Sprain Book Manor Nursing Home

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 2007

351 N.L.R.B. 1190 (N.L.R.B. 2007)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
351 NLRB No. 75
1190
Sprain Brook Manor Nursing Home, LLC and New
York’s Health and Human Services Union
1199/SEIU. Cases 2–CA–37258 and 2–CA–37448
December 26, 2007
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS SCHAUMBER, KIRSANOW, AND WALSH
On September 29, 2006, Administrative Law Judge
Michael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The Gen-
eral Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions and
supporting briefs. The General Counsel filed an answer-
ing brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions as
modified, to amend the remedy, and to adopt the recom-
mended Order as modified.2
The unfair labor practices alleged in this case arose
from the Respondent’s responses to the Union’s organiz-
ing campaign in August and September 2005,3 and the
events following the representation election on Septem-
ber 22, in which the Union became the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the bargaining unit em-
ployees. We adopt the judge’s findings that the Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by photographing
and placing employees under surveillance while they
engaged in protected concerted activity; that the Respon-

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
There are no exceptions to the judge’s dismissal of the allegation
that the Respondent violated the Act by denying employee Alvin
Nicholson’s request to be represented by a fellow employee during an
interview.
2 The General Counsel noted in cross-exceptions that the judge
failed to conform his conclusions of law, remedy, recommended Order,
and notice to the violations found. The judge found that the Respondent
did not provide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain
prior to reducing the overtime hours for some bargaining unit employ-
ees, but the judge failed to include that violation in his conclusions of
law or to include the requisite remedial provisions in his recommended
Order and notice. Similarly, although the judge found that the Respon-
dent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to provide the Union with
notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to implementing a wage
increase for bargaining unit employees, the judge failed to order a
remedy for this violation. We grant the General Counsel’s cross-
exceptions in these respects and appropriately modify the conclusions
of law, remedy, Order, and notice. We also modify the conclusions of
law, remedy, Order, and notice to conform to the additional violations
found, as discussed infra.
3 All dates are in 2005, unless otherwise indicated.
dent violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging Catherine
Alonso and Alvin Nicholson, disciplining Clarissa No-
gueira, and reducing the overtime hours of Nogueira,
Karen Bartko, and Marjorie Ridgeway;4 and that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by increasing employ-
ees’ wages and reducing overtime of employees without
providing the Union with notice and an opportunity to
bargain.
We also adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with
more onerous working conditions, threatening to cut
overtime, interrogating employees, soliciting grievances,
making statements indicating that support for the Union
would be futile, and threatening employees with dis-
charge for participating in protected activities.5
For the reasons stated below, however, we reverse the
judge’s dismissal of the complaint allegation that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by engaging in sur-
veillance of employees’ union activities.6 We also re-
verse the judge’s dismissal of the complaint allegations
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by calling
the police and by hiring a second, armed security guard
in response to employees’ union activities.
Surveillance of Employees’ Union Activities
The Union began organizing at the Respondent’s facil-
ity in the summer of 2005. On August 12, the Union
filed a petition for a representation election. On August
13, Union Organizer Cherice Vanderhall began meeting
with employees in the nursing home parking lot area
twice a week during shift changes—before 7 a.m., 3
p.m., and sometimes 11 p.m. During the meetings, the
employees and Vanderhall generally stood on the grassy
area next to the nursing home’s parking lot or in empty
parking spaces.
As noted above, Union Organizer Vanderhall’s first
meeting at the facility with employees occurred on Sat-
urday, August 13. On this day, the nursing home admin-

4 In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(3) in the manner described above and in his decision, we find it
unnecessary to rely on the Respondent’s “oppositional literature during
the campaign” as evidence of antiunion animus. Rather, we rely on the
numerous 8(a)(1) violations as evidence of animus.
5 With the exception of the last of these allegations, the Respon-
dent’s exceptions to these findings are based on the Respondent’s dis-
agreement with the judge’s credibility determinations. As stated in fn.
1, supra, we find no basis for reversing the credibility findings. As to
the last allegation, the Respondent has excepted to the judge’s conclu-
sion that the Respondent threatened employees with discharge for par-
ticipating in protected activities, but it offers no basis in its exceptions
for overturning that finding and does not argue the point in its brief.
Therefore, we adopt this finding in the absence of argument. See e.g.,
Conley Trucking, 349 NLRB 308, 308 fn. 2 (2007).
6 Member Schaumber does not pass on this allegation. See discus-
sion infra.
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1191
istrator, Eleanor Miscioscia, went to the facility because
she thought there might be organizing activity. Miscio-
scia did not usually work on Saturdays, as it was her
regular day off. She arrived at the nursing home at 6 a.m.
and remained for nearly 2 hours. While there, Miscioscia
stood at the exit door to the dining room at the side of the
building, which was the door closest to where the em-
ployees were standing, in order to observe them through-
out the meeting.
As the judge stated, an employer’s mere observation of
open, public union activity on or near its property does
not constitute unlawful surveillance. Fred’k Wallace &
Son, Inc., 331 NLRB 914, 915 (2000). Therefore, be-
cause the focal point of union activity was visible to all
who entered, exited, and parked on the Respondent’s
property, the judge found that management’s observation
of employees’ conduct would not reasonably tend to co-
erce employees. We disagree.
Although an employer may observe open union activ-
ity on or near its property, “an employer may not do
something ‘out of the ordinary’ to give employees the
impression that it is engaging in surveillance of their
protected activities.” Loudon Steel, Inc., 340 NLRB 307,
313 (2003). The record shows that Miscioscia’s actions
on August 13 were out of the ordinary. Indeed, her very
presence at the facility was unusual because she did not
ordinarily work on Saturdays. Employees testified that
they had never seen her at the facility on a Saturday. On
this day, employees saw her standing in the doorway and
watching their union activities. By her own testimony,
Miscioscia was at the facility solely for the purpose of
observing union activity. Under these circumstances,
Miscioscia’s conduct was “out of the ordinary” and con-
stituted unlawful surveillance. See Partylite Worldwide,
Inc., 344 NLRB 1342 (2005); Arrow Automotive Indus-
tries, 258 NLRB 860 (1981), enfd. 679 F.2d 875 (4th
Cir. 1982).7
Calling the Police
The Respondent repeatedly called the police in re-
sponse to union organizers and employees meeting in the
Respondent’s parking lot or an adjacent grassy area dur-

7 We find it unnecessary to pass on the other alleged instances of
unlawful surveillance, as any such finding would be cumulative and
would not materially affect the remedy.
We adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) by “photographing and placing employees under surveillance
while they engaged in protected concerted activity.” In light of that
violation, Member Schaumber finds that any further determination of
surveillance would be cumulative and would not materially affect the
remedy. Member Schaumber, who dissented in Partylite Worldwide,
Inc., supra, therefore does not consider whether finding further in-
stances of surveillance would be consistent with the majority opinion in
that case.
ing shift changes. Specifically, the Respondent requested
police assistance on September 10, 13, and 15 to deal
with what its administrator characterized as “labor dis-
putes.” On September 10, the police officer remained on
the scene for about 30 minutes and did not record a de-
scription of the incident. On September 13, the police
incident report by the responding officer indicates that he
arrived in order to monitor picketing activity and that,
finding no picketing activity, he left after about 20 min-
utes. On September 15, the responding officer stated in
his report that three union representatives were standing
on the curb “not blocking entrance or obstructing traffic
in any way.”
The judge found that, although there was insufficient
evidence in the record to indicate that the employees or
organizers blocked traffic, it was impossible to determine
the extent to which traffic flow may have been impeded
or opponents of the Union harassed or intimidated. Ap-
parently on this basis, the judge concluded that it was
“impossible to say that the Respondent did not have a
legitimate reason for requesting a police presence. . . .”
We reverse.
“It is well established that an employer may seek to
have police take action against pickets where the em-
ployer is motivated by some reasonable concern, such as
public safety or interference with legally protected inter-
ests.” Nations Rent, Inc., 342 NLRB 179, 181 (2004)
(citing Great American, 322 NLRB 17, 21 (1996)).
Moreover, as the judge observed, an employer can take
reasonable steps to prevent nonemployees from trespass-
ing onto private property. See generally Lechmere, Inc.
v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992) (employer may lawfully
bar nonemployee union organizers from private property
unless the employees are inaccessible through usual
channels). Here, the Respondent failed to establish that
it was motivated by reasonable concerns when it called
the police on September 10, 13, and 15. Indeed, it did not
introduce any specific evidence relating to those inci-
dents or its reasons for requesting a police presence on
those days. The police dispatch records show that the
Respondent’s stated reason for requesting police was
“labor disputes.” There is no evidence in the record of
threats or violence. The police reports from those days
do not indicate that the organizers or employees were
blocking traffic or creating safety problems, and the
judge found that there was no evidence of blocking. To
the extent that the Respondent claims that it was protect-
ing its private property interests, there is no evidence that
the nonemployee organizers were encroaching on the
Respondent’s property on those particular days. In the
absence of any showing by the Respondent that it was
motivated by reasonable concerns when it called the po-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1192
lice on the above days, and in the absence of any evi-
dence indicating the need for a police presence, we find
that the Respondent’s actions violated Section 8(a)(1).8
Hiring an Armed Security Guard
In addition to calling the police in response to the em-
ployees’ union activity, the Respondent also hired two
security guards. On September 8, the Respondent hired
the first guard. In a memorandum documenting the Un-
ion’s parking lot meeting on September 8, Joanne Jinete,
the Respondent’s administrator, asserted that as “a result
of this situation Sprain Brook Manor had to appoint a
security guard because of the fear in the atmosphere.”
The guard was unarmed and worked from 5:45 to 7:45
a.m. and from 10:30 p.m. to 12 midnight—time periods
encompassing the morning and evening shift changes.
On October 10, the Respondent hired a second security
guard. The second guard worked about 4 hours per day
“as directed,” including virtually every weekday until
January 7. Like the first guard, the second guard was
generally deployed during periods that encompassed
shift-change meetings. Unlike the first guard, the second
guard was armed.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated the
Act by hiring the armed security guard on October 10.
The judge dismissed the allegation, finding that there
was no evidence that the guard engaged in surveillance.
We reverse and find the violation.
The Respondent provided no explanation for its deci-
sion to hire the second guard. Furthermore, nothing in
the record establishes that circumstances changed be-
tween the hiring of the first and second guards. The evi-
dence reveals no violence, threats of violence, or any
other activity that would explain additional security per-
sonnel. Indeed, all that appears to have occurred during
the period between the hiring of the first and second
guard was an increase in employees’ union activity.
The armed guard was deployed during shift changes
while employees were engaged in protected activities. In
light of all the preceding ways in which the Respondent

8 In disagreeing with the judge’s dismissal of this allegation, we note
that the case relied upon by the judge, Tecumseh Foodland, 294 NLRB
486 (1989), is distinguishable. There, the Board found that the respon-
dent’s exclusion of pickets and handbillers was lawful based in part on
a showing that five pickets and handbillers congregating in the small
area near the entrance to the respondent’s store tended to impede pa-
trons’ access to the store and impermissibly impaired the respondent’s
private property rights. Id. at 487, 488. Here, by contrast, the prepon-
derance of the evidence indicates that the union representatives were
not impeding access or impairing the Respondent’s private property
rights. Additionally, we note that the Board in Tecumseh Foodland
analyzed the access issue under Jean Country, 291 NLRB 11 (1988).
The Jean Country test was abandoned by the Board after it was rejected
by the Supreme Court in Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, supra.
acted unlawfully in response to the employees’ union
activity, including the repeated calls to the police, and in
the absence of any legitimate explanation for the Re-
spondent’s decision to add additional (and armed) secu-
rity, we find that the Respondent’s hiring of the second
security guard reasonably tended to intimidate or coerce
employees engaged in protected activities. Accordingly,
the deployment of the second guard violated Section
8(a)(1). See Shrewsbury Nursing Home, Inc., 227 NLRB
47 (1976)..9
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for the judge’s Conclusions of
Law 3 and 4.
“3. By threatening employees with reprisals if they
engaged in union activity, interrogating employees about
their union sympathies, soliciting employee grievances,
photographing employees while they engaged in pro-
tected concerted activity, placing employees under sur-
veillance while they engaged in protected concerted ac-
tivity, telling employees that it would be futile to support
the Union, calling the police in response to employees’
protected activities, and hiring a security guard in re-
sponse to employees’ protected activities, the Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By increasing employees’ wages and reducing em-
ployees’ overtime hours without providing the Union,
which had prevailed in the representation election, notice
or opportunity to bargain, the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.”
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson, we shall order it
to offer Alonso and Nicholson full reinstatement to their
former jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and to make
them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits they
may have sustained by reason of the Respondent’s
unlawful conduct. Backpay shall be computed in accor-

9 Our dissenting colleague asserts that “the mere presence of a secu-
rity guard does not amount to unlawful surveillance.” We agree. In
our view, the posting of the armed guard without any explanation,
during a period of increased union activity and during the times of the
day that that activity was taking place, was coercive whether or not any
actual surveillance occurred. Cf. Epic Security Corp., 325 NLRB 772,
777 (1998) (employer violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by posting guards; the
Board rejected the employer’s proffered justifications and noted the
lack of a causal connection between the posting and the incidents that
purportedly gave rise to security concerns).
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1193
dance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest calculated as provided in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). In addition, hav-
ing found that the Respondent unlawfully reduced the
overtime hours of Clarissa Nogueira, Karen Bartko, and
Marjorie Ridgeway, we shall order it to make whole
these employees for any losses incurred by them as a
result of the Respondent’s unlawful actions in the man-
ner prescribed in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB
682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with in-
terest calculated as prescribed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, supra. Having found that the Respondent uni-
laterally increased bargaining unit employees’ wages
without providing the Union notice and opportunity to
bargain, we shall order it to rescind the wage increase,
but only upon request by the Union. Finally, we shall
order the Respondent to remove from its files any refer-
ence to the discipline of Nogueira and the discharges of
Alonso and Nicholson.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Sprain Brook Manor Nursing Home, LLC,
Scarsdale, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging, counseling, disciplining, or otherwise
discriminating against any employee for supporting New
York’s Health and Human Services Union 1199/SEIU or
any other labor organization.
(b) Threatening employees with reprisals if they en-
gage in union activity, coercively interrogating employ-
ees about their union support or union activities, solicit-
ing employee grievances, photographing employees
while they engage in protected concerted activity, plac-
ing employees under surveillance while they engage in
union or other protected concerted activity, telling em-
ployees that it would be futile to support the Union, call-
ing the police in response to employees’ protected activi-
ties, and hiring a security guard in response to employ-
ees’ protected activities.
(c) Unilaterally changing the wages, hours, or other
terms and conditions of employment for members of the
bargaining unit without first bargaining with the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson full reinstatement
to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
(b) Make Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
resulting from the discharges in the manner set forth in
the amended remedy section of this decision.
(c) Make Clarissa Nogueira, Karen Bartko, and
Marjorie Ridgeway whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of their loss of over-
time hours in the manner set forth in the amended rem-
edy section of this decision.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges of
Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson and unlawful
discipline of Clarissa Nogueira, and within 3 days there-
after notify each of them in writing that this has been
done and that the discharges and discipline will not be
used against them in any way.
(e) Before implementing any changes in wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its unit employees.
(f) On request by the Union, rescind the wage increase
to bargaining unit employees that was unilaterally im-
plemented on or about October 22, 2005.
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Scarsdale, New York, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-

10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1194
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since August 9, 2005.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
MEMBER SCHAUMBER, dissenting in part.
I agree with my colleagues as to many of the violations
in this case. I cannot join them, however, in finding that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by hiring a sec-
ond security guard to protect its residents, employees,
and property.
In September 2005,1 the Respondent hired a security
guard. As explanation for this action, the Respondent’s
administrator, Joanne Jinete, noted in a September 8
memorandum to file that the Respondent had to appoint a
security guard because of the “fear in the atmosphere.”
The General Counsel did not allege and my colleagues
do not find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
by hiring this security guard. On October 10, the Re-
spondent hired an additional guard who generally
worked about 4 hours per day from either 6 to 10 a.m. or
2 to 6 p.m.
The complaint alleged that the hiring of the second
guard violated Section 8(a)(1). The judge dismissed that
complaint allegation because there was no evidence that
the guard engaged in surveillance. My colleagues, in
reversing the judge, find that the Respondent hired the
second guard in response to the employees’ union activi-
ties and therefore violated the Act. I respectfully dis-
agree.
The Board has held that the mere presence of a secu-
rity guard does not amount to unlawful surveillance.
Villa Maria Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., 335
NLRB 1345, 1350 (2001). Rather, there must be proof
that the security guard engaged in surveillance or other
intimidating conduct before a violation of the Act will be
found. Id.; see also Shrewsbury Nursing Home, 227
NLRB 47 (1976).2 Here, there is no evidence that the

1 All dates are in 2005, unless otherwise indicated.
2 In Shrewsbury Nursing Home, a guard was placed at the entrance
to the involved facility at the outset of organizing and reported the
arrival of any organizer to the respondent’s management. The owner
would then join the guard and watch the activities of the organizer.
Respondent’s security guard conducted surveillance of
employees while they engaged in concerted protected
activity, or that the guard otherwise engaged in any be-
havior that would tend to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights. Instead, the record shows only that the guard was
armed3 and that he worked about 4 hours a day, in the
morning or afternoon, during shift changes. The major-
ity’s finding of a violation of the Act on these facts is
unprecedented.
Nor is there any record basis for my colleagues’ con-
clusion that the guard was hired in response to protected
activity at the Respondent’s facility. The Respondent’s
September 8 memorandum says nothing about the rea-
sons for hiring a second guard in October. Moreover,
that guard was hired 2 months after the start of the Un-
ion’s organizing campaign, and 3 weeks after the union
election. Thus, the timing of the decision to hire the secu-
rity guard was relatively remote to the inception of the
protected activity and does not show that the Respondent
was motivated to hire the guard based on the employees’
protected activities.4 Similarly, the guard’s conduct after
he was hired does not demonstrate an improper motiva-
tion. The fact that he was deployed at times when union
meetings took place says little about the Respondent’s
motivation for hiring him absent evidence that he inter-
fered with those meetings. As shown, there is no such
evidence. Thus, I would dismiss the complaint allega-
tion.

There is no evidence that the security guard at issue herein engaged in
conduct of this character.
Similarly, in Epic Security Corp., 325 NLRB 772, 776–777 (1998),
a case relied upon by the majority, supervisory security guards posted
by the respondent in front of its facility engaged in actual surveillance
of union activity, including following union supporters as they spoke
with coworkers and handed out authorization cards. There was no
allegation in Epic, as there is here, that the hiring of the guards itself
was unlawful. Moreover, the surveillance finding in Epic was premised
on the conduct of the supervisory guards in spying on employees inter-
acting with union representatives. No evidence of this character exists
in this case.
3 There is no evidence that the Respondent specifically requested the
presence of an armed guard. Nor does Board precedent preclude em-
ployers from deploying armed security. The Board simply is not em-
powered to second guess the appropriateness of security measures
adopted by property owners.
4 Any increase in union activity between September 8, when the first
guard was hired, and the election held September 22, says little about
the motive or impact of the hiring of the second guard on October 10. I
find no support in the record for any finding that union activity in-
creased significantly after September 22.
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1195
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 vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LABOR LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge, counsel, discipline, or other-
wise discriminate against any of you for supporting New
York’s Health and Human Services Union 1199/SEIU or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisals if you engage
in union activity, coercively interrogate you about your
union support or union activities, solicit your grievances,
photograph you while you engage in union or other pro-
tected concerted activity, place you under surveillance
while you engage in union or other protected concerted
activity, tell you that it would be futile to support the
union, call the police in response to your protected activi-
ties, or hire a security guard in response to your protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT change your wages, hours, or other
terms and conditions of employment without first bar-
gaining with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits result-
ing from their discharges, less any net interim earnings,
plus interest.
WE WILL make Clarissa Nogueira, Karen Bartko, and
Marjorie Ridgeway whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of their loss of over-
time hours, plus interest.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharges of Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson,
and unlawful discipline of Clarissa Nogueira, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of them in
writing that this has been done and that the discharges
and discipline will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL notify and, on request, bargain with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of employees before implementing any changes in
wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employ-
ment of unit employees.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, rescind the wage
increase to bargaining unit employees that was unilater-
ally implemented on or about October 22, 2005.
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC
Lauren Esposito, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jeffrey A. Meyer and Richard M. Howard, Esqs. (Kaufman,
Schneider & Bianco, LLP), of Jericho, New York, for the
Respondent.
William S. Massey, Esq. (Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP), of
New York, New York, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in New York, New York, on May 3–5, 8, and 15,
2006. The charge in Case 2–CA–37258 was filed October 12,
2005, and amended on November 23, 2005; December 30,
2005; and January 26, 2006. A complaint issued January 31,
2006. On January 23, 2006, the Union filed a charge in Case
2–CA–37448 and an order consolidating cases, consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing (consolidated complaint) is-
sued March 29, 2006.1[ The consolidated complaint alleges that
the Sprain Brook Manor Nursing Home, LLC (Respondent or
nursing home) committed the following violations of Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5): discharged Catherine Alonso in retaliation
for her activities in support of New York’s Health and Human
Services Union 1199/SEIU (the Union); reduced the overtime
hours of Clarissa Nogueira, Karen Bartko, and Marjorie
Ridgeway unilaterally and in retaliation for their union activi-
ties; engaged in surveillance of union activity; photographed
employees engaged in union activities; summoned police to the
nursing home and hired an armed security guard in order to
discourage union activity; solicited grievances; promised bene-
fits; unilaterally implemented a wage increase in order to dis-
courage support for the Union; interrogated employees; threat-
ened to impose more onerous working conditions of employ-
ees; threatened to reduce overtime shifts if employees voted for
the Union; threatened to discharge employees for engaging in
union activities; unlawfully denied Alvin Nicholson his Wein-

1 All dates are in 2005, unless otherwise indicated.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1196
garten rights; disciplined Nogueira, and discharged Nicholson
in retaliation for their union activities.2
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, operates and maintains a
nursing home in Scarsdale, New York, where it annually, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, derives gross
revenues in excess of $100,000, and purchases and receives
goods and services valued in excess of $50,000. The Respon-
dent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Respondent’s Operations
The nursing home is jointly owned by Robert Klein and
members of the Book family. The key members of management
are: Joanne Jinete, the nursing home’s administrator; Eleanor
Miscioscia, the director of nursing; Elizabeth Gerosa, the assis-
tant director of nursing; Joann Farenga, the director of admis-
sions; John Vitello, the director of dietary and maintenance;
and his assistant supervisor, Robert Formisano.
The nursing home is a 4-floor facility with 121 beds. The
first floor consists of offices, a kitchen, and a recreational ther-
apy area. The second through fourth floors house the nursing
home’s residents. The facility is staffed 24 hours a day by ap-
proximately 85–100 employees. Hourly employees include
nurses, certified nursing aides (CNA), dietary workers, geriatric
techs/activity aides, housekeeping employees, laundry employ-
ees/assistants, dietary aides, and cooks. They are assigned to
one of three shifts—the day shift (7 a.m. to 3 p.m. or 6 a.m. to 2
p.m.); the second shift (3 to 11 p.m.); and the third shift (11
p.m. to 7 a.m.).
B. The Union’s Organizing Campaign
By July, the Respondent’s management personnel became
aware of an organizing campaign by the Union. During that
month, prounion flyers were placed at several locations
throughout the nursing home. In addition, some employees,
including Nogueira and Ridgeway, wore purple to work on
Wednesdays as an expression of support for the Union. On
August 9, the Respondent commenced its publicity campaign
opposing the Union. In its initial letter to employees, accompa-
nied by an article in the Journal News, a local newspaper, the
Respondent criticized the Union for questionable expenditures
and the cost of union dues, and asked, [w]ill everything balance
out in the end for everyone?” The Respondent then noted that

2 The consolidated complaint was amended at trial to include addi-
tional 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) allegations pertaining to Nicholson’s dis-
charge. In addition, the General Counsel withdrew pars. 6(i)–(k) and 9
(a)–(c) of the consolidated complaint. Tr. 9, 324–325; GC Exh. 2.
“[a]ll the scheduled overtime in all departments may have to be
eliminated. To all the staff that depends on that overtime
money—will the raise you get cover the loss of overtime wages
and also pay for your dues?” The Respondent subsequently
followed up with additional leaflets opposing the organizational
campaign.
3[
In early August, Bartko, a CNA, and Nogueira, a full-time
housekeeping employee and part-time CNA on weekends, met
at a nearby diner with union organizer, Cherice Vanderhall.
Nogueira and Bartko agreed to assist the Union organize the
nursing home’s hourly staff. In that regard, Vanderhall pro-
vided them with authorization cards, which Nogueira and
Bartko proceeded to distribute to approximately 20–25 cowork-
ers. Nogueira then arranged for other employees to attend
weekly organizational meetings at the diner. Attendees in-
cluded Bartko, Ridgeway, Catherine Alonso, and Alvin Nichol-
son.
On August 12, the Union petitioned for a representation elec-
tion in Case 2–RC–23014 and served it on the Respondent.4 On
August 13, Vanderhall began meeting with employees in the
nursing home parking lot area twice a week during shift
changes—before 7 a.m., 3 p.m., and sometimes 11 p.m. No-
gueira, Alonso, Bartko, Nicholson, and Ridgeway attended
these meetings. During the meetings, the employees and Van-
derhall generally stood on the grass area in the middle of the
nursing home’s parking lot or in empty parking spaces.5 On
August 31, the Journal News published an article containing
statements by Nogueira and Nicholson supporting the Union,
and by Jinete opposing the Union. Nogueira complained about
low wages, high-cost health insurance, and working long hours.
Nicholson complained that he did not mind working long work
hours, but could not make ends meet on his low salary. About a
week before the representation election, the Union mailed a
leaflet containing pictures of individual nursing home employ-
ees accompanied by their statements expressing support for the
Union. Statements on the leaflet by Nogueira, Alonso, Nichol-
son, and Ridgeway indicated their support for the Union based
on their desire for higher wages, improved fringe benefits, and
more respect. Jinete and Miscioscia received and read those
materials around the time that election took place.6
C. The Respondent’s Preelection Actions
1. Robert Klein
In addition to distributing materials opposing the organiza-
tional campaign, management began meeting with employees.
In August, Klein met individually with numerous employees
about the organizing campaign. Around 11:30 a.m. one morn-
ing, he called dietary aide Vernon Warren into his office. Un-
beknownst to Klein, Warren had seen the flyer in the nursing

3 GC Exh. 7.
4 GC Exhs. 3–4.
5 Employees generally met on the grass area, but it is clear that there
were times when they ventured onto the parking lot area. Tr. 50, 129–
131, 138–139, 171–172, 192–193, 230, 268–269, 317–320.
6 It is not disputed that Jinete and Miscioscia saw the promotional
material at that time. Tr. 18–22, 72–73, 131, 139, 323–324; GC Exhs.
8–9.
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1197
home earlier that day. Klein asked Warren whether he knew
“anything about this garbage floating around the compound.”
Warren denied having previously seen the flyer, which stated
that “1199 is coming.” Klein then asked, “Vernon, we are
friends, right?” Warren said “yes.” Nicholson was also sum-
moned to a meeting with Klein around that time. Klein told him
that he “had seen some stuff laying around here.” He added that
“if you want to join the union, you can go ahead,” but “a lot of
stuff would change.” Klein also told Nicholson that he should
vote “no” at the election. Nicholson assured Klein he would not
join the Union and returned to work.7 Alonso and Nogueira
were each summoned to Klein’s office for individual meetings
a few days before the representation election on September 22.
During his meeting with Alonso, Klein asked her to state her
grievances. Alonso accommodated him and explained that cur-
rent employees were angry that new employees were earning
starting salaries of $10 per hour. Alonso, an 18-year employee
at the nursing home, was earning approximately $12. In his
meeting with Nogueira, Klein suggested she speak with Mrs.
Book, who “would take it back to him and he would see what
he could do for me to make things better.” As Nogueira left,
Klein told her “not to be mad at him.” Nogueira assured him
she was not mad.8
2. The Book family
Members of the Book family—Mrs. Book and her son, Mor-
dechai—also met with the nursing home’s employees prior to
the representation election. The meeting was held in the resi-
dents’ dining room from 1 to 3 p.m. It was attended by the
CNAs and dietary, housekeeping, and maintenance employees.
Mordechai Book explained he was aware of problems in the
nursing home. Mrs. Book added that the Book family was still
involved in running the nursing home and suggested employees
contact Mordechai Book if they wanted to discuss anything.
Mordechai Book concurred and announced his cellular tele-
phone number. Ridgeway then complained that the nursing
home recently eliminated its longstanding practice of providing
breakfast to employees. The Respondent resumed its practice of
providing breakfast to employees the very next day.9
3. Joanne Jinete
At 2:30 p.m. on September 8, Vanderhall and another union
organizer, “Robin,” arrived for a union shift meeting. They
were joined initially by two or three employees. At about 2:50
p.m., before the 3 p.m. shift change, and without speaking to
the organizers or employees assembled in the parking lot, Jinete
called the Greenburgh Police Department and spoke with Cap-
tain DiCarlo. She complained that union organizers and at least
15 staff members were standing on the driveway, blocking
traffic, and harassing employees to sign union authorization
cards. Captain DiCarlo informed Jinete that two officers would

7 This finding is based on the credible and unrebutted testimony of
Warren and Nicholson, as Klein did not testify. Tr. 228, 231–233, 235–
256, 266, 270–272.
8 This finding of fact is based on the credible and unrebutted testi-
mony of Nogueira and Alonso. Tr. 134–135, 196.
9 This finding is based on the unrefuted testimony of Nogueira and
Nicholson, as neither Mrs. Book nor Mordechai Book testified. Tr.
135–137, 274–276.
respond to the complaint. At the time, there were no more than
five people in the group. Members of the group were calling
out to incoming and outgoing traffic attempting to enlist other
employees in support of the Union. After the 3 p.m. shift, the
group was joined by about 10 more employees. The group con-
tinued calling out to passersby. While waiting for the officers to
respond, Jinete also called the Yonkers Police Department to
request assistance.
At 3:51 p.m., Jinete called the Greenburgh Police Depart-
ment, alleged there was riot activity in the nursing home’s park-
ing lot and requested police assistance. At the time, there were
about a dozen staff and organizers in the parking lot. As a re-
sult, a squad car and a police riot truck were dispatched to the
nursing home. The assigned officer, Police Officer Vlasaty,
arrived at approximately 4:03 p.m. At that time, there were only
five persons standing in the parking lot—Nogueira, Alonso,
Sandra Reed, and the two union organizers. He spoke to Van-
derhall and Nogueira, confirmed that there was no riot activity,
and left.10
In a memorandum documenting the events of September 8,
Jinete also noted that “union organizers parked in Sprain Brook
Manors parking lot. Their vehicle is an unauthorized vehicle on
the premises.” She also noted that, as “a result of this situation
Sprain Brook Manor had to appoint a security guard because of
the fear in the atmosphere.” The security guard, John Bogetti,
began working on September 12 and worked generally every
weekday until the election from 5:45 to 7:45 a.m. and 10:30
p.m. to 12 a.m.11
Jinete also requested police assistance on September 10, 13,
and 15.12 At 3:29 p.m. on September 10, she contacted the
Greenburgh Police Department regarding “labor disputes.” The
police incident dispatch detail report indicates that Police Offi-
cer Deastis arrived in less than 1 minute. The officer remained
at the nursing home until 4:02 p.m. and did not find the circum-
stances significant enough to record a description of the inci-
dent. At 2:38 p.m. on September 13, Jinete again contacted the
Greenburgh Police Department over “labor disputes.” The inci-
dent report completed by the responding officer indicates that
he/she arrived very shortly thereafter in order to monitor picket-
ing activity. However, there was no picketing activity and the
officer left at 3 p.m. At 2:26 p.m. on September 15, Jinete again
called the Greenburgh Police Department regarding “labor
disputes.” The responding officer arrived a few minutes later,

10 Although there were some discrepancies, the police reports and
collective testimony of Jinete, Nogueira, Bartko, and Vanderhall essen-
tially established that the organizers and employees were standing in
parking lot spaces and calling out to incoming and outgoing traffic.
However, I do not credit Jinete’s conclusory and unsupported allega-
tions that union proponents were harassing other employees, blocking
traffic, engaged in any other form of misconduct, and were ordered to
leave by police. She was not a credible witness. Throughout much of
her cross-examination, Jinete’s answers were inconsistent and she
could not recall much of the earlier testimony that she gave before
Judge Green. Tr. 45–51, 146–147, 194–195, 321–322, 441–442; GC
Exhs. 18, 22, p. 5.
11 Tr. 56–57, 284; GC Exhs. 18, 23.
12 GC Exhs. 22, 6–10.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1198
remained until 4:02 p.m., and provided the following incident
report:
Undersigned officer while at above premises between the
above date and time observed 3 union reps standing on curb
not blocking entrance or obstructing traffic in any way. Above
[Vanderhall] union organizer states her and her reps. will be
on location on Saturday 9/17/05 and Wed 9/21/05 at the usual
time and sporadically during the day on Thurs 9/22/05. [Van-
derhall] states Thurs 9/22/05 should be final day. [Vanderhall]
states no union reps on scene on Tuesday. All union reps left
without incident.
4. Eleanor Miscioscia
Miscioscia, the nursing director, observed employees en-
gaged in organizing activity on numerous occasions during the
preelection period. At Klein’s direction, she went in to work on
Saturday, August 13, her regular day off. It was the day after
the petition was filed and Miscioscia went in to work because
she thought there might be organizing activity. She arrived at
the nursing home at 6 a.m. and remained for nearly 2 hours.
She stood at the exit door to the dining room at the side of the
building, the door “closest to where [the employees] were
standing,” in order to observe them throughout the meeting.13
Miscioscia also observed employees during union shift
change meetings every Wednesday at the facility, because “that
was the most often time that there was ever any activity.” From
an office window located at the front of the nursing home, Mis-
cioscia would look at employees and union organizers congre-
gated “at the end of the parking lot by the driveway.”14 She was
joined on occasion by Jinete, Vitello, Farenga, and Edward
Book.15
Miscioscia was also involved in calling for police interven-
tion. At 7:09 a.m. on August 13, she called the Greenburgh
Police Department and complained about the Union’s activities
in the parking lot. The police responded to the complaint and
spoke with Vanderhall. Vanderhall explained that employees
were engaged in a union organizing meeting. The policeman
told Vanderhall that they had the right to do so, but directed her
to confine the meeting to the grass area by the parking lot en-
trance. He also directed her to keep the participants out of the
street so they did not get hurt in traffic. The police were called
again that day at 2:17 p.m. and informed that there would be a
“possible strike occurring sometime today.” The report stated
that “the above activity is not a strike—the business is not a
union shop. Local 1199 is attempting to organize the 30 em-
ployees and sets up outside business for 15 minutes at shift
changes only. There is no significant labor activity projected
for the future.” The report also indicated that union organizers

13 This finding is based on the fairly consistent testimony of Miscio-
scia, Nogueira, Alonso, Nicholson, and Vanderhall. Tr. 131–132, 193–
194, 279, 318–319, 409–416.
14 Miscioscia asserted that she would “look out the office window
just to see who was out there” but it was clear from her overall testi-
mony that she was more than a disinterested bystander. Tr. 413–416.
15 This finding is based on Nicholson’s credible and unrefuted testi-
mony. Tr. 277–278.
will “usually arrive Tue, Thur, Sat at change of shift. Vote is
Sept 22, 2005.”16
5. John Vitello
On August 15, Vitello, the dietary and maintenance director,
called Nicholson into his office and told him that, if the Union
prevailed in the representation election, “some things would
change,” the Respondent would adhere to the collective-
bargaining agreement and “it won’t be as lenient as how we are
right now with our staff.” Specifically, he also noted that the
Respondent would no longer permit employees to “go to the
store for ten minutes,” arrive late or depart late, and receive free
meals. In fact, around this time, the dietary department stopped
the customary practice of providing breakfast to employees.17
Vitello also spoke with others about the upcoming election. On
or about September 20, Vitello told Warren that he would lose
overtime if the Union prevailed in the election.18
D. The Representation Election
A representation election in Case 2–RC–23014 was held on
September 22. The voting resulted in a majority of the bargain-
ing unit employees (62–23) designating and selecting the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative. Nogueira served
as the Union’s observer, while Antonetta Gjelaj served as the
Respondent’s observer.19 As a result of the election, the follow-
ing employees of the Respondent now constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining pursuant to
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time and per diem non-
professional employees including licensed practical nurses,
certified nurses’ aides, geriatric techs/activity aides, house-
keeping employees, laundry employees/assistants, dietary
aides, and cooks employed by the Employer at its facility lo-
cated at 77 Jackson Avenue, Scarsdale, NY, but excluding all
other employees, including office clerical employees, manag-
ers, and guard, professional employees and supervisors as de-
fined by the Act.
On September 29, Sprain Brook Manor filed objections to
the representation election. On February 7–9, 2006, Adminis-
trative Law Judge Raymond P. Green heard testimony and on
March 1, 2006, overruled the objections and remanded the case
to the Regional Director for certification of representative.20
The Respondent filed exceptions to Judge Green’s Decision
and Order with the Board. On June 29, 2006, the Board af-

16 This finding is based on the police reports and the credible testi-
mony of Nogueira and Vanderhall. Tr. 132–133, 319–320; GC Exh. 22,
pp. 1–4.
17 The testimony of Nicholson and Vitello was fairly consistent as to
what Vitello told employees would happen if the Union came in. Tr.
122–123, 137, 273, 276.
18 I based this finding on Warren’s credible testimony. Vitello denied
addressing overtime but, based on the Respondent’s statement about
overtime in its oppositional literature, I find it likely that Vitello men-
tioned it along with the other items that would be affected by a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement. Tr. 110, 228, 233.
19 GC Exh. 5.
20 GC Exh. 6.
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1199
firmed Judge Green’s Decision and Order and certified the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
E. The Respondent’s Post-Election Actions
1. Overtime reductions
Klein also serves as the nursing home’s controller; Edward
Book serves as assistant controller. The Respondent’s 2004–
2005 fiscal year ended in May. In June, Edward Book reviewed
the fiscal year’s records and determined there had been an in-
crease in payroll costs for the CNA, housekeeping, and laundry
departments for the past fiscal year.21 However, neither Edward
Book nor Klein planned to take any action with respect to such
costs. In September, after the Respondent issued its opposi-
tional union literature, Klein asked Edward Book for the indi-
vidual payroll information.22
After the week ending September 22, and without notifying
the Union or giving it an opportunity to bargain, Klein ordered
overtime reduced or eliminated for every employee in the nurs-
ing, housekeeping, and laundry departments.23 Examples of
such reductions were reflected in the payroll records of Bartko,
Ridgeway, Nogueira, Elijandro Campbell, and Brian Magner.
Overtime in other departments, however, was not reduced. An
example is reflected in the payroll records of dietary aide
Vernon Warren. Overtime in the CNA and housekeeping de-
partments was eventually restored after the election, but not in
the laundry department. Nogueira was the only employee in the
laundry department.24
Bartko consistently received 7.5 hours of overtime per week
in 2005, until the week ending September 22. She received
overtime for the first two pay periods in November, but did not
receive overtime after that in 2005. During the week of Sep-
tember 19, and prior to the representation election on Septem-
ber 22, Bartko asked Miscioscia why she was not scheduled for
a sixth day of work. Miscioscia said, “if the union gets in, no
more overtime.”25

21 It is not disputed that this was the Respondent’s custom and prac-
tice. R. Exh. 5.
22 Edward Book’s contention that he spoke to Klein about this in
June, but waited until September to act on the information, was not
credible. First, Klein did not testify. Secondly, Book testified that Klein
went “away for a week or two,” then Book became involved in un-
specified personal issues and it was not until September that he was
able to address this problem. Tr. 347–348. At that time, he provided
Klein with each employee’s payroll information. Tr. 361. The circum-
stances strongly support an inference that Book did so at Klein’s re-
quest due to the union campaign and not because the Respondent was
genuinely concerned about payroll costs.
23 The Respondent stipulated that it did not provide 1199 with notice
and the opportunity to bargain prior to eliminating Nogueira, Bartko,
and Ridgeway’s overtime hours. Tr. 334–336.
24 The General Counsel did not provide any evidence to contravene
the Respondent’s contention that the payroll records of the six employ-
ees were representative of the overtime cuts to their respective depart-
ments. Tr. 127–138, 170–173; 339–348, 356–358; R. Exhs. 6–11; GC
Exhs. 41–43.
25 This finding is based on Bartko’s credible testimony, as Miscio-
scia’s general, terse denial—that she never threatened any employees
that their overtime would be eliminated—did not sufficiently address
their encounter. Tr. 173–174, 410.
Ridgeway consistently received 7.5 hours of overtime per
week until the week ending September 22. After that, it was
discontinued until it was restored during the week ending De-
cember 29. Around that time, Bartko learned that Ridgeway’s
overtime had been restored and asked Gerosa, the assistant
nursing director, to restore her overtime. Gerosa explained that
Ridgeway’s overtime had been restored at Klein’s direction.
Bartko protested that it was unfair, but her overtime was not
restored until March 2006.
Nogueira consistently received 7.5 to 15 hours of overtime
per week in 2005, until the week ending September 22. Her
overtime pay was usually attributable to her weekend CNA
work. She received 7.5 hours of overtime during the week end-
ing October 6, but none at any time after that. After learning
that Bartko’s overtime was restored in March 2006, Nogueira
asked Gerosa to restore her weekend CNA work. Gerosa asked
Nogueira whether she was a certified CNA. Nogueira said that
she was, and Gerosa told her she would “find out” whether
Nogueira was eligible to perform CNA work. The next day,
however, Gerosa approached Nogueira in the laundry room and
told her that she would not be assigned overtime work as a
CNA because “they told me no because you work in laundry,
not in nursing.” 26 This was the first time since Nogueira began
performing weekend CNA work in 1999 that was she told that
she was ineligible for such work because her regular assign-
ment was in the laundry room.27
2. The wage increase
On October 22, without consulting the Union, the Respon-
dent awarded a $1 per hour wage increase to all hourly employ-
ees, including all bargaining unit employees.28
3. Police intervention
At approximately 2:15 p.m., on September 30, the Green-
burgh Police Department was called to the nursing home re-
garding a “labor dispute.”29 At that time, a group of employees
was meeting with Greg Speller, the Union’s vice president.
Approximately 10 to 15 minutes after the meeting began, five
police cars arrived. Two police officers approached Nicholson,
directed him to step away from the group, and arrested him. At
the time, several management personnel were standing in front
of the nursing home, including Miscioscia, her daughter, Chris-
tine Miscioscia, Antonetta Gjelaj, and Karen Meyers. Nogueira
or another employee asked why Nicholson was being arrested.
A policeman explained they received a complaint accusing an
employee of harassment or attempted rape. After Nicholson
was arrested and placed in the police car, a police officer ap-
proached Miscioscia’s group. The police officer returned
shortly thereafter, said Nicholson was the wrong person, and

26 The parties stipulated at the hearing that Nogueira is licensed as a
CNA and qualified to perform CNA work. Tr. 11–12.
27 This finding is based on the credible and unrefuted testimony of
Bartko and Nogueira. Tr. 139–141, 174–177; GC Exh. 34. Gerosa was
not called to testify.
28 The Respondent stipulated that it never gave the Union notice or
the opportunity to bargain before implementing this wage increase. Tr.
11.
29 GC Exh. 22, p. 12.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1200
released him. The police then arrested Jose Veloso, a nursing
home employee discharged the previous day.30
4. Threats to dietary department employees
On October 1, Klein, Jinete, and Vitello met with dietary de-
partment employees in Klein’s office. Klein told the dietary
staff that police were investigating “the case,” presumably re-
ferring to Veloso’s arrest. Klein went on to say that “this is a
free country” and he could not stop employees from doing what
they wanted to do. He then noted, “[b]ut remember, I’m the big
man in here. I’m the man who signs the paychecks” and can
terminate anyone who “demonstrate[s] or protests.” Klein also
added that he had been “in business for 32 years and nobody is
going to come in and break it up.” Klein then told the employ-
ees that if they joined the union, demonstrated, or protested,
their jobs could be terminated. Klein also told the assembled
employees that things were going to change, so that break peri-
ods and leaving the facility were “going to stop.”31 On or about
November 14, Klein, Jinete, and Vitello met once again in his
office with dietary staff. Klein again stated they were free to
participate in an informational picket planned for November 16.
However, he advised them, once again, not to participate. Klein
added he was “the big man” who “signs paychecks,” and
warned the employees they would be terminated if they partici-
pated in the picketing.
Finally, on December 23, the day of the Respondent’s holi-
day lunch, Warren was once again called to Klein’s office. No
one else was present. Klein told Warren he heard he was not
happy and, referring to Klein, had said “no good.” Warren ex-
plained he made the statement in the heat of the union cam-
paign. Klein responded, “So, okay, we’re going to set the date,
we can get complete dietary staff and we have a meeting and
let’s see what can be done.” Warren agreed. About 15 minutes
later, Warren was called back into Klein’s office. Jinete,
Vitello, Formisano, and two other dietary supervisors were also
present. Klein explained that the wage increase he gave em-
ployees in October was all he could afford. Warren said, “Mr.
Klein, I think you are trying me today.” Warren added that
Klein knew he was involved with the Union and, thus, “if
you’re going to try me today, just get it over with.” The meet-
ing ended with Klein’s comment that he had been in business
for 32 years, and nobody was going to come in and tell him
how to run the nursing home.32
5. Deployment of an armed security guard
On October 10, 2005, despite already having one guard, the
Respondent hired a second security guard to patrol the nursing
home. The security guard was armed and generally worked 4

30 This finding is based on the unrefuted, credible, and substantially
consistent testimony of Nogueira, Warren, and Nicholson. Tr. 142–145,
233–237, 279–282.
31 The credible testimony indicates that this meeting occurred the
day after Nicholson was arrested, which was September 30.
32 My findings regarding Klein’s meetings with Warren and other
dietary staff are based primarily on Warren’s unrefuted and credible
testimony. Tr. 237–250. Alvin Nicholson was less credible on this
point, as he did not recall others present at the meetings. Nevertheless,
he substantially corroborated Warren’s version of the events. Tr. 286–
289.
hours per day “as directed,” except October 13, when he
worked 10 hours. The security guard was deployed virtually
every weekday until January 7. The time periods varied, but
Jinete and Klein generally deployed the guard during periods
that encompassed shift change meetings.33
6. Catherine Alonso
Catherine Alonso, a 17-year employee of the nursing home,
worked the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift Monday through Friday and
every other weekend. She was assigned to the housekeeping
department and was responsible for replacing supplies on each
floor. Her supervisors were Formisano and Vitello. Her most
recent performance appraisal, dated October 8, 2004, was writ-
ten by Vitello and approved by Jinete. In the appraisal, Alonso
received a rating of excellent in all categories, except one—
attendance. The items that were rated excellent included disci-
pline, quality of work, cooperation, and her “overall” perform-
ance. The “general comments” were: “Kathy does a great job
for [the nursing home]. She really cares about the residents.
Kathy fills in when we need her in different assignments and
does a good job.”34
As noted above, Alonso was also a visible union supporter.
Alonso and Katrina Gjelaj, another housekeeping employee and
opponent of the Union, did not get along. Katrina Gjelaj, whose
daughter, Antonneta, was a management employee and the
Respondent’s election observer, had an extensive disciplinary
history. Over the past several years, Katrina Gjelaj had several
documented conflicts with other employees and supervisors.35
Katrina Gjelaj’s history of conflict included Alonso, but
there was never a documented incident between them prior to
August. On or about August 22, Alonso was pushing her supply
cart down the second floor hallway. Katrina Gjelaj was in her
path, but Alonso was not about to change course. As a result,
Katrina Gjelaj had to step out of the way. The event was wit-
nessed by Gaetana Capozzo, the Respondent’s social services
director, but she obviously did not consider it serious enough to
document.36

33 Tr. 59–60, Tr. 241–242, 285; GC Exh. 24.
34 GC Exh. 40, p. 11.
35 Jinete was quite aware of this. Tr. 41–45; GC Exh. 19–21.
36 Reconstructing the conflict between Alonso and Katrina Gjelaj
was difficult, as both were less than credible on this issue. Gjelaj’s
testimony was alternately belligerent and tentative in nature, and she
looked frequently at Jinete, seated at counsel’s table, as she answered.
Furthermore, her version of the incident conflicted with that given by
Capozzo. Gjelaj conceded she was vacuuming and not looking up when
Alonso approached, while Capozza said Gjelaj was walking toward
Alonso and, on her own account, moved to the side. In addition, Gjelaj
testified that Capozza yelled out to Alonso, while Capozzo testified that
she said nothing. Tr. 365–366, 371, 395–397. In addition, the circum-
stances of their statements of the incident were highly questionable. GC
Exhs. 14, 28. Capozzo’s statement was suspiciously written on Sep-
tember 26, the day Alonso was discharged. Given my strong suspicion
that a paper trail was being concocted, Gjelaj’s undated statement was,
in all likelihood, not written on August 30, as purportedly dated, but
rather, on September 26, as well. The statement was written by Anton-
etta Gjelaj, a member of management and was never shown to Alonso
by Jinete. Tr. 34–38. In any event, Alonso evinced a temper during her
testimony when discussing Katrina Gjelaj that indicated the likelihood
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1201
A few days later, on August 26, Alonso and Ridgeway were
“discussing 1199 issues with each other loudly” at the nursing
station. Veronica Bago, a nurse, overheard the conversation.
Bago passed that information along and it reached Klein. Klein
then called Bago and directed her to document the incident and
give it to her nursing supervisor, Aurora Richter. Bago com-
plied and gave Richter a note detailing the incident. Richter, in
turn, passed along the note to Jinete. The note stated that Klein
himself “called Veronica to write this note what she heard from
Cathy & 4th Floor staff.” The subject that Alonso had been
“discussing” was her advice to another employee, Charlene
Cobb, to “watch out for” Katrina Gjelaj, because she was
“sneaky” and “not for the union.”37
The same day, Alonso was called to a meeting with Jinete
and Formisano. At the meeting, Jinete stated that she heard that
Alonso had been talking about another employee in a manner
that “wasn’t nice.” Alonso apologized and said that it wouldn’t
happen again. Alonso signed an attendance sheet for this meet-
ing, as directed by Jinete.38 During this meeting, there was no
mention of the “supply cart” incident, since Jinete was not
aware of it at the time.39
On September 26, Gjelaj was mopping a second floor
shower room when Alonso entered the area with her supply
cart. In order to pass Gjelaj, Alonso pushed a mop handle in
Gjelaj’s cart. The handle nudged Gjelaj on the left shoulder.
Gjelaj immediately reported the incident. Jo-Ann Farenga, the
director of admissions, saw Gjelaj crying and brought her into
her office. Gjelaj told Farenga, “I cannot take this no more” and
stated that she was ready to quit her job because of Alonso.
Gjelaj then reported the incident to Jinete.40
Jinete spoke with Katrina Gjelaj and decided she had enough
to discharge Alonso. Later that day, Alonso was called to a
meeting with Jinete and Formisano. Jinete informed Alonso of
Katrina Gjelaj’s accusations and, without asking Alonso for her
version or investigating the matter further, told her that she was
being discharged. Alonso asked why she was being discharged.

that something did occur—although not nearly rising to the threat level
alleged by the Respondent.
37 This finding is based on a reasonable construction of the events
preceding Bago’s note. Tr. 22–23; GC Exh. 10.
38 This finding is based on Alonso’s credible and unrebutted testi-
mony. Tr. 197–199. In contrast to the “shopping cart” incident, the
Respondent held a meeting with Alonso and generated an attendance
sheet. GC Exh. 35.
39 As previously explained in fn. 35.
40 I based this finding on the testimony of Katrina Gjelaj, as corrobo-
rated by Jo-Ann Forrenga. Tr. 372–373, 403–405; GC Exhs. 4, 12. As
explained at fn. 35, I found both Gjelaj and Alonso to be less than
credible as to their conflicts. As to this incident, however, Gjelaj’s
testimony that she was crying after the incident was corroborated by
Forrenga, whom I found credible. Alonso testified that she simply
pushed her cart through the shower room and past Gjelaj without inci-
dent, without further elaboration. Tr. 199–200. I realize that this finding
may or may not be inconsistent with the New York State Department of
Labor finding that Alonso did not engage in misconduct and awarded
her unemployment insurance benefits. GC Exh. 36. However, in resolv-
ing credibility disputes, it is not proper to base a finding on a judge’s
determination in another proceeding. Southern Florida Hotel & Motel
Assn., 245 NLRB 561, 561 fn. 7 (1979).
Jinete explained that “this is the second time I had to reprimand
you about Katrina [Gjelaj].” Jinete told Alonso that she struck
Gjelaj on the shoulder with her hand. Alonso denied that charge
and added that Gjelaj harassed her in the past, but she never
reported such incidents to Jinete.41 At that point, Jinete handed
Alonso a letter and her final paychecks.42
7. Nogueira’s discipline
Nogueira has been employed by the nursing home since
1981. Once or twice per week, Nogueira would leave the nurs-
ing home during lunch or breaks to take care of personal mat-
ters. She knew that she was required to inform either of her
supervisors—Vitello or Formisano—in such an instance. How-
ever, this requirement was not rigidly applied, as Nogueira
would, on some occasions, simply tell a coworker if neither
supervisor was around. She would then punch out and leave.
Upon returning, she would punch back in.
On October 27, Nogueira needed to leave the nursing home
during lunch at approximately 1:40 p.m. to handle a personal
matter. Before leaving, she looked for Formisano and Vitello,
but could not find either one. As a result, Nogueira informed
Edna, a coworker, that she was leaving and clocked out. No-
gueira returned to the facility about 20 minutes later and at-
tempted to punch in, but her card was not in its slot by the
timeclock. As Nogueira proceeded to the business office to
inquire about the timecard, she encountered Vitello. She asked
him if he knew anything about her timecard and he acknowl-
edged taking it. Nogueira asked Vitello to return her timecard.
He did not return it, but replied that he thought she had left for
the day. Nogueira explained that she told Edna. Vitello then
responded that she should tell him next time. She then ex-
plained that she did look for him and Formisano, could not find
either one, and asked why he took her card to the dietary de-
partment. Vitello told her that he would take everyone’s card.43
The following morning, Nogueira was called into a meeting
with Vitello and Formisano. After having her sign an atten-
dance sheet, Vitello told Nogueira that she left the facility the
day after telling a coworker, but without informing a supervi-
sor, and then returned and questioned him about her timecard.
Nogueira explained that her inquiry was due to the fact that she
did not understand why he took her timecard to the kitchen.

41 I credited Alonso’s testimony that she had attempted in the past to
complain about Gjelaj to Vitello, but Vitello told her that he was not
interested. Tr. 153–154, 205–206.
42 I base this finding on the fairly consistent testimony of Jinete and
Alonso regarding the meeting. However, it is notable that there was no
testimony that the supply cart incident was brought up in this conversa-
tion. It surfaced, however, in Jinete’s written statement. Tr. 30–33, 42,
200–202; GC Exhs. 13, 17.
43 I based the finding regarding the events of October 27 primarily
on Nogueira’s mostly credible testimony. I did not, however, credit her
testimony that she was not required to notify a supervisor, as her search
for one before she left indicates otherwise. Tr. 147–150. Vitello’s recol-
lection of his conversation with Nogueira that day, on the other hand,
was quite selective and lacked credibility. Although I did credit his
testimony regarding the requirement that employees notify a supervisor
before leaving the facility, I found it significant that he could not recall
a conversation with Nogueira when she returned or seeing her look for
her timecard. Tr. 110–111, 121–125.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1202
Vitello responded that he customarily took timecards and
checked them. Contrary to his statement the day before in
which he indicated a belief that Nogueira had left for the day,
Vitello added that he was holding Nogueira’s card because he
wanted to speak with her when she returned about washing
curtains. Vitello then wrote “warning” on the top of an em-
ployee counseling form and handed it to Nogueira. The form
stated the “problem” as follows: “On Thursday Oct 28, 2005
Clarissa was scheduled to work at 7–3. She punched out at 148
pm & returned at 216 pm. She did not tell her supervisor or
Director that she was leaving the building. She told her co-
worker Edna.” The “resolution of problem or action taken”
provided that “Clarissa will let Director or supervisor know
when she is leaving the building.” Vitello asked Nogueira if he
“wrote down the truth.” Nogueira acknowledged that it was the
truth, but noted that she did not have a witness present and
refused to sign the counseling form. Vitello asked “whose rule
is that” and Nogueira responded that it was her right to have a
witness.44
8. Nicholson’s discharge
At approximately 7 a.m. on November 15, Sergio Petito, a
nursing home employee, observed Nicholson in the employee
locker room with flyers in his shirt. He proceeded to follow
Nicholson and saw him place flyers near the visitors’ sign-in
sheet at the front of the building. When Nicholson left the area,
Petito scooped up the flyers, continued following Nicholson,
and saw him place flyers in the lobby area. Petito also saw
Nicholson “put a flyer in the men’s locker room by the mirror.”
At some point during that timeframe, Nicholson told Petito
about the informational picket that would be held the next day.
He added that he was “scared to get fired by Mr. Klein.”45 Pe-
tito immediately reported Nicholson’s activities to Vitello.
Vitello prepared a statement that Petito signed and provided it
to Jinete. Jinete and Vitello then decided to counsel Nichol-
son.46
Later that morning, Vitello took Nicholson to Jinete’s office
for a meeting. Jinete told Nicholson, a dietary aide at the nurs-
ing home since 2000, to sit down. She proceeded to tell him
that she had nothing against him, but was informed that some-
one saw him posting union flyers in the facility earlier that day.
Jinete and Vitello intended to issue Nicholson a counseling
form. The form contained Vitello’s description of the “prob-
lem” as follows: “On Tuesday morning, Alvin was putting
union flyers in the locker room area. Their [sic] is no union in
this nursing home & this conduct will not be tolerated.”47

44 The testimony of Nogueira and Vitello was fairly consistent re-
garding their meeting on October 28. Tr. 111–120, 150–153; R. Exhs.
1–3.
45 There was no indication as to how the flyer was “put . . . by the
mirror.” GC Exh. 32.
46 Vitello’s testimony lacked credibility. He hesitated for a few sec-
onds when asked if he met with Jinete prior to meeting with Nicholson
that day and answered, “I don’t know.” During follow-up questions,
however, he testified that he gave Jinete the flyer and both decided to
meet with Nicholson. Tr. 106–107.
47 Under the circumstances, I find that Jinete’s statement regarding
the distribution of union flyers on company time was not added until
after Nicholson was sent home. GC Exh. 26, p. 3.
Previously, however, a memorandum relating to such activ-
ity had been provided to employees along with their paychecks.
The memorandum was entitled, “Defacing private property,”
and had as its source a provision in the Respondent’s “Work
Rules and Regulations” prohibiting “[d]estruction of property.”
The memorandum stated:
We are well aware of the ongoing union activity and cam-
paign. We must ask though when placing posters or flyers that
they are not placed on any paint or wallpaper that will be
damaged when removing them. The little flag signs were col-
orful but unfortunately many of them destroyed wallpaper and
paint when being removed. This act represents defacing pri-
vate property and is not allowed. Thank you for your coopera-
tion.48
When Nicholson heard Jinete mention the word, “union,” he
asked to be excused. Jinete excused Nicholson and he went to
the kitchen. Nicholson then asked Vernon Warren to accom-
pany him in the meeting. Warren agreed and they proceeded
back to Jinete’s office. However, they were met by Vitello, who
informed them that Warren could not accompany Nicholson
and the latter would have to return alone to the meeting.
Nicholson replied that “if Mr. Warren cannot come with me,
then I would not go in there.” Vitello responded that Nicholson
would be sent home if he did not return to the meeting. Nichol-
son, still defiant, told Vitello that if he wanted to send him
home, then that was he needed to do. Vitello then instructed
Nicholson to “go home.” As Nicholson was changing his
clothes in the locker room, Vitello approached him again and
asked him to reconsider, insisting that Nicholson was putting
him in a difficult position. Nicholson did not reconsider and
Vitello again told him to go home and not return until he heard
from someone.
Nicholson left and went home without signing the attendance
sheet or counseling form that had been prepared. In place of his
signature on the attendance sheet, however, Jinete inserted the
following statement: “[e]mployee walked out of Administra-
tor’s office while Administrator was speaking and in front of
Director of Food Service.” Jinete also added two statements to
the counseling form. Her first statement was inserted after
Vitello’s description of the “problem”: “Union flyers were
distributed on Company time and staff were informed in writ-
ing through memo.” Jinete then added the following statement
at the bottom of the counseling form, in place of Nicholson’s
signature: “Employee did not hear Administrator’s concern and
walked out without letting the Director/Administrator know
what was going on.” Jinete also drafted a memorandum pur-
portedly describing the meeting:
At approximately 10:15 a.m. I Joanne Jinete, Admin, John
Vitello, Dir. Of Environmental asked to meet with Alvin
Nicholson, dietary aide to discuss his inappropriateness of dis-
tributing union flyers throughout the building. As I began the
meeting I stated to Mr. Nicholson that we understood his po-
sition and that he needed to understand our position as man-
agement. He first refused to sit down I asked to please sit
down. I then stated that it was informed to me that he distrib-

48 R. Exh. 12; GC Exh. 26, pp. 4–5.
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1203
uted union flyers throughout the building. Mr. Nicholson did
not make eye contact he stood up and walked out of my of-
fice. Mr. Nicholson was insubordinate to myself, the Admin-
istrator and Director of Dietary. Mr. John Vitello went to go
see where he went and he found him speaking to Clarissa No-
gueira, laundry attendant.49
That day, after Nicholson was sent home, there had been no
determination to discharge Nicholson.50 Nicholson returned at
about 3:30 p.m. on November 16, to participate in a union in-
formational picket in the parking lot. The picket was filmed by
Channel 12, the local cable news channel, and Nicholson was
interviewed by the reporter. The interview aired later that day.
Also on that day, Jinete drafted a letter discharging Nicholson.
The letter, which was mailed to Nicholson, stated:
Please be aware that your services will no longer be needed.
You were terminated on November 15, 2005. The reasons for
your termination were explained to you by your director.51
On November 17, without hearing from Vitello, Nicholson
reported for work at his regularly scheduled time at 7 a.m. He
changed into work clothes and was walking toward the time-
clock when he encountered Vitello. Vitello admonished
Nicholson for returning to work without hearing from him.
Vitello then took him to his office and repeated his statement.
Nicholson responded that he returned to work because he
thought he might have missed Vitello’s telephone call.52 Vitello

49 I found Nicholson’s testimony on this issue—that he asked to be
excused, was excused and attempted to return to the meeting—more
credible than that of Jinete and Vitello for several reasons. Tr. 290–294.
First, his version of the encounter with Vitello was corroborated by
Vernon Warren, whom I found to be credible as to most issues testified
to at trial. Warren’s demeanor was spontaneous and calm, yet without
reflection. Tr. 246–247. Secondly, Jinete testified that she was going to
counsel Nicholson because he violated the terms of the memorandum
that had been placed in employees’ paychecks. Tr. 64–65, 428; R. Exh.
12. However, the predrafted counseling form was based solely on the
fact that Nicholson distributed union flyers in the nursing home. It did
not allege that he taped flyers to a painted or wallpapered wall, much
less destroyed property. GC Exh. 26, p. 3. Thirdly, Vitello never rebut-
ted Nicholson’s testimony that the latter attempted to return to the
meeting accompanied by Warren, but was prevented from doing so by
Vitello. Vitello was asked only one question as to whether Nicholson
mentioned anything about union representation and, after a significant
pause, had no recollection. Tr. 110. Accordingly, I did not credit
Vitello’s memorandum to the file, written 2 days later after Nicholson
attempted to return to work, that Nicholson left Jinete’s office on No-
vember 15 as he was being issued a warning. GC Exh. 33.
50 Vitello’s testimony, his written statement, and Jinete’s written de-
scription of the meeting all indicate clearly that there was no determina-
tion to discharge Nicholson that day. Jinete never modified Vitello’s
description of the “action taken” to indicate anything other than that
“future occurrences will lead to suspension/or termination.” Tr. 104–
106; GC Exh. 26, pp. 2–3.
51 Here, again, Jinete was not credible as to when she truly made the
determination to discharge Nicholson. The discharge letter was simply
inconsistent with the document generated she and Vitello generated
from the short-lived meeting on November 15, Tr. 64–65, 293; GC
Exh. 27.
52 That statement was not credible, as Nicholson was clearly trying
to force the issue by returning to work prematurely.
then informed Nicholson that the Respondent decided to dis-
charge him. Nicholson asked why and Vitello responded that it
was due to insubordination. Nicholson asked for the basis of the
insubordination. Vitello responded that he had walked out of a
meeting while Jinete was issuing him a warning. Vitello then
asked Nicholson to clear out his locker, and Nicholson com-
plied. Vitello then documented this encounter.53
9. Surveillance of employee picketing activity
On October 31, Speller wrote to Jinete informing her that
“all employees in the petitioned for unit(s) at your institution
will conduct informational picketing, at your institution, on
their own time on Wednesday, November 16, 2005, from 2:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m.” Jinete received the letter.54 She did not re-
spond to the letter or take any other action until 1:45 p.m. on
November 16, when she contacted the Greenburgh Police De-
partment. The police report summary stated:
At the above time and location undersigned and [squad car]
86 responded to Sprain Manor Nursing Home where there
were approximately 12 picketers assembled. The picketers
were orderly and were not blocking the driveway to the above
facility. Greg [Speller] stated that he anticipated 40–50 pick-
eters at maximum and that they would not [encroach] on the
property of the above facility. 86 is to remain at location until
relieved by the outgoing 63. The work action is to end at 1700
hours.55
In fact, a group of approximately 20–30 employees and un-
ion organizers congregated on the grassy area adjacent to the
parking lot. The picket lasted between 2 to 3 hours. Members of
the group wore union T-shirts and caps, carried signs, chanted
slogans, and generally walked in a circle around a large tree in
the grassy area between the road and the Sprain Brook Manor
parking lot. However, a very brief portion of the picket was
filmed and broadcast by Channel 12 and broadcast later that
day. That film shows, at one point, most of the picketers stand-
ing on the grassy area, but about six picketers standing just off
the grassy area on the driveway. Nogueira and Nicholson were
interviewed and made statements in support of the Union. Dur-
ing the picket, members of management stood in front of the
nursing home observing the activity. They included Klein,
Jinete, Farenga, Vitello, Eleanor and Christine Miscioscia, Ed-
ward Book, Formisano, and Jeff Frylock, the Respondent’s
director of recreation, Ridgeway, and several security guards
stood near the building observing the participants. Miscioscia
took photographs of the employees as they picketed. A police
officer sat in his car in the parking lot throughout the event.56
Later that day, Jinete was also interviewed by Channel 12 and
read a prepared statement explaining that certain action was
justified because of objectionable conduct. Ellen Miscioscia
saw the news report of the picket that day and notified Jinete
who viewed a tape of the broadcast a couple of days later.57

53 Tr. 108, 295–297; GC Exh. 33.
54 GC Exh. 25; Tr. 60.
55 Tr. 45, 63, 441; GC Exh. 22, pp. 13–15.
56 Tr. 157–158, 247–248, 293–295, 439; GC Exh. 22, p. 15.
57 Nogueira, Warren, and Jinete were all less than credible on the is-
sue of where the picketers stood during the event. Nogueira and Warren
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1204
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The 8(a)(1) Charges
The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) by: interrogating employees; soliciting griev-
ances; promising benefits; threatening to discharge employees,
reduce overtime, impose more onerous working conditions;
stating that it would be futile to support the Union; conducting
surveillance, summoning police, and hiring security guards.
The Respondent denies the allegations and maintains that it
acted at all times within the permissible bounds in opposing
organizational activities and protecting life and property at the
nursing home.
Under Section 8(a)(1), it is an unfair labor practice for an
employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.” It is well estab-
lished that, in determining whether an employer has violated
Section 8(a)(1), the test is objective, not subjective. Multi-Ad
Services, 331 NLRB 1226, 1228 fn. 9 (2000). Animus toward
the Union is not a required element of 8(a)(1) violations.
Rather, the test is whether the employer’s conduct may rea-
sonably be seen as tending to interfere with Section 7 rights.
Naomi Knitting Plant, 328 NLRB 1279, 1280 (1999); William-
house of California, 317 NLRB 699, 713 (1995); American
Freightways Co., 124 NLRB 146, 147 (1959).
1. Threats
During the organizational campaign, Klein, Vitello, and
Miscioscia threatened to reduce overtime and impose more
onerous working conditions if the Union prevailed in the elec-
tion. Prior to the election, Klein and Vitello each warned
Nicholson that working conditions, including free meals, breaks
outside the nursing home, late arrivals, and early departures
would change if the Union prevailed. After the election, the
Respondent’s threats continued. In early October and mid-
November, Klein met with dietary staff and warned that any
employees engaged in picketing or other union activity would
be discharged. Threatening employees with reprisals if they
engage in union or other concerted protected activities has re-
peatedly been found to have a coercive effect on employee
Section 7 activity. United Scrap Metal, Inc., 344 NLRB 467,
472 (2005). This includes threats that explicitly or implicitly
threatening employees with the loss of fringe benefits or jobs,
or other negative consequences. DynCorp, 343 NLRB 1197,
1199 (2004); Holsum de Puerto Rico, Inc., 344 NLRB 694, 711
(2005); Sheraton Hotel Waterbury, 312 NLRB 304, 305 (1993).
Under the circumstances, the Respondent’s threats to discharge
employees and/or reduce overtime opportunities and impose
more onerous work conditions violated Section 8(a)(1).

denied that anyone from the group ever stood on the driveway, a fact
contradicted by the videotape, which was provided by the General
Counsel. Tr. 157, 256–258; GC Exh. 29. Another employee, Bartko,
could not recall if anyone “ever” walked into the driveway. Although
the record indicates that, when pressed on this issue, Bartko said, “no,”
at the time she was moving her head from side to side, indicating that
she was trying to recall such an instance. As such, that follow-up an-
swer was consistent with a failure to recall anyone standing on the
driveway. Tr. 184. Jinete, meanwhile, could not recall whether there
were ever times when the group stood on the grass area. Tr. 62–63.
2. Interrogation of employees
In August, Klein, the highest ranking member of manage-
ment, met individually in his office with employees about the
union campaign. In his meetings with Warren and Nicholson,
he inquired as to employees’ knowledge of the organizing cam-
paign and their views of the campaign. Klein asked if they
knew anything about this “stuff” or “garbage” floating around
the compound. He did not assure either of them that there
would not be consequences to their actions. Under the circum-
stances, the questioning clearly sought to evoke the union sym-
pathies of each of them in a manner that reasonably tends to
restrain, coerce, or interfere with Section 7 rights. Angotti
Healthcare Systems, Inc., 346 NLRB 1311, 1316 (2006); Jef-
ferson Smurfit Corp., 325 NLRB 280, 285 (1998); Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177 (1984); NLRB v. Shelby Memo-
rial Hospital Assn., 1 F.3d 550, 559 (7th Cir. 1993). Indeed,
Klein’s reference to the union material as “garbage” conveyed
his contempt for it, as well as a sense of unspecified reprisals.
Hialeah Hospital, 343 391, 392 (2004). Accordingly, Klein’s
questioning constituted unlawful interrogation in violation of
Section 8(a)(1).
3. Solicitation of grievances
In September, Klein met privately in his office with employ-
ees, including Alonso and Nogueira. He asked Alonso to share
her grievances and urged Nogueira to communicate her griev-
ances with Mrs. Book, who would then communicate them to
Mr. Klein. He promised to do whatever was necessary to make
things better for them. The statements were made during the
heat of the organizational campaign and were clearly intended
to discourage Alonso and Nogueira from supporting the Union.
The Board has held that an inquiry regarding an employee’s
complaints are prohibited, coercive conduct if it carries an im-
plied promise to remedy those concerns if employees discon-
tinue union activity. The Jewish Home for the Elderly of Fair-
field County, 343 NLRB 1069, 1090–1093 (2004); Orbit
Lightspeed Courier Systems, 323 NLRB 380 (1997); Reno Hil-
ton, 319 NLRB 1154, 1156 (1995); Reliance Electric Co., 191
NLRB 44, 46 (1971). Under the circumstances, Klein’s solicita-
tion of grievances from Alonso and Nogueira violated Section
8(a)(1).
4. Surveillance of employees
On numerous occasions before and after the representation
election, numerous members of the Respondent’s management
personnel, including Klein, Jinete, Miscioscia, Vitello, Formis-
ano, Farenga, and Edward Book visibly observed employees in
the facility’s parking lot as they engaged in assorted campaign
activity, including marching, chanting, cheering, calling out to
passing cars, and picketing. They watched from office windows
or from the front of the facility. In addition, during an informa-
tional picket on November 16, Miscioscia also photographed
employees.
An employer’s mere observation of open, public union activ-
ity on or near its property does not constitute unlawful surveil-
lance. Fred’k Wallace & Son, Inc., 331 NLRB 914 (2000). In
this instance, management personnel frequently observed em-
ployee union activity in the parking lot. The focal point of un-
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1205
ion activity was visible to all who entered, exited, and parked
on the Respondent’s property. Attempting to sell their case to
other employees and the public, the union supporters were in-
tentionally loud. As such, it is not reasonable to believe that
management’s mere observation of employees’ public union
activity would reasonably tend to coerce employees and such
conduct did not violate Section 8(a)(1). Photographing employ-
ees engaged in lawful picketing, however, tends to intimidate
by instilling fear of future reprisals. Miscioscia did not offer a
legitimate justification for doing so on November 16 and, under
the circumstances, her conduct amounted to unlawful surveil-
lance and photographing of employees in violation of Section
8(a)(1). Athens Disposal Co., 315 NLRB 87, 98 (1994).
5. Summoning the police and hiring an armed guard
An employer can take reasonable steps to prevent non-
employees from trespassing onto private property. North Hills
Office Services, 345 NLRB 1262, 1266 (2005). Either Jinete or
Miscioscia called the Greenburgh Police Department on several
occasions before and after the representation election. They
also hired an armed security guard during the organizational
campaign. The evidence established that union proponents, on
some occasions, were standing in the paved portion of the park-
ing lot and not on the grassy area. Although I did not find suf-
ficient evidence to indicate that they blocked traffic, Judge
Green, in his decision, did note that the preelection conduct of
both sides was quite contentious. Based on the record, however,
it is impossible to determine the extent to which traffic flow
may have been impeded or opponents of the Union harassed or
intimidated. Under the circumstances, it is impossible to say
that the Respondent did not have a legitimate reason for re-
questing a police presence during picketing or hiring an armed
security guard. See Great Scot, Inc., 309 NLRB 548, 549
(1992); Tecumseh Foodland, 294 NLRB 486 (1989). Further-
more, there was no evidence that the armed security guard con-
ducted surveillance of employees while they engaged in con-
certed protected activity. The mere presence of a security guard
alone does not amount to unlawful surveillance. Villa Maria
Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, 335 NLRB 1345, 1350
(2001). Accordingly, I shall dismiss these two allegations.
6. Statements suggesting futility in supporting the Union
In early October and on December 23, Klein told dietary
staff that no one was going to tell him how to run the nursing
home. His statements were made following a representation
election that resulted in a successful vote for the Union, picket-
ing, and frequent police action. Under the circumstances,
Klein’s statements to staff indicated that it would be futile for
such employees to support the Union and violated Section
8(a)(1). Goya Foods, 347 NLRB 1118, 1135 (2006).
B. The 8(a)(5) Charges
The Respondent reduced overtime during the week ending
September 22, and continued such reductions after the election.
The Respondent reviewed its 2004–2005 fiscal records in June,
noticed that overtime costs had increased, but did not consider
it significant at the time. As a result, neither Edward Book nor
Klein did anything about it, until September. The timing of the
action, especially after threatening to cut overtime if employees
supported the Union, strongly suggests that it was not based on
a legitimate business purpose. Classic Sofa, Inc., 346 NLRB
219, 223 (2006). In addition, in late October or early Novem-
ber, the Respondent awarded an across-the-board $1 hourly
wage increase for all bargaining unit employees. There is no
indication that the increase was based on a regular practice.
Before taking such action, however, the Respondent did not
provide the Union with notice or give it an opportunity to bar-
gain. The Respondent changed this term and condition of em-
ployment after the election, but before union certification, “at
its peril.” Mike O’Connor Chevrolet, 209 NLRB 701 (1979). It
lost this gamble when Judge Green’s Decision and Order certi-
fying the union was affirmed by the Board on March 1, 2006.
Under the circumstances, the wage increase violated Section
8(a)(5). Flying Foods Group, Inc., 345 NLRB 101, 104 (2005).
C. The 8(a)(3) Charges
The consolidated complaint alleges that Nicholson and
Alonso were discharged, Nogueira was disciplined and over-
time pay opportunities were reduced as a result of the discrimi-
nation by the Respondent and tended to discourage membership
in the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
An employer violates Section 8(a)(3) by taking adverse ac-
tion against an employee because the employee engages in, or
is suspected of engaging in, union activities. Mays Electric Co.,
343 NLRB 121, 134 (2004). Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083 (1980), enfd. 602 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981, cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982), the General Counsel has the initial burden
of establishing that union activity was a motivating factor in the
Respondent’s action alleged to constitute discrimination in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The elements required to
support such prima facie violations of Section 8(a)(3) are union
activity, employer knowledge of the activity, adverse action
against the employee, and a connection between the employer’s
union activity and the adverse action. Once the General Coun-
sel has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the
Respondent to show it would have, and not merely could have,
terminated an employee even in the absence of protected activ-
ity. Chadbury Beverages, Inc. v. NLRB, 160 F.3d 24, 31 (D.C.
Cir. 1998).
There is no dispute that the Respondent had prior knowledge
of the union activities of Nogueria, Alonso, Nicholson, Bartko,
and Ridgeway. Nogueira was a union observer at the election.
Nogueira and Bartko wore colors in support of the Union on
Wednesdays. Nogueira and Nicholson were interviewed by
television and newspaper reporters. All appeared in literature
promoting the Union and participated in shift change meetings
that were observed by management. It is also undisputed that
the Respondent was hostile toward unionization, as docu-
mented in its oppositional literature during the campaign and in
statements by Klein, Jinete, Vitello, and Miscioscia to employ-
ees. The Respondent denies, however, that any disciplinary
actions or reductions in overtime were attributable to union
activity.
Improper employer motivation is frequently established by
circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from several fac-
tors, including: the Respondent’s known hostility toward un-
ionization coupled with knowledge of an employee’s union
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1206
activities; pretextual, and shifting reasons given for the em-
ployee’s discharge; the timing between an employee’s union
activities and the discharge; and the failure to adequately inves-
tigate alleged misconduct. Temp Masters, Inc., 344 NLRB
1188, 1195–1196 (2005); Promedica Health Systems, 343
NLRB 1351, 1367 (2004). All of these factors are present.
Alonso, a 17-year employee with excellent performance rat-
ings and no history of prior warnings, was discharged on Sep-
tember 26, just 4 days after the representation election. The
bases of the discharge were the incidents of August 22 and
September 26. Although these minor altercations did occur,
Jinete did not conduct a meaningful or objective investigation
of either one. Instead, she relied solely on Gjelaj’s version of
the September 26 incident. In preparing the basis for the dis-
charge, Gjelaj also told Jinete about the August 22 incident.
Although it was not significant enough to report to Jinete at the
time it occurred, Jinete proceeded to “paper” the file with a
statement about that incident as well. In doing so, Jinete relied
exclusively on the version of Gjelaj, an employee with a check-
ered employment history. The statement was never shown to
Alonso and there was clearly no meeting about that incident on
August 30. On August 30, Jinete called Alonso into a meeting,
but only to counsel her for gossiping about Gjelaj. A sign-in
sheet was generated only for that meeting. Under the circum-
stances, I found that Jinete’s statement, dated August 30,
Katrina Gjelaj’s undated statement, and Capozza’s undated
statement, were all generated on September 26, just prior to
Jinete’s meeting with Alonso. Furthermore, they were gener-
ated for the purpose of bolstering the case for Alonso’s dis-
charge.
Nicholson, a dietary aide since 2000, was discharged on No-
vember 16. The basis for the discharge was that he walked out
of a counseling meeting with Jinete and Vitello on November
15. After hearing Jinete mention that he posted union flyers
earlier in the day, Nicholson asked to be excused so he could
get a paper and pencil. I found that he was excused. He then
decided to ask Warren to accompany him to the meeting be-
cause he reasonably believed that the interview could lead to
disciplinary action. See NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S.
251 (1975). He told this to Vitello, who rejected the request that
he be accompanied by Warren in the meeting. Vitello sent
Nicholson home and returned to Jinete’s office. I have no doubt
that Vitello reported his discussion with Nicholson to Jinete,
who then proceeded to write a false statement that Nicholson
walked out of the meeting without explanation and did not
return.
As a matter of law, Nicholson’s request for representation by
a coworker was not a reasonable request, since Nicholson was
not yet represented by the Union. IBM Corp.,341 NLRB 1288
(2004). Nevertheless, Jinete did not decide to discharge Nichol-
son that day. Instead, she decided, as she wrote on the counsel-
ing form, that future occurrences would result in suspension or
termination. Such a future occurrence turned out to be the in-
formational picket on November 16, in which Nicholson par-
ticipated and was interviewed by Channel 12. As a result, Jinete
decided to discharge him that day.
On October 28, Vitello issued Nogueira a written warning
for leaving the nursing home without telling a supervisor. The
Respondent indeed had such a policy, but it was not enforced
prior to October 28. It was usually sufficient for Nogueira and
other employees to tell another employee they were leaving the
facility if a supervisor was not around.
Lastly, the Respondent reduced the overtime hours of No-
gueira, Bartko, and Ridgeway during the week of the election
and that continued for a time after the election. During the elec-
tion week, Bartko asked Miscioscia why she was not scheduled
for a sixth day of work and Miscioscia told her there would be
no more overtime if the Union prevailed. After the election,
there was still no overtime in the nursing, housekeeping, and
laundry departments. By December, Ridgeway’s overtime was
restored at Klein’s direction. That month, Bartko inquired about
having her overtime restored, but it was not restored until
March. Nogueira inquired as to the restoration of her overtime
in March, but Gerosa informed her the next day that she could
not be assigned to overtime work as a CNA because she was
assigned full-time to the laundry room. This explanation was
false, since Nogueira, a licensed CNA, had performed weekend
part-time work as a CNA since 1999, and that point had never
been raised.
Based on the foregoing, the discharges of Alonso and
Nicholson, Nogueira’s counseling, and the reduction in over-
time opportunities were pretextual for the Respondent’s retalia-
tion for their activity in support of the Union. Having deter-
mined that the General Counsel met its burden under Wright-
Line, the burden shifted to the Respondent to show that it
would have, even in the absence of union activity, taken such
action.
In the absence of their union activity, there is no evidence
that either Alonso or Nicholson would have been discharged.
Nicholson may not have been legally justified in refusing to
return to the meeting without Warren, but Jinete documented
that he was not going to be suspended or fired that day. That
would occur only in the event of future occurrences. With re-
spect to Alonso, the evidence strongly indicates that, based on
the Respondent’s custom and practice, termination for fight-
ing—and this was far from it—was a drastic remedy rarely
applied in even the worst cases. In early September, CNAs
Gloria Smith and Paula Thomas engaged in an extremely vio-
lent and physical brawl in the dining room. Nogueira suffered a
minor injury to her hands attempting to break up the fight, and
the police was summoned. Neither employee was discharged as
a result of the incident.58 It is hard to imagine how Alonso’s
altercation with Bartko even comes close to the Smith-Thomas
altercation.
Given the threats of Klein, Vitello, and Miscioscia to elimi-
nate overtime if the Union prevailed in the election, and Klein’s
unexplained reason for waiting until just before the election to
request employees’ overtime pay information, it is unlikely that
the Respondent would have reduced overtime pay in the ordi-
nary course of its business in September.

58 I based this finding on Nogueira’s credible and unrefuted testi-
mony. Tr. 154–157. I did not, however, give any weight to a 1989
incident involving CNA Carmen Smith’s treatment of a patient, as that
was too remote in time to be relevant. GC Exh. 44.
SPRAIN BROOK MANOR NURSING HOME, LLC 1207
Under the circumstances, the disciplinary action taken
against Alonso, Nicholson, and Nogueira, as well as the reduc-
tions in overtime to Nogueira, Bartko, and Ridgeway, were
implemented in retaliation for their activity in support of the
Union, and were, therefore, unlawful and violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees with reprisals if they engaged
in union activity, interrogating employees about their union
sympathies, soliciting employee grievances, photographing and
placing employees under surveillance while they engaged in
protected concerted activity, and telling employees that it
would be futile to support the Union, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By increasing employees’ wages without providing the
Union, whom had prevailed in the representation election, no-
tice or opportunity to bargain, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By discharging Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson,
counseling Clarissa Nogueira, and reducing the overtime hours
of Nogueira, Karen Bartko, and Marjorie Ridgeway, all because
they engaged in protected concerted activity, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By engaging in the conduct described above, the Respon-
dent has committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act as al-
leged.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having discrimina-
torily discharged Catherine Alonso and Alvin Nicholson, it
must offer them reinstatement. In addition, the Respondent
shall make Alonso, Nicholson, Clarissa Nogueira, Karen
Bartko and Marjorie Ridgeway whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from date of
discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, or for the
period they were unlawfully denied overtime work opportuni-
ties, whichever is applicable, less any net interim earnings, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987). Finally, the Respondent having discrimina-
torily counseled Clarissa Nogueira, it must remove from its
files any reference to such discipline.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]