Urban Shelters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1330 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1330
313 NLRB No. 238
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 In its exceptions, the Respondent contends that the certification
of Local 722 as the representative of the licensed practical nurses
(LPNs) is contrary to the Act because the LPNs are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. We find no merit in this contention.
Local 722 filed a petition in May 1988 in Case 5–RC–13061 seeking
to represent the Respondent’s LPNs. Following a hearing, in his De-
cision and Direction of Election dated December 18, 1990, the Re-
gional Director found that the Respondent failed to meet its burden
of establishing that the LPNs are statutory supervisors. The Regional
Director concluded that the LPNs possess neither the authority to
evaluate and discipline nursing assistants, nor do they possess any
other indicia of supervisory authority. On January 14, 1991, the
Board denied the Respondent’s request for review and certified
Local 722 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the LPNs in
June 1992. In its exceptions, the Respondent raises nothing warrant-
ing reconsideration of the supervisory issue regarding the LPNs.
Member Cohen notes that Local 82 is the certified representative
of the service and maintenance unit as well as the judge’s conclusion
that ‘‘Local 722 has been . . . designated by Local 82 as the exclu-
sive representative’’ of the employees in that unit. In Member
Cohen’s view, Respondent acquiesced in that designation. He there-
fore does not pass on the issue of whether Respondent could have
lawfully resisted that action ab initio.
1 The first unit includes the following employees:
All full-time and regular part-time employees, including nurs-
ing assistants, nursing assistants/supply clerks, ward clerks, die-
tary aides, housekeeping employees, maintenance assistants,
laundry aides and all other service and maintenance employees,
activities assistants and physical therapy aides employed at Re-
spondent’s facility, but excluding all clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
And the second unit includes the following employees:
All regular full-time and part-time licensed practical nurses
employed at Respondent’s facility, but excluding all other em-
ployees, clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Hereinafter the first unit will be referred to as unit 1 and the sec-
ond unit will be referred to as unit 2.
2 The unit includes the following employees:
All full-time and regular part-time employees employed in the
nursing department, including LPNs, nurses aids, ward clerks,
dietary employees, medical ward clerks, housekeeping employ-
ees and maintenance employees, but excluding all clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
Urban Shelters and Health Care Systems, Inc. and
Service Employees International Union, Local
722, AFL–CIO. Case 5–CA–23233
May 27, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHEN
On December 10, 1993, Administrative Law Judge
John H. West issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel filed an answering 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 de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and con-
clusions1 and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
Sherrie Black, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Joel Keiler, Esq. (Ammerman & Keiler), of Reston, Virginia,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN H. WEST, Administrative Law Judge. Upon a charge
filed by Service Employees International Union, Local 722,
AFL–CIO (Local 722) on December 31, 1992, a complaint
was issued February 8, 1993, alleging that Urban Shelters
and Health Care Systems, Inc., Respondent, violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) by
failing and refusing to furnish the Union with information re-
quested by it regarding two specified units and by failing and
refusing to meet and bargain with the Union concerning the
units.1 Respondent denies the allegations. It asserts that the
unfair labor practice charge is barred by Section 10(b) of the
Act, and that Respondent has no duty to bargain with Local
722 over a unit certified to Local 82 of the Service Employ-
ees International Union.
A hearing was held in Arlington, Virginia, on September
23 and 24, 1993. Upon the entire record in this case, includ-
ing my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and
consideration of the briefs filed on October 29, 1993, by
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is engaged in the operation of the J. B. John-
son Nursing Center in the District of Columbia. The com-
plaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that at all
times material herein Respondent has been an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act and that the Union has been at all times
material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Facts
Respondent, a health care management company, began
operating in 1984. It took over J. B. Johnson Nursing Home
within a year.
On May 16, 1983, Service Employees International Union,
Local 82, hereinafter referred to as Local 82, filed a petition
with the National Labor Relations Board (Board) in Case 5–
RC–11997 for certification of representative involving a
specified unit of employees of J. B. Johnson Nursing Home
in Washington, D.C.2 (G.C. Exh. 2(a).) By Decision and Di-
1331URBAN SHELTERS
3 The unit specified by the Regional Director is the same as that
set forth as unit 1 above in fn. 1, except that the Regional Director
specifically named the facility and the location, viz, J. B. Johnson
Nursing Center, Washington, D.C. At the time Continental Care, Inc.
was operating the involved facility.
4 The Regional Director, in his Supplemental Decision and Certifi-
cation of Representative, found that Respondent herein was the
Party-in-Interest in Case 5–RC–11997; that it met the Board’s juris-
dictional standards; and that it was a successor.
5 Smiley testified that the address and telephone number which
Littlejohn was given in the above-described mailgram were those of
Local 722.
rection of Election in 5–RC–11997 dated June 27, 1983
(G.C. Exh. 2(b)), the Board’s Regional Director for Region
5 directed an election among the employees in a specified
unit.3 In his Supplemental Decision and Certification of Rep-
resentative in Case 5–RC–11997 dated August 20, 1987
(G.C. Exh. 2(c)) the Regional Director certified Local 82 as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit described in footnote 3 above.4
Respondent admits, as alleged in amended paragraph 8 of
the complaint herein, that ‘‘since on or about October 13,
1987 Local 82 and the Service Employees International
Union, AFL–CIO has selected Marchel Smiley, president of
Local 722, as its agent to engage in collective bargaining
with respect to the employees in Unit 1, with the understand-
ing that any collective bargaining agreement entered into
would be with Local 82.’’
Local 82 sent the following mailgram (G.C. Exh. 4) to
Roy Littlejohn, president of Respondent, on October 13,
1987:
THIS LETTER IS TO SERVE AS NOTICE THAT
SEIU LOCAL 82 IS READY TO NEGOTIATE IN
THE CASE NUMBER 5–RC–11997 WITH THE JB
JOHNSON NURSING CENTER.
THE UNION WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH
YOU OR YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IMME-
DIATELY TO ESTABLISH THE GROUND RULES
AND NEGOTIATION DATE.
OUR CONTACT PERSON IS MARCHEL SMILEY
AT 1673 COLUMBIA ROAD NW APARTMENT 101
WASHINGTON DC 20009. HE CAN BE REACHED
BY PHONE AT 202–483–6221.
YOUR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE WOULD BE
GREATLY APPRECIATED.
SINCERELY
ARLENE NEAL PRESIDENT SEIU LOCAL 82
CC: MARCHEL SMILEY
LOUIS J D’AMICO, NLRB
Smiley testified that he attended preliminary meetings that
took place prior to contract negotiations with Respondent and
that Littlejohn, who represented Respondent at these prelimi-
nary discussions, did not object to him, Smiley, being present
as the bargaining agent for Local 82.5
On cross-examination Smiley testified that Local 722 ‘‘got
jurisdiction over all health care in Washington, D.C.’’ and ei-
ther the president of the International Union or his executive
assistant sent correspondence to Local 82 and Local 722 ap-
parently in December 1987. Smiley gave the following testi-
mony regarding the correspondence:
So the president or his designee, memorialized the
agreement that was reached between Local 722 and 82.
Basically they said that we will be—we will have full
responsibility for—Local 82—for J.B. Johnson Nursing
Home, we would negotiate the contract, and once we
negotiated, the contract, and if the contract called for
dues, which would be submitted to Local 82, they
would then submit the funds to Local 722. But we
would actually service the unit. We have the memo to
anything.
On redirect Smiley testified that Local 722 did not receive
dues from the employees who work at the J. B. Johnson
Nursing Home.
By letter dated October 29, 1987, from Smiley on station-
ery with Local 722’s letterhead to Joel Keiler, Respondent’s
attorney (R. Exh. 1), the former requested specified informa-
tion regarding ‘‘bargaining unit members.’’ By letter dated
December 8, 1987, from Smiley to Keiler (R. Exh. 2), the
former thanked the latter for supplying the requested infor-
mation and the former requested additional information. This
letter refers to a December 1, 1987 meeting between Smiley
and Keiler. Keiler’s notes of this meeting were received as
(R. Exh. 3). They, along with Smiley’s aforementioned De-
cember 8, 1987 letter, and his December 28, 1987, letter to
Keiler (G.C. Exh. 20), reflect that Smiley continued to ask
for information. Keiler forwarded to Smiley, ‘‘SEIU Local
722,’’ three letters dated December 12, and 20, 1987 and
January 4, 1988, (R. Exhs. 4, 5, and 6, respectively), refer-
ring, as here pertinent, to the information sought.
By letter dated February 2, 1988, to Keiler on Local 722’s
letterhead (R. Exh. 7), Smiley reiterated his request for cer-
tain information and he requested additional information.
Keiler replied by letter dated March 7, 1988 (R. Exh. 8).
On February 22, 1988 Local 722 in Case 5–RC–13032
(G.C. Exh. 16) filed a petition to represent all the following
employees:
All regular full-time and part-time licensed practical
nurses employed by the Employer at the J. B. Johnson
Nursing Center; excluding registered nurses, employees
represented for collective bargaining purposes by
S.E.I.U., Local 82, AFL–CIO, as stated in the certifi-
cation issued in Excluded Case 5–RC–11997, clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
By letter dated February 28, 1988 (G.C. Exh. 17), Keiler
advised Smiley as follows:
Re: 5–RC–13032
Dear Mr. Smiley:
Please be advised that my client, Urban Shelters &
Health Care Systems, Inc., recognizes your union as the
collective bargaining agent for the unit you described in
the above numbered case.
On February 29, 1988 Smiley forwarded the following let-
ter (G.C. Exh. 14), to Littlejohn on Local 722’s letterhead:
This letter is reference to our conversation of
2/25/88. The Union has no objections to USHCS giving
1332 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 Tr. 28, reads ‘‘72.’’ It is noted, however, that this same typo-
graphical error occurs on p. 29 of the transcript.
employees covered under 5–RC–11997 their annual pay
increase subject to the following conditions:
Prior to the dissemination of these monies USHCS
shall furnish to the Union:
A. The names and actual amount of increase to
each employee covered under 5–RC–11997 by de-
partments.
B. The date (pay period) when these increases are
effective.
C. Whether these proposed increases are annual
across the board increases or merit increases based
on evaluations.
The Union would much rather see our members get
this money as opposed to putting the money in an es-
crow account which will generate interest income for
USHCS.
On March 1, 1988, Littlejohn sent a two-page letter (G.C.
Exh. 13) to the District of Columbia’s Office of Long Term
Care Administration in which he indicated, as here pertinent,
You also are aware of the fact that we are involved
in collective bargaining with the SEIU #722 Union and
pursuant to NLRB rules, no salary increases can be
granted employees of the bargaining unit without first
getting permission from the Union for said increases.
The alternative is to place the amount of funds that
would be made available in an escrow account for the
employees, once a collective bargaining agreement is
arrived at.
We requested permission from the Union to raise the
wages of employees to a point allowed by our budget.
The Union took this matter under advisement and noti-
fied me by letter, which arrived yesterday, February 29,
1988, that raises could be given, provided certain con-
ditions are met. A copy of this letter is attached.
It is our intent to move forward to provide salary in-
creases to employees and to notify the Union accord-
ingly, consistent with their letter and consistent with
available funds in the budget.
On March 25, 1988 the Board’s Regional Director for Re-
gion 5 issued an order (G.C. Exh. 18) approving Local 722’s
request to withdraw the petition in Case 5–RC–13032.
Smiley testified that the first bargaining session he had
with Respondent occurred in April 1988, and that Keiler,
who represented Respondent at this session, did not raise any
objection to him, Smiley, being the representative for Local
82. This session took place at Local 722’s offices.6 Keiler
testified that at the April 11, 1988 session he was given a
proposed collective bargaining agreement (R. Exh. 9). The
cover sheet reads ‘‘BY AND BETWEEN URBAN SHEL-
TERS . . . AND . . . LOCAL 82’’ and page 1 under
‘‘AGREEMENT’’ (emphasis in original) reads ‘‘by and be-
tween Urban Shelters . . . and . . . Local 82.’’ The term of
the proposed agreement was February 1, 1988, to January 31,
1991. According to Respondent’s Exhibit 9, the bargaining
unit described in the Union’s proposal included all LPNs.
Page 1 of the Respondent’s counterproposal (R. Exh. 10),
reads ‘‘between Urban Shelters . . . and . . . Local 82.’’
under the topic heading ‘‘AGREEMENT.’’ Respondent’s pro-
posal specifically excluded LPN from the unit.
Keiler sent the following letter, dated April 12, 1988 to
Smiley (R. Exh. 11):
Mr. Marchel Smiley
SEIU, Local 722
1673 Columbia Road, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20009
Dear Mr. Smiley:
This is [to] memorialize the negotiating session of
April 11, 1988.
After introducing the committee to me, you began
negotiations by referring to the front cover of your pro-
posal. You stated that the dates were flexible and that
February 1, 1988 was merely the date that the proposal
had been prepared. I asked you why, then, you did not
supply me with a copy until April 8, 1988, the after-
noon of the last business day before negotiations. You
made no coherent answer.
I pointed out that the proposal was for Local 82 and
you were the president of Local 722. You said you
were an agent of Local 82. I asked you if we were also
bargaining for Local 722 based on the latest petition for
the LPN’s. You said you were negotiating for both. I
asked you how a Local 82 contract would cover both
units. You had no cogent answer but insisted on bar-
gaining for both units at the same time.
I asked if everything was the same as far as employ-
ees, supervision, and operations under Urban Shelters
as it had been under Continental Care Centers, Inc. You
and the committee said it was. I pointed out that the
NLRB had held that the LPN’s were supervisors and
that even your LPN unit in the NLRB petition excluded
supervisors. You said we had to bargain for the LPN’s
even though they were supervisors. I told you that I
would not bargain for supervisors. You told me to
leave. I said that before I leave I wanted you and the
committee to understanding that I would bargain for ev-
eryone but supervisors and that bargaining over super-
visors was a non-mandatory subject and I would not
bargain for them. You told me that you did not want
to hear it and said I should leave without making any
comments. I said I had one last comment and that was
that I would only bargain over non-supervisors and if
you insisted on bargaining for supervisors, I would not
be present at the scheduled April 19, 1988 meeting. I
asked you to call or write and let me know. You stated
that neither your nor the committee heard what I said.
I asked the committee if they heard me. They laughed
and said they did not. I repeated what I had said and
ended by stating that no April 19 meeting would take
place unless you informed me that you were dropping
your demand to negotiate over supervisors. At 3:25
P.M., I left.
If any of this is inaccurate, or you have a different
version, please respond by return mail.
By letters dated April 15, 1988 on Local 722’s letterhead
(G.C. Exhs. 21 and 22, respectively), Smiley advised Keiler
as follows:
1333URBAN SHELTERS
Dear Mr. Keiler:
This is in response to your letter to me dated
4/12/88. It is very apparent to me from your actions at
our meeting of 4/11/88 and your letter dated 4/12/88
that your imagination is only exceeded by your rude-
ness and unprofessionalism. Medical science has devel-
oped a cure for the illness from which you suffer.
The facts relating to the workers at J. B. Johnson are
as follows:
1. Local 82 S.E.I.U. was certified to represent work-
ers at J. B. Johnson listed in 5–RC–11997 on August
20, 1987.
2. Roy Littlejohn, President of Urban Shelters, was
notified by Arline Neal, President of Local 82 S.E.I.U.,
that I was appointed as an agent of Local 82 S.E.I.U.
with respect to negotiating a collective bargaining
agreement for employees covered under 5–RC–11997.
3. On February 22, 1988, I filed a petition on behalf
of Local 722, S.E.I.U. with the N.L.R.B. to represent
full and part-time LPN’s employed at J. B. Johnson in
5–RC–13032.
4. By letter dated February 28, 1988, Urban Shelters
and Health Care Systems, Inc. granted recognition to
Local 722, S.E.I.U. as the collective bargaining agent
for employees listed in 5–RC–13032.
5. I advised you in my letter dated 3/3/88 that we
intended to bargain jointly for both units 5–RC–11997
and 5–RC–13032, which were recognized by Urban
Shelters. I also proposed that we negotiate on March
11, 14, 16 or 17, 1988. Until you were stricken by your
illness at our meeting on 4/11/88, you had not given
any oral or written objections concerning bargaining for
LPN’s.
6. In your letter to me dated 3/9/88, you said, ‘‘The
dates that you have proposed provide me with too little
notice and are unacceptable. Please propose some dates
in April and we will negotiate then.’’ As a result of
your letter, we agreed to negotiate on 4/11/88 at 3:00
p.m. and 4/19/88 at 10:00 a.m. Again, you did not ex-
press any objections concerning negotiations for LPN’s.
Accordingly, we are prepared to negotiate with you on
4/19/88 at 10:00 a.m. for employees covered under 5–
RC–11997.
I also request that you provide me with the informa-
tion I requested concerning the amount of the most cur-
rent contributions that Urban Shelters is depositing in
the trust fund, per employee per month to pay for medi-
cal expenses. This information was requested in my let-
ter to you dated 4/18/88.
Dear Mr. Keiler:
Local 722, S.E.I.U. is prepared to begin contract ne-
gotiations for full and part-time LPN’s employed by
Urban Shelters at the J. B. Johnson Nursing Center.
Your client granted our Union recognition for these em-
ployees by letter dated February 28, 1988.
Our proposals for these employees are the same pro-
posals that you received for employees covered under
N.L.R.B. 5–RC–11997 with the enclosed modifications.
We are prepared to negotiate on any dates in the
months of April and May of 1988. Please inform us in
writing as to which dates you are available.
By letter dated April 25, 1988 (R. Exh. 12), Keiler advised
Smiley as follows:
Mr. Michael Smiley
SEIU, Local 722
1673 Columbia Road, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20009
Dear Mr. Smiley:
This is in response to your two letters dated April
15, 1988, one of which was filled with calumny and re-
ferred, in its last sentence to a future letter ‘‘dated
4/18/88’’ and the other which was incomplete.
Since you have not denied a single factual statement
in my April 12, 1988 letter, that letter is factually cor-
rect. To further enhance my argument that you are at-
tempting to negotiate for supervisors, you have altered
the proposed LPN unit to remove the exclusion of su-
pervisors. You cannot lawfully negotiate for supervisors
and I will not participate in your illegalities.
On May 4, 1988, Local 722 filed a petition with the Board
in Case 5–RC–13061 for certification of representative (G.C.
Exh. 3(a) involving the following unit:
All regular full-time and part-time licensed practical
nurses employed by the Employer at the J. B. Johnson
Nursing Center [but excluding] [a]ll other employees,
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
By Decision and Direction of Election in Case 5–RC–13061
dated December 18, 1990 (G.C. Exh. 3(b)), the Board’s Re-
gional Director for Region 5 directed an election among the
employees in the unit described in the next preceding sen-
tence.
On May 5, 1988, Local 722 filed a charge against Urban
Shelters in 5–CA–19659 (G.C. Exh. 19), alleging as follows:
On or about April 11, 1988, the above-named Employer
unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Service Em-
ployees International Union, Local 722, by refusing to
bargain over terms and conditions of employment for a
unit of employees at the J. B. Johnson Nursing Center
location and since that date, the Employer continues to
refuse to bargain with the above-named representative.
Approximately 7 weeks later, the Boards’ Regional Director
for Region 5 refused to issue a complaint. His letter, in-
cluded in General Counsel’s Exhibit 19, reads in part, as fol-
lows:
The investigation revealed that in February 1988, the
Employer voluntarily extended recognition to the
Union. Then, on April 11, the Employer refused to bar-
gain with the Union based on a 1983 decision of the
Regional Director, in Case 5–RC–11997, in which the
LPN’s were found to be supervisors under the Act.
That decision was certified by the Board on August 20,
1987. Because there is no statutory duty to bargain re-
garding supervisory personnel, further proceedings are
1334 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unwarranted and I am refusing to issue complaint in
this matter.
By three-page letter dated June 17, 1988 (R. Exh. 13),
Mose Lewis III, attorney for Smiley, advised Keiler as fol-
lows:
RE: Urban Shelters and Healthcare Systems, Inc. and
(J. B. Johnson Nursing Center) Service Employees
International Union, Local 722, AFL–CIO, CLC
Dear Mr. Keiler:
This responds to your proposal of Tuesday, June 14,
1988, wherein you agreed that the employees for whom
Local 82, SEIU had been certified as the collective bar-
gaining agent at the J. B. Johnson Nursing Center under
Case No. 5–RC–1199 and the licensed practical nurses
at that Nursing Center, should all be included in one
unit for purposes of collective bargaining with the em-
ployer. The bargaining agent shall be Local 722 SEIU,
AFL–CIO, CLC. You made the following additional of-
fers:
. . . .
We are prepared to meet with you as soon as pos-
sible in an effort to finalize the terms and conditions of
an Agreement between Local 722 SEIU and Urban
Shelters and Healthcare Systems, Inc. pertaining to the
J. B. Johnson Nursing Center.
Please advise when you are available.
On January 24, 1991 Littlejohn forwarded the following
letter (G.C. Exh. 15):
Mr. Marchel Smiley
President
SEIU #722
1673 Columbia Road, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Dear. Mr. Smiley:
As you are probably aware, the contract to manage
the J. B. Johnson Nursing Center became effective on
January 11, 1991. In accordance with that contract and
that the wage determinations of the Service Employees
Contract Act, we are proceeding immediately to raise
the wages of covered employees in conformity with the
Act.
This conforms to our previous conversations regard-
ing the provision of notice to your organization regard-
ing any increases.
By letter dated April 15, 1991 (R. Exh. 14), Keiler advised
Smiley as follows:
Your letter of April 1, 1991, to Mr. Roy Littlejohn
has been forwarded to me for reply.
It appears that your request for information cannot
be complied with at this time because of the confusion
over the makeup of the unit. It is your contention that
LPN’s are included in the unit and it is my client’s con-
tention that they are not. If I am in error about your
position, please let me know. Further, would you please
inform me as to what ‘‘A Alpha listing’’ is.
And by letter dated April 25, 1991 (R. Exh. 15), Keiler
advised Smiley as follows:
It has come to my attention that you have written to
my client again concerning union matters. If you want
information, please contact me directly, otherwise, you
may have a long wait.
Smiley testified that he had someone on his staff hand de-
liver to Littlejohn the following letter (G.C. Exh. 5), which
is dated November 4, 1991, which he, Smiley, signed as
president and which is typed on stationery bearing Local
722’s letterhead:
RE: Collective Bargaining Agreement
Urban Shelters and Healthcare Systems, Inc.
(J. B. Johnson Nursing Center) and
Service Employees International Union, Local 82
Dear Mr. Littlejohn:
I enclose a proposed Collective Bargaining Agree-
ment between Urban Shelters and Heath Care Systems,
Inc. and Local 722, Service Employees International
Union, for certain employees employed at the J. B.
Johnson Nursing Center. The Agreement is for bargain-
ing unit employees certified by the National Labor Re-
lations Board in Case No. 5–RC–11997, which job
classifications consist of the following:
All full-time and regular part-time employees includ-
ing nursing assistants, nursing assistants/supply
clerks, ward clerks, dietary aides, housekeeping em-
ployees, maintenance assistants, laundry aides and all
other service and maintenance employees, activities
assistants and physical therapy aides employed by
the Employer at the J. B. Johnson Nursing Center,
Washington, D.C., but excluding all clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
We are prepared to enter into immediate negotiations
with the Employer to reach a mutually acceptable
agreement that can be executed and implemented with-
out delay. We are prepared to meet with you at a mutu-
ally convenient time on the following days: November
8, 12, 13, 14, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27 and 29. Please advise
the undersigned if any of these dates are acceptable to
you and/or your representative and we will contact you
to agree upon a time and place.
A copy of the collective-bargaining agreement (G.C. Exh. 6)
was received herein. The cover page indicates that it is a col-
lective-bargaining agreement by and between the Respondent
and Local 82 and on the page numbered ‘‘1’’ under the topic
heading ‘‘AGREEMENT’’ (emphasis in original) it is indi-
cated that ‘‘This Agreement . . . is entered into by and be-
tween . . . [Respondent] and . . . Local 82 . . . .’’
On November 7, 1991, Littlejohn forwarded the following
letter (G.C. Exh. 7):
1335URBAN SHELTERS
Mr. Marchel Smiley, President
Service Employees International Union
1673 Columbia Road, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
Re: Collective Bargaining Agreement
Urban Shelters and Health Care Systems, Inc.
(J. B. Johnson Nursing Center) and
Service Employees International Union, Local 82
Dear Mr. Smiley:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated
November 4, 1991 with the accompanying new pro-
posed Collective Bargaining Agreement. We are cur-
rently reviewing the document and will advise you as
soon as this is completed so that we can schedule a
date to begin negotiations.
Smiley testified that he did not have any recollection of
Littlejohn contacting him after the above-described Novem-
ber 7, 1991 letter.
Then Smiley sent to Littlejohn the following letter (G.C.
Exh. 8), dated November 26, 1991, on Local 722’s letter-
head:
In my letter to you dated November 4, 1991, I sub-
mitted to you several dates to begin the process of ne-
gotiating a collective bargaining agreement for employ-
ees listed under NLRB Case 5–RC–11997. In fact, ten
(10) dates were suggested in the month of November
(8, 12, 13, 14, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 29).
Whereas you are entitled to thoroughly review and
analyze our proposals, I see no reason why the negotia-
tions process is being needlessly delayed. I believe
now, as I have in the past, that any difference between
us can be resolved through good faith bargaining at the
bargaining table.
Again I request that we immediately begin good
faith bargaining. Please forward to my office the dates
which you are prepared to come to the bargaining table.
On January 10, 1992 Smiley forwarded the following letter
(G.C. Exh. 9) to Littlejohn on Local 722 letterhead:
Re: J. B. Johnson
Nursing Center
Dear Mr. Littlejohn:
By letters dated November 4th and November 26th
1991, I requested that we began the process of collec-
tive bargaining for employees listed under NLRB Case
5–RC–11997.
We have been attempting to negotiate a collective
bargaining agreement with you since December of
1988. I see no legal reason why the negotiation process
has been and continues to be needlessly delayed.
I request that we immediately begin good faith bar-
gaining. Please forward to my office the dates which
you are prepared to bargain.
On June 1, 1992, Local 722 was certified by the Board in
Case 5–RC–13061 as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of all regular full-time and part-time licensed
practical nurses employed by the Employer at the J. B. John-
son Nursing Center but excluding all other employees, cleri-
cal employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
(G.C. Exh. 3(e)).
On July 2, 1992, Smiley sent the following letter (G.C.
Exh. 10), to Littlejohn on Local 722’s letterhead:
Re: J. B. Johnson
Nursing Center
5–RC–11997
Dear Mr. Littlejohn:
As the Exclusive Representative of Employees listed
under NLRB case 5–RC–11997, I hereby request the
following information be supplied to my office:
1. The name, date of hire, job title and department,
current rate of pay, home address and telephone number
of all employees covered under 5–RC–11997.
2. The name of all employees covered under 5–RC–
11997 who are participants in any employer sponsored
retirement plan. The name and address of any employer
sponsored retirement plan.
3. The name of all employees covered under 5–RC–
11997 who are participants in any employer sponsored
medical and/or life insurance plans. The name and ad-
dress of any employer sponsored medical and/or life in-
surance plans.
I hereby request that you supply me with dates, time,
and locations whereby we can begin good faith collec-
tive bargaining on behalf of employees listed in NLRB
case 5–RC–11997.
Your attention to this request is appreciated.
Smiley also sent the following letter to Littlejohn (G.C.
Exh. 11), on July 2, 1992 on Local 722’s letterhead:
Re: J. B. Johnson
Nursing Center
5–RC–13061
Dear Mr. Littlejohn:
On June 1, 1992, the NLRB certified our Union as
the Exclusive Representative of Employees listed under
case 5–RC–13061. I hereby request the following infor-
mation be supplied to my office.
1. The name, date of hire, job title and department,
current rate of pay, home address and telephone number
of all employees covered under 5–RC–13061.
2. The name of all employees covered under 5–RC–
13061 who are participants in any employer sponsored
retirement plan. The name and address of any employer
sponsored retirement plan.
3. The name of all employees covered under 5–RC–
13061 who are participants in any employer sponsored
medical and/or life insurance plans. The name and ad-
dress of any employer medical and/or life insurance
plans.
I hereby request that you supply me with dates, time,
and locations whereby we can begin good faith collec-
tive bargaining on behalf of employees listed in NLRB
case 5–RC–13061.
Your attention to this request is appreciated.
1336 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Smiley forwarded the following October 16, 1992 letter
(G.C. Exh. 12), on Local 722’s letterhead:
Re: J. B. Johnson
Nursing Center
5–RC–11997 &
5–RC–13061
Dear Mr. Littlejohn:
On July 2, 1992 I wrote to you requesting informa-
tion pursuant to provision of Federal Labor Law. I also
requested dates, times and locations whereby our Orga-
nizations could begin good faith collective bargaining.
As of this writing, I have not received any response
from you.
Having been Certified by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board as the Exclusive Representative of employ-
ees listed under the above referenced citations, I again
request the employee information and negotiation avail-
ability included in the attached letters.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Smiley attached the two July 2, 1992 letters set forth above.
As noted above, on December 31, 1992 Local 722 filed
the charge herein (G.C. Exh. 1(a)).
In mid-January 1993 Keiler telephoned Smiley indicating
that Respondent had received a copy of the charge. Keiler
asked Smiley to forward to him, Keiler, copies of the July
2, 1992 letters. Smiley testified that he sent Keiler the docu-
ments he requested; and that while that was a cover letter
forwarded with the copies of the July 2, 1992 letters, he did
not have a copy of said cover letter because the letter was
lost from the computer used when there was a power failure.
Keiler gave the following testimony about the conversation.
After I received a copy of the unfair labor practice
charge from Urban Shelters, I called Mr. Smiley and
asked him what it was all about.
Mr. Smiley explained that he had sent Urban Shel-
ters letters requesting documents and he also wanted to
negotiate.
I reminded Mr. Smiley that in the past I had asked
him to deal directly with me and it would expedite
things. Mr. Smiley said he didn’t want to deal with me.
I said—I told Mr. Smiley that if he wanted the docu-
ments and if he wanted to set up meetings, he should
send me copies of the letters and I would take care of
him.
Mr. Smiley told me to go to hell and get the docu-
ments—excuse me, get the letters from my client.
As noted above, the complaint herein was issued on Feb-
ruary 8, 1993.
On April 13, 1993, Keiler forwarded the following letter
(R. Exh. 16), to Smiley:
Enclosed please find the names, addresses, telephone
numbers, job titles, rates of pay, and dates of hire of
all employees in the unit in 5–RC–13061. Please con-
tact me for a date and time to commence negotiations.
He testified that he only provided information regarding the
LPN unit because at that point he thought from the complaint
that the Board was taking the position that it was Local 722
that was the certified bargaining agent of the service mainte-
nance unit and he did not think he had to bargain with 722
regarding that unit. Assertedly, he took the Board’s com-
plaint possibly in the wrong way and that’s why he did not
give Smiley the information and did not bargain with him.
Before it was amended at the hearing herein, paragraph 8 of
the complaint herein alleged that ‘‘[s]ince on or about Octo-
ber 13, 1987, the collective-bargaining responsibilities for
Unit 1 have been delegated by Local 82 and the Service
International Union, AFL–CIO, to Local 722.
A negotiating session was held on May 14, 1993. Local
722 submitted a proposed collective-bargaining agreement to
Keiler (R. Exh. 19), for the employees in Case 5–RC–13061,
viz, the licensed practical nurses.
With a cover letter dated June 1, 1993, Respondent’s Ex-
hibit 21, Keiler forwarded Respondent’s counterproposal to
Lewis covering the licensed practical nurses with specified
exclusions.
Contentions
On brief, General Counsel contends that it is well settled
that an employer must provide information that is needed by
the bargaining representative for the proper performance of
its duties and in deciding whether information must be
turned over, it is necessary for the Union to show only that
the information is probably relevant and that it would be of
use to the Union; that the Board has found that certain mat-
ters including wage rates, job descriptions, and other infor-
mation pertaining to employees within the bargaining unit
are presumptively relevant; that Respondent is not exonerated
from a violation with respect to the LPN unit because begin-
ning in June 1993 it provided Local 722 with certain of the
requested information and met and exchanged proposals with
Local 722; that Respondent still has not provided all the in-
formation requested; that Respondent has offered no expla-
nation for its extraordinary delay in meeting its statutory ob-
ligation to meet and bargain collectively with the certified
representative of its LPN’s and its April 1993 overtures to
bargain came as too little, too late; that a union which is the
bargaining representative of employees may lawfully dele-
gate authority to another entity; that this case can be distin-
guished from Newell Porcelain Co., 307 NLRB 877 (1992),
enfd. 142 LRRM 2515 (1993), where the Board found that
under the unusual circumstances which existed there the em-
ployer was justified in suspending negotiations pending fur-
ther clarification of the identity of the party purporting to be
the employees’ bargaining representative and in the absence
of such clarifications, the lawful successor to the certified
union failed to make a valid bargaining demand sufficient to
trigger employer’s bargaining obligation; that here Smiley
was designated as the bargaining agent for Local 82 from the
outset and remained as a constant throughout negotiations;
that any confusion caused by the Union’s April 11, 1988
proposal should be view in the light of the facts that at the
time Respondent had voluntarily recognized Local 722 as the
collective bargaining agent of LPNs and Smiley’s April 15,
1988 letters clear up any confusion which may have existed
as of April 11, 1988; that the subsequent above-described let-
ters cannot reasonably be interpreted as establishing that Re-
spondent had such serious misgivings about which Union
Smiley was representing with regard to either unit, that it
was justified in breaking off negotiations or refusing to re-
1337URBAN SHELTERS
7 In passing it is noted that the amendment of the complaint and
counsel for General Counsel’s statement at p. 50 of the transcript do
not demonstrate that General Counsel was confused over which
Union represented which unit. Regarding the former, the amendment
was not made to clear up any confusion on the part of General
Counsel. Rather, it appears to have been made to get the Respondent
to change its answer from a denial to an admission. With respect
to the latter, counsel for General Counsel was merely describing the
terminology in Smiley’s October 16, 1992 letter. She obviously was
not asserting that the Board certified Local 722 as the representative
for the service and maintenance unit.
spond to Smiley’s later information requests; that any ambi-
guity created by Smiley’s November 4, 1991 cover letter was
eliminated by the Union’s proposed contract submitted there-
with since the contract covered the service and maintenance
unit exclusively and it identifies Local 82 as the labor orga-
nization which would be a party to the agreement; that while
Smiley did not carefully draft his October 16, 1992 letter, he
did attach his two July 2, 1992 letters; that here, unlike the
union in Newell, supra, Smiley, after the April 11, 1988 bar-
gaining session, took action to dispel any confusion gen-
erated by his proposal to include the voluntarily recognized
LPNs in the certified service and maintenance unit; that un-
like Newell, supra, here the Respondent contributed to the
confusion which existed; and that any doubts Respondent
may have had about which of the involved two Locals rep-
resented which of the involved two units could have been
brought to Smiley’s attention by Respondent and its silence
forecloses it from now raising Smiley’s failure to clarify his
representational status vis-a-vis each unit status as justifica-
tion for its refusal to provide information and bargain.
Respondent, on brief, argues, in part, as follows:
It is apparent from the exchange of correspondence
and the Complaint itself, which had to be amended, that
Urban Shelters, Lewis, Keiler, and General Counsel
were all confused over which union represented which
unit. It was not until the hearing when Smiley revealed
the Local 722 was awarded jurisdiction over all hospital
units did matters become clear. Local 82 was the cer-
tified unit in 5–RC–11997. Nevertheless, the Inter-
national President of the Service Employees Inter-
national Union gave the unit to Local 722. This was ac-
complished without notification to or a vote by the unit
employees; notification to Urban Shelters; or approval
by the NLRB. Confusion reigned because only Smiley
knew the true situation. In such circumstances, an em-
ployer does not have to supply information to nor bar-
gain with a union. Newell Porcelain Company, Inc.,
307 NLRB No. 135 (1992), enf’d [CRRM] (4th Cir.
1993), 124 CCH LC¶ 10,543.
Its brief concludes with the following:
Based on Urban Shelters record of promptly supply-
ing information and promptly meeting until the union
in 1992 bypassed counsel, and the unlawful change of
union affiliation, the Complaint should be dismissed in
its entirety.
Analysis
In my opinion, Smiley did not in mid-January 1993 mail
Keiler copies of his, Smiley’s, earlier specified requests for
information and bargaining concerning both the service and
maintenance and LPN units. When Smiley testified on the
first day of the 2-day hearing herein he testified that he
mailed copies of the letters, ‘‘the July 2nd letter in particu-
lar’’ to Keiler; that he prepared the letter that was sent to
Keiler; that he did not have a copy of the letter since there
was no letter; that he did not have a copy of anything to
show that he sent the documents to Keiler; that there was a
cover letter but he did not have a copy of it; that his cover
letter read ‘‘Per your request, here are the two documents
you requested’’; that the only explanation he had as to why
he did not have a copy of the cover letter was that when it
was typed up on the computer, ‘‘I think there was a power
failure, and we lost some stuff that was in our memory
bank’’; and that he was not sure how many days’ documents
were lost because of the power failure indicating ‘‘[w]e had
a storm, and there was some stuff that got knocked out.’’ As
noted above, on the second day of the trial herein Keiler, at
the outset of his testimony, testified that in mid-January 1993
Smiley did not send him documents. Rather, when he called
Smiley and asked for the documents Smiley, according to
Keiler’s testimony, told him that he did not want to deal with
him, that he should get the letters from his client, and that
he, Keiler, should ‘‘go to hell.’’ Smiley did not testify in re-
buttal and specifically deny these detailed assertions. Smiley
was not even present during the second day of the trial and
counsel for General Counsel at the end of the second day in-
dicated as follows: ‘‘I have attempted to contact Mr. Smiley
and I have spoken with Mr. Lewis and I apologize for their
absences today, but I have no rebuttal.’’ Keiler is credited on
this point. He was adamant. His testimony was very specific.
On the other hand, Smiley did not deny Keiler’s testimony.
Keiler’s cross-examination of Smiley on the first day of the
trial herein involved only their January 1993 conversation
and whether Smiley did mail the letters to Keiler at that
time, and one question about Local 722 receiving dues from
the employees at the involved nursing home. Smiley was
placed on notice the first day of the trial herein that Keiler
was going to make an issue out of whether he, Smiley, sent
the letters to Keiler in January 1993. As indicated above,
Smiley was not present the second day of the trial herein.
Smiley’s testimony regarding whether he sent copies of the
letters to Keiler in mid-January 1997 can only be described
as contradictory and vague. It is not credible. Accordingly,
paragraphs 12(c), 14(c), 16(c) and 18(c) of the complaint will
be dismissed.
As noted above, on brief Respondent contends that ‘‘[i]t
is apparent from the exchange of correspondence and the
Complaint itself, which had to be amended, that Urban Shel-
ters, Lewis, Keiler and General Counsel were all confused
over which union represented which unit.’’ What, if any,
confusion existed between Respondent, on the one hand, and
Locals 722 and 82, on the other hand, at the time of the July
2, and October 16, 1992 Smiley letters?9 There may have
been some confusion initially between Respondent and the
two involved Locals but in my opinion it was cleared up by
the time of the July 2, 1992 Smiley letters. In one of the July
2, 1992 letters Smiley indicated that Local 722 was certified
as the representative of the LPNs. In the other July 2, 1992
letter, Smiley indicated that Local 722 was the exclusive rep-
resentative of the service and maintenance employees. He did
not at that time indicate that Local 722 was certified as the
1338 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8 More specifically, the July 2, 1992 letters requested Littlejohn to
supply the dates, time, and locations ‘‘whereby we can begin good
faith collective bargaining.’’ While it might be argued that this is
‘‘information,’’ in his October 16, 1992 letter Smiley reiterated his
‘‘request [for] the employee information and negotiation availability
included in the attached letters.’’
9 All involved knew that contrary to the assertion in the letter,
Local 82 was certified to represent the service and maintenance em-
ployees. All of the proposed collective bargaining agreements sub-
mitted by Smiley to Respondent before July 2, 1992, were between
Respondent and Local 82. There was no real confusion on this point.
This was a misstatement of a known fact.
10 It appears that the Regional Director’s change in his findings in
the RC proceedings regarding whether LPNs were supervisors from
1983 when the involved facility was operated by Continental Care
Centers, Inc. to when the facility was operated by Respondent was
based on the different approach taken by Respondent with respect
to the LPNs. It is noted that in footnote 2 of his brief Keiler indi-
cates that Respondent, ‘‘to preserve the argument for the Court of
Appeals,’’ contends that the certification of Local 722 to represent
the LPN’s was violative of the Act since LPNs were found to be
supervisors in Case 5–RC–11997 and, therefore, Respondent denies
that there is an appropriate unit. It would appear that this is a ques-
tion which should have been raised and resolved at the time of cer-
tification.
11 This caused Local 722 to withdraw its petition in March 1988
to represent LPNs. Local 722’s petition excluded supervisors. As
noted above, before Respondent took over the involved operation,
the Board had found the LPNs to be supervisors.
12 Respondent’s belated and less than full compliance with the re-
quests assertedly based, in part, on the facts that Keiler ‘‘took [the
Board’s] complaint possibly in the wrong way’’ assertedly thinking
‘‘that the Board was taking the position that . . . [Local] 722 . . .
was the certified bargaining agent of . . . Unit [1],’’ does not
change, in any way, the action which it is necessary to take herein.
representative of the service and maintenance employees.
The information sought in the two letters was necessary and
relevant to Local 722’s performance of its duties as the des-
ignated exclusive collective-bargaining agent for Local 82,
which is the certified exclusive collective bargaining rep-
resentative of unit 1, and to Local 722’s performance of its
duties as the certified exclusive collective bargaining rep-
resentative of unit 2. And in view of the fact that (1)
Littlejohn engaged in an exchange of correspondence with
Smiley after Keiler’s April 25, 1991 directive to Smiley,
namely, ‘‘[i]f you want information, please contact me di-
rectly, otherwise, you may have a long wait,’’ and (2)
Smiley’s July 2 and October 16 , 1991 letters might be inter-
preted as not being limited to requests for ‘‘information’’ in
that they also included requests to negotiate,8 the fact that
the July 2 and October 16, 1992 letters were sent directly to
Littlejohn did not obviate the need for the Respondent to
reply thereto within a reasonable time both with respect to
the requested information and the request to bargain. While
Smiley’s October 16, 1992 letter leaves a lot to be desired
regarding the terminology utilized, at that point in time it
was obvious to all concerned, notwithstanding Smiley’s ter-
minology, that Local 722 was acting in a dual capacity,
namely, as agent of Local 82 for the service and maintenance
employees and in its own right for the LPNs.9
How much Keiler’s changing position regarding the LPN’s
may have initially added to the confusion must be taken into
consideration.10 Keiler did not specifically deny the assertion
in Lewis’ June 17, 1988 letter that he, Keiler, proposed that
the service and maintenance employees and the LPN’s be in-
cluded in one unit for purposes of collective bargaining with
the employer. From February 1988, when he voluntarily rec-
ognized Local 722 as the bargaining agent for LPN’s,11 until
April 11, 1988, when he refused to bargain over LPN’s indi-
cating that the Board had held that the LPN’s were super-
visors, Keiler, in effect, led Local 722 to believe that Re-
spondent would bargain with it over the LPN’s. Then not-
withstanding his April 11, 1988 position Keiler, according to
the above-described Lewis letter which Keiler himself intro-
duced, on June 14, 1988, proposed that the LPN’s be in-
cluded in one unit with the service and maintenance employ-
ees for purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer.
Keiler testified that the ‘‘no’’ he placed in the margin next
to the paragraphs involved means that he ‘‘did not agree with
Local 82 should be the LPN bargaining agent.’’ Lewis’ let-
ter, however, indicates that the bargaining agent would be
Local 722. Additionally, Keiler does not specifically deny
that he proposed and agreed that the service and maintenance
employees and the LPN’s should all be included in one unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining with the employer.
Unlike Newell Porcelain Co., supra, this case does not in-
volve a question of whether there was confusion over the
identity of the employees’ bargaining representative.
As concluded above, in my opinion at the time of the July
2 and October 16, 1992 letters there was no real confusion
over which Union represented which of the involved Units.
Respondent had an obligation to supply the information
sought in the involved letters and it had an obligation to bar-
gain. Respondent did neither before a charge was filed here-
in. Respondent violated the Act as alleged in the remaining
paragraphs of the involved complaint.12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Service Employees International Union, Locals 722 and
82, AFL–CIO are, labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute units
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees includ-
ing nursing assistants, nursing assistants/supply clerks,
ward clerks, dietary aides, housekeeping employees,
maintenance assistants, laundry aides and all other serv-
ice and maintenance employees, activities assistants and
physical therapy aides employed at Respondent’s facil-
ity, but excluding all clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
All regular full-time and part-time licensed practical
nurses employed at Respondent’s facility, but excluding
all other employees, clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
4. At all times material, Local 722 has been (A) des-
ignated by Local 82 as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees within the first appropriate unit described in the next
preceding paragraph and (B) the exclusive representative of
all employees within the second appropriate unit described in
1339URBAN SHELTERS
13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
14 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
the next preceding paragraph for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain collectively as re-
quested in both of Local 722’s July 2 and its October 16,
1992 letters with Local 722 as (A) the designated exclusive
representative of the employees described in the first unit de-
scribed above in paragraph number 3 and (B) the exclusive
representative of the employees described in the second unit
described above in paragraph number 3, and by refusing to
furnish the information sought in both of its July 2 and its
October 16, 1992 letters Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act.
6. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Respondent has not violated the Act in any other man-
ner.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended13
ORDER
The Respondent, Urban Shelters and Health Care Systems,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Service Employ-
ees International Union, Local 722, AFL–CIO as the des-
ignated exclusive representative and exclusive representative,
respectively, of the employees in the two units set out below,
and refusing to provide the information Local 722 requested
in both of its July 2 and its October 16, 1992 letters. The
Units are as follows:
All full-time and regular part-time employees includ-
ing nursing assistants, nursing assistants/supply clerks,
ward clerks, dietary aides, housekeeping employees,
maintenance assistants, laundry aides and all other serv-
ice and maintenance employees, activities assistants and
physical therapy aides employed at Respondent’s facil-
ity, but excluding all clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
All regular full-time and part-time licensed practical
nurses employed at Respondent’s facility, but excluding
all other employees, clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide Local 722 with information it requested in
both of its July 2 and in its October 16, 1992 letters.
(b) On request bargain in good faith with Local 722 as the
designated exclusive bargaining agent and as the exclusive
bargaining agent, respectively, of the units of its employees
described in paragraph 1(a) above with respect to their
wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment
and embody any understanding reached in signed agree-
ments.
(c) Post at its facility in Washington, D.C., copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’14 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5,
after being signed by the Respondent’s representative, shall
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained 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 Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
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 the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain in
good faith with the Service Employees International Union,
Local 722 as the designated exclusive bargaining agent and
the exclusive bargaining agent, respectively, of our employ-
ees in the following appropriate units:
All full-time and regular part-time employees includ-
ing nursing assistants, nursing assistants/supply clerks,
ward clerks, dietary aides, housekeeping employees,
maintenance assistants, laundry aides and all other serv-
ice and maintenance employees, activities assistants and
physical therapy aides employed at Respondent’s facil-
ity, but excluding all clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
All regular full-time and part-time licensed practical
nurses employed at Respondent’s facility, but excluding
all other employees, clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights
1340 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL on request bargain in good faith with Local 722
as the designated exclusive bargaining agent and the exclu-
sive bargaining agent, respectively, of the above-described
appropriate units of our employees with respect to their
wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment
and embody any understanding reached in a signed agree-
ments.
WE WILL provide Local 722 with the information re-
quested in its July and October 1992 letters.
URBAN SHELTERS AND HEALTH CARE SYS-
TEMS, INC.