TR & SNF, Inc. d/b/a The Nursing Center at University Village and TALF, Inc. d/b/a The Inn at Univer

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 2018

367 NLRB No. 43 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

367 NLRB No. 43
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
TR & SNF, INC. d/b/a The Nursing Center at Uni-
versity Village and TALF, Inc. d/b/a The Inn at
University Village and 1199 SEIU, United
Healthcare Workers East, Florida Region. Case
12–CA–170290
November 29, 2018
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement
agreement. Upon a charge filed by 1199 SEIU, United
Healthcare Workers East, Florida Region (the Union), on
February 23, 2016, the General Counsel issued the com-
plaint on June 30, 2016, against TR & SNF, Inc. d/b/a
The Nursing Center at University Village and TALF, Inc.
d/b/a The Inn at University Village (collectively, the Re-
spondent), alleging that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. On July 22,
2016, the Respondent filed an answer to the complaint.1
Subsequently, the Respondent and the Union executed
an informal settlement agreement, which was approved
by the Regional Director for Region 12 on March 7,
2017. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement,
the Respondent agreed, among other things, to (1) upon
request of the Union, rescind the health insurance bene-
fits changes that were implemented on October 1, 2015,
and restore the preexisting benefits; (2) reimburse, with
interest, the employees named in the Appendix to the
settlement agreement for medical expenses incurred as a
result of the Respondent’s unilateral changes to their
health insurance; (3) bargain with the Union and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment for the unit employees; and (4) post at its Tam-
pa, Florida facilities the approved notice in the manner
prescribed in the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement also contained the following
provision:
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-
compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement

1 The Respondent initially submitted a document as an answer on
July 13, 2016, which was deemed insufficient because it did not specif-
ically admit or deny the allegations of the complaint. The Respondent
was notified of these defects and it then requested and was granted
permission to file an untimely answer, which it did on July 22, 2016.
Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days no-
tice from the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board of such non-compliance without rem-
edy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will
reissue the Complaint previously issued on June 30,
2016 in case 12–CA–170290. Thereafter, the General
Counsel may file a Motion for Default Judgment with
the Board on the allegations of the Complaint. The
Charged Party understands and agrees that all of the al-
legations of the aforementioned Complaint will be
deemed admitted and its Answer will be considered
withdrawn. The only issue that may be raised before
the Board is whether the Charged Party defaulted on
the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The Board
may then, without necessity of trial or any other pro-
ceeding, find the allegations of the Complaint to be true
and make findings of fact and conclusions of law con-
sistent with those allegations adverse to the Charged
Party on those issues raised by the pleadings. The
Board may then issue an Order providing a full remedy
for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy
such violations. The parties further agree that a U.S.
Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered enforcing
the Board Order ex parte, after service or attempted
service upon Charged Party at the last address provided
to the General Counsel.
By letter dated March 13, 2017, the Region advised the
Respondent of the steps necessary to comply with the
terms of the settlement agreement, and informed the Re-
spondent that it was required to notify Region 12 in writ-
ing by no later than March 27, 2017, as to what steps it
had taken to comply. Subsequently, the Respondent re-
turned to the Regional Office the Certification of Com-
pliance (Part One). On that form, the Respondent indi-
cated that notices were posted on March 24, 2017, but it
failed to set forth the specific locations of posting, as
required by that form. The Respondent also returned the
Certification of Compliance (Part Two), which requests
information about the steps that the Respondent has tak-
en to comply with the other affirmative provisions of the
settlement agreement. Although the Respondent signed
that form, it did not provide the requested information.
On April 6, 2017, the Acting Regional Director, by
email and certified mail, advised the Respondent that it
had not complied with the settlement agreement because
it had failed to send to Region 12 checks for the employ-
ees remedying the unilateral changes, and had failed to
properly complete part two of the Certification of Com-
pliance. The letter further advised the Respondent that if
its noncompliance was not cured by April 20, 2017, the
Regional Director would reissue the complaint that was
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
previously issued on June 30, 2016, and that it may then
file a motion for default judgment with the Board. The
Respondent failed to comply.2
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the noncompli-
ance provision of the settlement agreement, on May 2,
2017, the General Counsel reissued the complaint. On
May 3, 2017, the General Counsel filed a Motion for
Default Judgment with the Board, and, on May 4, 2017,
the General Counsel filed a Corrected Motion for Default
Judgment. On May 17, 2017, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to
Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The
Respondent filed no response. The allegations in the
motion are therefore undisputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent has failed to
pay the amounts provided for in the settlement agreement
or otherwise comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement. Therefore, the General Counsel seeks an
order requiring the Respondent to take the following af-
firmative action:3 (1) upon request of the Union, rescind
the October 1, 2015 health insurance benefits changes
and restore the preexisting benefits; (2) reimburse, with
interest, the employees named in the Appendix to the
settlement agreement for medical expenses incurred as a
result of the Respondent’s unilateral changes to their
health insurance in the amounts set forth in the Appen-
dix; (3) bargain with the Union and put in writing and
sign any agreement reached with respect to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment for the
unit employees. Consequently, pursuant to the noncom-
pliance provisions of the settlement agreement set forth
above, we find that the Respondent’s answer to the origi-
nal complaint has been withdrawn and all of the allega-

2 The motion for default judgment indicates that the April 6, 2017,
letter was subsequently returned as “unclaimed” by the Postal Service
to the Regional Office. However, it is well settled that a respondent’s
failure or refusal to accept certified mail or to provide for receiving
appropriate service cannot serve to defeat the purposes of the Act. See
Cray Construction Group, LLC, 341 NLRB 944, 944 fn. 5 (2004);
I.C.E. Electric, Inc., 339 NLRB 247, 247 fn. 2 (2003).
3 The General Counsel also seeks an order that the Respondent
cease and desist from its unfair labor practices as set forth in the Notice
to Employees attached to the settlement agreement. Because that no-
tice encompasses the Respondent’s obligation to cease and desist and
the notice was apparently posted, we need not include a cease-and-
desist order here. In this regard, we note that the General Counsel does
not assert that the Notice to Employees was not appropriately posted in
accordance with the settlement despite its failure to fully complete part
one of the Certification of Compliance and does not seek an affirmative
notice-posting remedy. Accordingly, we do not order notice-posting
here. See, e.g., Alaris at Hamilton Park Health Care Center, 366
NLRB No. 90, slip op. at 3 fn. 4 (2018).
tions in the reissued complaint are true.4 Accordingly,
we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Default
Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, The Nursing Center at University
Village (Respondent Nursing) has been a Florida corpo-
ration with an office and place of business located at
12250 N. 22nd Street, Tampa, Florida (Tampa, Florida
facility), and has been engaged in the operation of a
skilled nursing facility providing long-term healthcare
and rehabilitative services to residents.
During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the
complaint, Respondent Nursing, in conducting its busi-
ness operations described above, derived gross revenues
in excess of $100,000, and purchased and received at its
Tampa, Florida facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Florida.
We find that Respondent Nursing is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
At all material times, The Inn at University Village
(Respondent Inn) has been a Florida corporation with an
office and place of business located at 12250 N. 22nd
Street, Tampa, Florida (Tampa, Florida facility), and has
been engaged in the operation of an assisted living facili-
ty, providing assistance with daily living activities to
residents.
During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the
complaint, Respondent Inn, in conducting its business
operations described above, derived gross revenues in
excess of $250,000, and purchased and received at its
Tampa, Florida facility goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Florida.
We find that Respondent Inn is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
At all material times, Respondent Nursing and Re-
spondent Inn have been affiliated business enterprises
with common officers, ownership, directors, manage-
ment and supervision; have formulated and administered
a common labor policy; have shared common premises
and facilities; have provided services for and made sales
to each other; have interchanged personnel with each
other; have interrelated operations within the same con-
tinuing care retirement community; and have held them-
selves out to the public as a single-integrated business
enterprise.

4 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
TR & SNF, INC. D/B/A THE NURSING CENTER AT UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 3
AND TALF, INC. D/B/A THE INN AT UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
Based on their operations described above, Respondent
Nursing and Respondent Inn constitute a single-
integrated business enterprise and a single employer
within the meaning of the Act.
We find that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names
and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Jeannette Baltzly Skilled Nursing Facility Ad-
ministrator
Sandra Dinero Human Resources Director,
University Village
Marc Flores Executive Director
Douglas Klinowski Chief Executive Officer
Nicole Maragh Director of Human Resources
Larry Prescott Assisted Living Facility Ad-
ministrator
At all material times, the following employees of the
Respondent (the unit), have constituted a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All non-supervisory associates employed at The Nurs-
ing Center at University Village (recognizing that li-
censed nurses are required by Florida statute to have
certain supervisory responsibilities and training) and
The Inn at University Village, excluding guards, super-
visors, and confidential associates and associates work-
ing less than fifteen (15) hours per pay period.
Since about 2004, a more precise date being presently
unknown, the Respondent has recognized the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
unit. This recognition has been embodied in successive
collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of
which was effective by its terms from February 1, 2013,
to December 31, 2015, and which was extended to Feb-
ruary 29, 2016.
At all times since about 2004, a more precise date be-
ing presently unknown, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,
the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
About September 4, 2015, the Respondent announced
to employees in the unit that open enrollment for new
health care insurance benefits of employees in the unit
that were to be implemented on or about October 1,
2015, would be held on or about September 11, 2015.
About October 1, 2015, the Respondent implemented,
and since then has maintained, new health insurance ben-
efits for unit employees.
The subject set forth above relates to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the unit and
is a mandatory subject for purposes of collective bargain-
ing.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above without prior notice to the Union and without af-
fording the Union an opportunity to bargain with the
Respondent with respect to this conduct or with respect
to the effects of this conduct.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the conduct described above, the Respondent has
been failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its unit
employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Specifically, we shall order the Respondent
to comply with the unmet terms of the settlement agree-
ment approved by the Regional Director for Region 12
on March 7, 2017. Accordingly, we shall order the Re-
spondent to make the unit employees whole for the loss-
es they suffered because of the unlawful unilateral
changes to their health insurance coverage, by paying the
amounts listed in the Appendix to the settlement agree-
ment, plus interest accrued to the date of payment,5 at the
rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky
River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). We shall
also order the Respondent to comply with the other set-
tlement provisions, including the provisions requiring the
Respondent to: rescind, upon request of the Union, the
health insurance benefits changes that were implemented
on October 1, 2015, and restore the health insurance ben-
efits that existed immediately preceding the implementa-
tion of those changes; bargain in good faith with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit concerning wages, hours of work, and other
terms and conditions of employment and embody any

5 See Performance Cleaning Group, 360 NLRB No. 99, slip op. at 3
(2014) (not reported in Board volumes).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
understanding in a signed agreement; and notify the Re-
gional Director in writing of the steps the Respondent
has taken to comply with the settlement.
In limiting our affirmative remedies to those enumer-
ated above, we are mindful that the General Counsel is
empowered under the default provision of the settlement
agreement to seek “a full remedy for the violations found
as is appropriate to remedy such violations,” including
backpay beyond that specified in the agreement.6 How-
ever, in his Motion for Default Judgment, the General
Counsel has not requested a “full remedy,” and we will
not, sua sponte, order one.7
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, TR & SNF, Inc. d/b/a The Nursing Center at
University Village and TALF, Inc. d/b/a The Inn at Uni-
versity Village, Tampa, Florida, a single employer, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall take the
following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
1. Upon request of the Union, rescind the health in-
surance benefits changes that were implemented with
respect to unit employees on October 1, 2015, and re-
store the health insurance benefits that existed immedi-
ately preceding the implementation of those changes.
2. Make whole the employees named in the Appendix
to the settlement agreement for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the changes to their
health insurance benefits on October 1, 2105, by pay-
ment to each of them of the backpay and interest
amounts shown in the Appendix, with additional interest
accrued to the date of payment. The total amount due

6 As set forth above, the settlement agreement provided that, in case
of noncompliance, the Board could “issue an order providing a full
remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy such viola-
tions.”
7 See, e.g., Benchmark Mechanical, Inc., 348 NLRB 576 (2006). In
his Motion for Default Judgment, the General Counsel states that the
Respondent “failed to pay employees the amounts owed or demonstrate
compliance with the other terms of the Agreement,” and requests,
among other things, that the Board order the Respondent to “cease and
desist from its unfair labor practices as set forth in the Notice to Em-
ployees attached to the Settlement Agreement” and to “reimburs[e]
employees for medical expenses and interest amounts as provided for
in the Settlement Agreement.” (Emphasis added.) In these circum-
stances, we construe the General Counsel’s motion as a request to
enforce the unmet terms of the settlement agreement, and not as a re-
quest for a “full remedy.” See Perkins Management Services, 365
NLRB No. 90 (2017) (construing General Counsel’s motion for default
judgment to seek enforcement of unmet settlement terms); see also
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. d/b/a PLS Logistics Services, 366
NLRB No. 36, slip op. at 2 fn. 4 (2018) (construing General Counsel’s
statement, made in motion for default judgment, that respondent had
failed to demonstrate compliance with settlement agreement as request
to enforce unmet terms of settlement agreement).
under the settlement agreement, before additional interest
is calculated, is $53,325.06.
3. Bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit, concerning wages,
hours of work, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement.
All non-supervisory associates employed at The Nurs-
ing Center at University Village (recognizing that li-
censed nurses are required by Florida statute to have
certain supervisory responsibilities and training) and
The Inn at University Village, excluding guards, super-
visors, and confidential associates and associates work-
ing less than fifteen (15) hours per pay period.
4. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 12 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 29, 2018
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
______________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD