governanti discussed personal and family matters with her. She is not
aware of any rule prohibiting talking in patient care areas. She stated that she and her manager
Governanti spoke “extensively” about union matters in patient care areas while they were on
duty during the entire period of the recent negotiations.
Union agent Sommermeyer testified that during the last series of collective-bargaining
negotiations, the Employer made no proposal concerning a no-talking rule. Neither the expired
collective-bargaining agreement nor the implemented final offer contained a rule relating to
talking while on duty.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Analysis and Discussion
I. Prohibiting the Wearing of Union Buttons
The complaint alleges that the Respondent prohibited its employees from wearing union
buttons in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In determining whether that section of the Act is
violated, the test is whether the Respondent’s conduct reasonably tends to interfere with the
free exercise of employee rights under the Act. It is not necessary to show that the Employer’s
actions were motivated by a desire to chill the exercise of Section 7 rights. St. Luke’s Hospital,
314 NLRB 434, 435 fn. 4 (1994).
Negotiations toward a successor agreement had been ongoing for seven months when
in April and May, 2009, the Employer proposed “significant give backs” in benefits. The Union
then engaged in an aggressive, public campaign of protest against the Employer’s proposals. In
addition, the Union distributed a button bearing the message “hands off our benefits - NYSNA
RNs” apparently in response, and in opposition to the Employer’s proposals. Clearly, the
buttons were issued and worn in an effort to encourage the employees to support the Union’s
bargaining position that employees’ benefits should not be reduced, and constituted protected,
concerted activity.
It is undisputed that the Respondent had never, until May, 2009, objected to its nurses
wearing, throughout the Hospital and the Brentwood facility, including patient care areas, union
buttons, personal pins, political pins and pins issued by the Employer. However, in May and
June, 2009, the Employer told certain nurses that they could not wear the “hands off” button.
In Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801-803 (1945) the Supreme Court
held that employees had a right to wear union buttons at work, and that “prohibitions against the
wearing of insignia must fall as interferences with union organization….” 324 U.S. at 803. Ohio
Masonic Home, 205 NLRB 357 (1973). However, hospitals “are not factories or mines or
assembly plants” but are places where ailments are treated, and where patients need a “restful,
uncluttered, relaxing and helpful atmosphere.” Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 509
(1978) (concurring opinion).
The validity of rules regarding union buttons and insignia in the hospital setting depends,
in the first instance, upon whether the restriction is being applied to a patient care or a non
patient care area of the facility.
Accordingly, the Board has held that a hospital may prohibit the wearing of union
insignia in “immediate patient care areas” and that a rule banning buttons there is presumptively
valid. London Memorial Hospital, 238 NLRB 704, 708 (1978). However, a rule prohibiting the
wearing of buttons in non patient care areas is presumptively invalid, absent a showing by the
employer of “special circumstances” - that banning the wearing of such buttons was “necessary
to avoid disruption of health care operations or disturbance of patients.” NLRB v. Baptist
Hospital, 442 U.S. 773, 781 (1979).
The complaint specifically alleges six instances in which employees were prohibited from
wearing union buttons by supervisors: DiCostanzo in May and June in the Hospital staff lounge,
and in June, in DiCostanzo’s office; Cappellino on two occasions in June at the Brentwood
facility; and Joan Muller in June at the Hospital’s main holding room.
I credit the testimony of nurses Busch-Joss, Maniscalco, Mucci, and Umlauf that they
were told by supervisors, as set forth above, to remove the “hands off” button. Their testimony
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
was mutually corroborative about an undisputed matter – that nurses were told that they could
not wear the “hands off” button. In addition, the three supervisors admitted asking the nurses to
remove the buttons, believing that wearing them was prohibited.
DiCostanzo
DiCostanzo told nurse Mucci, as she was seated in the staff lounge having lunch, that
she could not wear the “hands off” button “here in a patient care area.” She also told Maniscalco
who was in the lounge, that she could not wear those buttons in patient care areas, pointing to
the “hands off” button. Finally, she told Maniscalco in her office, that she could not wear the
button. Maniscalco had reported to DiCostanzo’s office at the direction of her supervisor while
she was performing a patient procedure, during which she wore the button.
Cappellino
Cappellino told nurse Busch-Joss, as she stepped out of her office, that she could not be
wearing the “hands off” button. When Union grievance chairperson Umlauf questioned
Cappellino’s order, Cappellino told her to remove her button also.
Muller
Muller told Maniscalco in a patient care area that she was not supposed to be wearing
the “hands off” button.
The first question is what areas of the hospital were off limits to the “hands off” button.
The General Counsel argues that inasmuch as the nurses were told in non patient care areas
that they could not wear the buttons, the Respondent prohibited them from wearing the buttons
there. The Respondent argues that the prohibition extended only to patient care areas.
Nonpatient Care Areas
I find that DiCostanzo’s directions to nurses Mucci and Maniscalco, in the staff lounge,
that they could not wear the “hands off” button in patient care areas was presumptively invalid.
The nurses were seated in the lounge eating or just finishing a meal, and were not in a patient
care area. DiCostanzo told nurse Mucci that she could not wear the “hands off” button “here in a
patient care area.” She also told Maniscalco who was in the lounge, that she could not wear
those buttons in patient care areas, pointing to the “hands off” button.
It is clear, and as conceded by DiCostanzo, the staff lounge is a non patient care area.
A prohibition of wearing union pins in non patient care areas must be justified by
evidence that the rule is ”necessary to avoid disruption of health care operations or disturbance
of patients.” Mt. Clemens General Hospital, 335 NLRB 48, 50 (2001), enf. 328 F.3rd 837, 846
(6th Cir. 2003), quoting Beth Israel, above, at 507. In other words, the Respondent bears the
burden of showing ”special circumstances” privileging its prohibition. NLRB v. Baptist Hospital,
442 U.S. 773, 781 (1979).
Here, as set forth above, there is no evidence that patients have been disturbed by the
“hands off” button. Further, the language on the button did not disparage the Respondent’s
hospital nor is it alleged to be disloyal, recklessly made, maliciously false, vulgar or obscene.
Rather, the statement on the button presents a “legitimate workplace concern” which is
protected by Section 7 of the Act. Sacred Heart Medical Center, 353 NLRB No. 19, slip op. at 3,
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
(2008); St. Luke’s Hospital, 314 NLRB 434, 435 (1994).
In addition, the nurses had historically worn union pins and other pins in all areas of the
hospital without restriction.
I accordingly find that the Respondent has not proven that its prohibition on the wearing
of the “hands off” button in non patient care areas was privileged by special circumstances. I
therefore conclude that its banning of that button in non patient care areas violated the Act.
The Respondent argues that, even though the nurses were told in a non patient care
area that they could not wear the button, the instruction was that they were prohibited from
wearing the button in “patient care areas,” and that therefore the direction, given in the lounge,
that they should not wear the button, was presumptively valid. I do not agree. DiCostanzo
testified that she told the nurses in the staff lounge to remove the button and they “took them off
and there were no issues.” Maniscalco immediately removed the button at DiCostanzo’s
direction. Thus, although the message may have been presumptively valid - “do not wear the
button in patient care areas” - DiCostanzo demanded and obtained immediate compliance in a
non patient care area.
DiCostanzo conceded that the staff lounge was not a patient care area, but sought to
justify her demand by testifying that the nurses could be expected to exit the lounge and report
to patient care areas. However, they had a right to wear the button as long as they were in the
lounge, a non patient care area. By demanding that they remove the button in the lounge,
DiCostanzo’s direction was presumptively invalid.
Patient Care Areas
As set forth above, a hospital may prohibit the wearing of union insignia in “immediate
patient care areas” and a rule banning buttons there is presumptively valid.
It is alleged that DiCostanzo’s direction in her office to Maniscalco to remove the button
violated the Act. Maniscalco had reported to DiCostanzo’s office at the direction of her
supervisor while she was performing a patient procedure, during which she wore the button.
Clearly, DiCostanzo’s direction to Maniscalco was that she should not have been wearing the
button in a patient care area. As such, DiCostanzo’s demand that Maniscalco remove the button
was presumptively valid.
In addition, supervisor Cappellino told nurses Busch-Joss and Umlauf in a hallway
outside her office that they could not wear the “hands off” button, and that they should remove
them.
Counsel for the General Counsel attempted to portray Busch-Joss’ office as a non
patient care area, but a careful reading of the testimony shows the opposite. Busch-Joss
testified that she “takes care of patients [who] have breast issues” by coordinating breast
services, working in her office on the north side of the clinic in which she inputs data in her
computer and writes notes. In addition to using the telephone, she also interviews patients who
received abnormal results of a mammogram or sonogram, decides what services they need,
and refers them to physicians or for further treatment such as follow-up tests. She stated that, in
about June, 2009, less than a majority of her time was spent face-to-face with a patient, and at
that time she did not see every patient. In contrast, director Cappellino testified that most of the
Brentwood facility is a patient care area, with the exception of the cafeteria and break room.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
The Supreme Court adopted the Board’s finding that “the primary function of a hospital is
patient care and that a tranquil atmosphere is essential to the carrying out of that function” and
that solicitation in strictly patient care areas include “patients’ rooms, operating rooms, and
places where patients receive treatment, such as x-ray and therapy areas might be unsettling to
the patients – particularly those who are seriously ill and thus need quiet and peace of mind.”
Beth Israel, above, at 495.
This testimony supports a finding that, although Busch-Joss did not see every patient,
she saw many patients in her office where she interviewed them and determined what services
they needed – based on such interviews.
The patients she interviewed received abnormal test results which required counseling
and interviewing based upon which she made referrals for treatment. It is obvious that such
patients would, upon being interviewed by Busch-Joss, be understandably upset and concerned
about the necessity for further testing and referral.
Accordingly, the “tranquil atmosphere” emphasized by the Supreme Court must extend
to Busch-Joss’ office. In Saint Vincent’s Hospital, 265 NLRB 38, 56 (1982), the judge, in a
decision adopted by the Board, found that an intensive care unit conference room, not used for
the treatment of patients, but in which physicians consulted with families concerning their
relatives’ conditions, and worsening changes in their conditions, was an immediate patient care
area in which solicitation was lawfully banned. It was noted that the families “need a restful,
uncluttered, relaxing and helpful atmosphere, rather than one remindful of the tensions of the
marketplace, in addition to the tensions of the sick bed.” Here, Busch-Joss’ office was a place
where she saw patients, not patients’ relatives, and discussed with them their referral and
testing options based upon the unfavorable test results they received. It is clear that based upon
the services given to patients in Busch-Joss’ office, where they are deserving of the same type
of tranquil atmosphere as the patients’ families in Saint Vincent’s, that her office is a patient care
area.
I accordingly find that the Respondent’s supervisors advised nurses Maniscalco, Busch-
Joss and Umlauf in patient care areas, that they could not wear the “hands off” button. Such a
direction was presumptively valid. That finding does not end the inquiry, however.
In Mt. Clemens, above, the Board affirmed the judge's conclusion that the employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) by instructing employees to remove buttons worn throughout the
hospital that were designed to protest forced overtime. The buttons contained the letters FOT
with a line through them. The employer defended its prohibition by claiming that patients might
ask questions about the FOT button that would then instigate discussions between nurses and
patients regarding the hospital's overtime policies. In finding the employer's action unlawful, the
Board affirmed the judge's conclusion that, in these circumstances, the presumption of validity
regarding application of the rule to patient care areas had been overcome. There was no
evidence of claims or complaints about the button’s allegedly disruptive nature from hospital
administrators, patients or their families; there was no evidence that the FOT button had caused
any patient-nurse dialog regarding its meaning; there was no disruption of patient care
associated with nurses wearing the button; and the employer had previously allowed employees
to wear union buttons that could be considered just as “controversial” as this one was.
As noted by the Sixth Circuit in enforcing the Board’s order, the hospital’s failure to
object to the nurses’ wearing of similar buttons while caring for patients undercuts the hospital's
contention that wearing the buttons would interfere with patient care. 328 F.3rd at 848, citing
London Memorial Hospital, 238 NLRB 704, 709 (1978), in which the Board noted that a
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
hospital's historically sporadic enforcement of a rule prohibiting all insignia not of a professional
nature discredits the hospital's contention that such insignia critically disrupts patient care.
The same factors considered in Mt. Clemens are present here. Thus, the Respondent
historically did not prohibit the wearing of union buttons in all areas of the hospital, including
patient care areas, there were no complaints by patients or their families that the “hands off”
button was disruptive of hospital operations or patient care, and other buttons worn by the
nurses could be deemed equally controversial. Thus, as noted above, nurse Maniscalco told
director DiCostanzo that she believed that the “patients before profits” button was more
inflammatory than the “hands off” button, and it appears that it was at least equally
controversial, in that the “patients before profits” button implied that the Respondent placed its
alleged concern for profits ahead of its patients’ welfare. In addition, the Respondent had no
objection to the wearing of political buttons in which the wearer announced her support of one of
the presidential candidates. Those buttons may also be considered controversial since they may
engender discussion concerning the political beliefs of the wearer and the patient.
In Sacred Heart Medical Center, 353 NLRB No. 19 (2008), the Board, on remand from
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirmed the judge’s decision which found that the employer
violated the Act by ordering its nurses to stop wearing a button “RNs Demand Safe Staffing”
“where they may encounter patients or family members.” The employer prohibited those buttons
because it believed that the button’s message disparaged the employer by giving the
impression that it does not have safe staffing, and that patients and family members “may fear”
that the hospital is unable to provide adequate care.
The administrative law judge found that the prohibition violated the Act. The judge noted
that prior to the ban, the employer “did not historically limit union insignia in patient care areas.
Thus, the ‘special circumstances’ analysis applied in many cases where such patient care area
bans are present, is inapplicable,” citing Evergreen Nursing Home, 198 NLRB 775, 779 (1972),
where union buttons were lawfully prohibited by the employer which had long maintained a strict
rule limiting all-white uniform adornment to name tag and professional affiliation only.
Here, too, the Respondent did not historically limit union insignia in patient care areas,
thus undermining the Respondent’s “special circumstances” argument.
The Respondent further argues that its conduct in banning the “hands off” button in
patient care areas was permissible inasmuch as it prohibited only that button and permitted the
wearing of other union buttons. The Board addressed this argument in Holladay Park Hospital,
262 NLRB 278, 279 (1982), in which it noted that it is “irrelevant that the respondent also
permitted the employees to wear another union insignia which it deemed more ‘professional.’”
Here, the prohibition on wearing the “hands off” button was impermissible regardless of the
number and types of other buttons not deemed objectionable by the Employer.
I accordingly find and conclude that the presumption of validity of the Respondent’s
prohibition of the “hands off” button in patient care areas has been overcome, and that its
prohibition on wearing the “hands off” button violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
II. The Imposition of a Dress Code
The complaint alleges that the subject of wearing Union buttons is a mandatory subject
for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, by prohibiting its employees from wearing
union buttons, the Respondent imposed a dress code without prior notice to the Union, and
without affording it an opportunity to bargain regarding such actions in violation of Section
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
8(a)(5) of the Act.
The requirement that nurses not wear the “hands off” button represented a significant
change from past practice. Thus, for a number of years and until May, 2009, the Respondent
did not object to its nurses wearing, in all areas of the hospital including patient care areas,
numerous buttons, including buttons bearing a Union message, pins representing certain
causes including breast cancer awareness, and those supporting the candidates for president.
Beginning in May, 2009, the Respondent directed that its nurses not wear the “hands off”
button.
It is well settled that a dress code is a mandatory subject of bargaining, and that
unilaterally imposing a new dress code or revising an existing one requires that the union which
represents the unit employees be given notice of the change and an opportunity to bargain
concerning the change. A failure to do so violates the Act. Transportation Enterprises, Inc., 240
NLRB 551, 560 (1979).
In Holladay Park Hospital, above, at 279-280, the Board found that the employer violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by changing its past practice by prohibiting its nurses form wearing
union insignia without notifying or bargaining with the union before unilaterally instituting that
change in past practice.
Here, similarly, the Employer had a long standing past practice of not objecting to its
nurses wearing Union buttons of all types. Its prohibition of the “hands off” button constituted a
change in its past practice and was clearly done without notification to the Union or offering to
bargain with it concerning that change. I therefore find that the Respondent’s banning of the
“hands off” button violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Certain limited testimony was given concerning the Respondent’s “personal appearance”
policy which was in effect when the “hands off” buttons were banned. Essentially, as set forth
above, it prohibited buttons which “undermine patients’ confidence.” The policy was not cited as
a reason for the banning of the buttons and supervisor DiCostanzo became aware of the policy
only after directing the nurses that they could not wear the buttons in patient care areas.
Accordingly, it cannot be found that the personal appearance policy was the basis for the order
that the buttons not be worn. Further, that policy was not alleged as a violation, the issue was
not fully litigated, and the General Counsel opposed the written policy’s receipt in evidence on
the ground that it was irrelevant.5 I accordingly make no findings concerning the validity of the
Respondent’s personal appearance policy.
III. Prohibiting Employees From Talking About Union Matters
The complaint alleges that in June and July, 2009, supervisors DiCostanzo and Moreira
directed employees not to talk about Union affairs.6
As set forth above, nurses Maniscalco and Meyers routinely spoke to other nurses and
supervisors about matters concerning the ongoing negotiations. Such discussions occurred

5 See footnote 2, above.
6 The record contains testimony that nurse Maniscalco entered the hospital while off duty in
late summer, 2009, spoke to nurses, was reprimanded for doing so by supervisor Muller and
escorted from the building. That incident is not alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, it will not
be discussed here and I make no findings concerning it.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
while the nurses were on duty in patient care areas. In fact, Meyers gave uncontradicted
testimony that manager Moreira asked her, in patient care areas during their work time, about
the status of the negotiations. In fact, Moreira conceded that Meyers routinely visited her unit
and others to distribute and leave flyers and other information concerning the Union.
In addition, nurses had frequently spoken with their co-workers and supervisors, while
on duty in patient care areas about many matters including family, sports and politics without
restriction. Prior to June, 2009, they were not told that they could not talk about Union matters
while on duty or in patient care areas. Meyers stated that nurses visited other units to discuss
personal matters with their colleagues and also distribute Girl Scout cookies and raffle tickets,
and had not been told that they could not do so.
As set forth above, in June, 2009, for the first time, when nurse Meyers was updating
nurses on the status of negotiations, Moreira told her that she could not do so because the
nurses were on duty. Similarly, nurse Maniscalco was told, for the first time in July, 2009, by
manager DiCostanzo that she could not discuss union business in a patient care area. At that
time, she was speaking to a group of nurses and two supervisors. Both conversations took
place at the nurses’ stations.
I cannot credit Moreira’s testimony that the Hospital has a “no-talking rule about Union
matters in a patient area” since there was no evidence of any such rule – oral or written. Indeed,
the parties’ contract permits a Union representative to meet with employees in a manner that
does not interfere with the work of the employees and the operation of the Hospital.” That
provision does not prohibit talking about Union matters on work time or in patient care areas, or
at the nurses’ stations. Moreover, there is no evidence of any other enforcement of a rule
against talking while working.
The Respondent asserts that its supervisors’ prohibition of talking about the Union in
patient care areas is valid. Here, however, both conversations took place at the nurses’ stations.
The Board has held that it “has never extended its listing of what it considers to be immediate
patient care to include nursing stations.” Rocky Mountain Hospital, 289 NLRB 1347, 1360
(1988); Baptist Medical Centre/Health Midwest, 338 NLRB 346, 362 (2002).
In Jensen Enterprises, Inc., 339 NLRB 877, 888 (2003), the Board stated:
It is settled law that an employer may forbid employees from
talking about a union during periods when the employees are
supposed to be actively working, if that prohibition also extends to
other subjects not associated or connected with their work tasks.
However, an employer violates the Act when employees are
forbidden to discuss unionization, but are free to discuss other
subjects unrelated to work….
As set forth above, nurses and supervisors routinely speak about non-work matters
while on duty throughout the hospital, including at the nurses’ stations and in patient care areas.
Here, it is clear that although the Respondent has prohibited employees from speaking about
the Union while they are working, it has not also prohibited them from speaking about non-work
subjects while they are working.
In Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas, 347 NLRB 52, 53 (2006), the Board, citing
Jensen, above, held that the hospital’s supervisor telling an employee at the nurses’ station that
a conversation about an upcoming union meeting “does not belong here” violated the Act. The
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
Board noted that the employer permitted social conversations during working time at the nurses’
station, and that the supervisor’s comment constituted a discriminatory prohibition on discussing
the union. Similarly, here, nurse Meyers stated that she has historically, before and after the
incident with Moreira, spoke with nurses who were at the nurses’ station about contract
negotiations. She added that while working, the nurses and supervisors discuss a wide range of
issues such as family, politics, sports and shopping.
See St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Centers, 350 NLRB 203, 203-204 (2007), enf. 519
F.3rd 373 (7th Cir. 2008), where the Board found that disciplining a nurse for soliciting a
colleague to sign a union card at a nurses’ station was unlawful. The Board noted that such
solicitation at nurses’ stations was a common practice, including solicitation for Girl Scout
cookies and other social occasions, and that management was aware of and participated in it
with no discipline being issued for such conduct.
I accordingly find and conclude that prohibiting employees from speaking about the
Union while permitting non-work related conversations violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Stevens Construction Corp, 350 NLRB 132, 134 (2007); Sam’s Club, 349 NLRB 1007, 1008-
1009 (2007).
St. Mary’s Hospital of Blue Springs, 346 NLRB 776 (2006), relied on by the Respondent,
is distinguishable. In that case, Cunningham, an employee union supporter phoned a co-worker,
Burlison, while Burlison was at work in the hospital and asked him to sign a union card. Burlison
said that he did not want to discuss the subject while working and hung up. A supervisor told
Cunningham not to call the nurses and talk about the union. The Board found no violation
because the supervisor’s reprimand “did not constitute unlawful restrictions on employees to
solicit union support in the workplace.” It was noted that Cunningham interrupted Burlison’s
work, the reprimand was directed to Cunningham, and that Burlison was an unwilling participant
in the conversation.
Here, in contrast, there was no evidence that the nurses’ work was interrupted. Although
Meyers conceded that the nurses could have been performing other tasks since they were on
duty, there was no evidence that they were. In fact, Meyers stated that the nurses were not
giving patient care, charting, or picking up doctors’ orders at the time they spoke. In addition, the
Employer’s direction constituted an unlawful, disparate restriction on employees right to speak
with their co-workers about Union matters.
Conclusions of Law
1. By prohibiting its employees from wearing a union button bearing the message “hands
off our benefits”, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By prohibiting its employees from wearing a union button bearing the message “hands
off our benefits”, the Respondent has imposed a dress code upon its employees, and engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By prohibiting its employees from wearing a union button bearing the message “hands
off our benefits,” and by doing so, imposing a dress code upon its employees without affording
the Union an opportunity to bargain with the Respondent with respect to this conduct and the
effects of this conduct, the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees, in violation of
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
4. By directing its employees not to talk about Union matters while allowing other
nonwork-related discussions by employees, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended7
ORDER
The Respondent, Southside Hospital, Bay Shore, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith, by failing and refusing to
bargain regarding prohibiting its employees from wearing union buttons, and, by doing so,
imposing a dress code, with the New York State Nurses Association as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the following unit:
Each full-time, part-time and per diem employee, licensed or
otherwise lawfully entitled to practice as a registered professional
nurse employed by Southside Hospital in the titles of Staff Nurse,
Assistant Head Nurse, Head Nurse, Nurse Anesthetist, Staff
Development Educator/Instructor, Nurse Clinician, Clinical Care
Coordinator, and Infection Control Nurse, including employees in
these titles at the Brentwood and Central Islip Family Health
Centers, excluding the Director of Nursing, the Director of Staff
Development, Assistant Director of Nursing, Nurse Manager,
Assistant Nurse Manager, Supervisors, Assistant Supervisors or
temporary employees as defined herein and all other job
classifications as provided in Section 4.05.
(b) Prohibiting its employees from wearing a union button bearing the message “hands
off our benefits.”
(c) Imposing a dress code upon its employees by prohibiting them from wearing a union
button bearing the message “hands off our benefits.”

7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(NY)-31-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
(d) Directing its employees not to talk about Union matters while allowing other nonwork-
related discussions by employees.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain collectively and in good faith with the New York State Nurses
Association as the exclusive-collective bargaining representative of the unit employees
concerning the wearing of union buttons by its employees, and its imposition of a dress code by
prohibiting the wearing of union buttons.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Bay Shore and
Brentwood, New York, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since May 1, 2009.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 3, 2010.
____________________
Steven Davis
Administrative Law Judge

8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)-31-10
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith, by failing and refusing to
bargain regarding prohibiting our employees from wearing union buttons, and, by doing so,
imposing a dress code, with the New York State Nurses Association as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the following unit:
Each full-time, part-time and per diem employee, licensed or
otherwise lawfully entitled to practice as a registered professional
nurse employed by Southside Hospital in the titles of Staff Nurse,
Assistant Head Nurse, Head Nurse, Nurse Anesthetist, Staff
Development Educator/Instructor, Nurse Clinician, Clinical Care
Coordinator, and Infection Control Nurse, including employees in
these titles at the Brentwood and Central Islip Family Health
Centers, excluding the Director of Nursing, the Director of Staff
Development, Assistant Director of Nursing, Nurse Manager,
Assistant Nurse Manager, Supervisors, Assistant Supervisors or
temporary employees as defined herein and all other job
classifications as provided in Section 4.05.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from wearing a union button bearing the message
“hands off our benefits.”
WE WILL NOT impose a dress code upon our employees by prohibiting them from wearing a
union button bearing the message “hands off our benefits.”
WE WILL NOT direct our employees not to talk about Union matters while allowing other
nonwork-related discussions by employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
JD(NY)-31-10
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively and in good faith with the New York State Nurses
Association as the exclusive-collective bargaining representative of our employees concerning
the wearing of union buttons by our employees, and our imposition of a dress code by
prohibiting the wearing of union buttons.
SOUTHSIDE HOSPITAL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
Two MetroTech Center, Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue, Suite 5100
Brooklyn, New York 11201-3838
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
718-330-7713.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 718-330-2862.