Westridge Manor Nursing Home

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 27, 1988

291 N.L.R.B. 27 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

WESTRIDGE MANOR NURSING HOME 27 Westridge Manor, Inc d/b/a Westridge Manor Nursing Home and Service Employees Interna tional Union, Local 606 , AFL-CIO-CLC Case 16-CA-13357 Orell Fitzsimmons (Service Employees International Union) of Houston Texas for the Charging Party DECISION September 27 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On May 24 1988 Administrative Law Judge Richard J Linton issued the attached decision The Respondent and the General Counsel filed excep tions and supporting briefs The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed 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 bnefsÂ° and has decided to affirm the judge s rulings findings i and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent Westndge Manor Inc d/b/a Westndge Manor Nursing Home Nacogdoches, Texas its officers agents, successors and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find rags The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces its 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 We agree with the judge s finding that a telephonic request for recog nition was made by the Union on the Respondent on September 1 1987 and that the Respondent received the Union s written demand no later than September 8 1987 In this regard we note that a telephonic request to bargain is sufficient to tugger an employers obligation to bargain Marysville Travelodge 233 NLRB 527 532-533 (1977) We further note that even according to the testimony of the Respondents co-owner the Respondent received the Union s written demand for recognition by the end of the week of September 7 1987 and that the employee comple ment considered by the judge in determining majority status consisted of the same employees who were on the payroll at the end of that week We therefore find it unnecessary to pass on the judge s statement that the date of mailing fixes the date of demand 2 We adopt the judge s conclusion that as of September 10 1987 the Respondent employed a substantial and representative complement of em ployees and that the Union represented a majority of those employees In so doing we find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsels excep tion to the judge s finding that Dumas King and White three Timber land employees who were employed on a short term basis by the Re spondent should not be included in the employee complement Wayne A Rustin Esq for the General Counsel John J Durkay Esq (Mehaffy Weber Keith & Gonsou hn) of Beaumont Texas for the Respondent STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD J LINTON Administrative Law Judge This is a refusal to bargain case with a successor employer The principal issues are to determine (1) the date when Westridge the successor to Timberland Nursing Center hired a substantial and representative complement of em ployees and (2) whether on that date a majority of Wes tndge s work force were former employees of Timber land Finding the date to be no later than 10 September 1987 and answering the second question yes I find Wes tridge to be a full successor and I order it to recognize and bargain with the Union and to furnish the Union with the relevant information it requests This case was tried before me in Nacogdoches Texas on 10 March 19881 pursuant to the 18 December 19872 complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board through the Regional Director for Region 16 of the Board The complaint is based on a charge filed 2 November by Service Employees Interna tional Union Local 606 AFL-CIO-CLC (the Union Local 606 or the Charging Party) against Westridge Manor Inc d/b/a Westndge Manor Nursing Home (Re spondent) In the complaint the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent as a successor to Beverly Enterprises Inc (Beverly) violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act on and after 3 September by (1) refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union and (2) refusing to furnish the Union with relevant information By its answer Respondent admits certain factual mat ters denies the successor allegation denies majority status of the Union pleads affirmatively that a majority of the work force it hired had not been employed by Beverly and denies violating the Act In answer to com plaint paragraph 15 Respondent admits the relevance of the requested information (subject in effect to Respond ent s denial of majority status) On the entire record including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel3 and the Re spondent I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION A Texas corporation with its principal office in Lufkin Texas Westridge Manor Inc operates nursing homes providing inpatient health care services to the public Since 1 September Respondent has owned and operated Westridge Manor Nursing Home (Westridge) in Nacogdoches Texas the facility involved here Based on a projection of Respondents Nacogdoches operation i Use of the military style for dates complies with the Board s wishes z All dates are for 1987 unless otherwise indicated 3 Counsel attached a proposed order to the General Counsels brief 291 NLRB No 5 28 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD since 1 September Respondent will annually derive from that business gross revenue exceeding $ 100000 Since 1 September Respondent has purchased goods and supplies valued in excess of $5000 direct from points outside the State of Texas 4 Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) (6) and (7) of the Act II LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits and I find that Service Employees International Union Local 606 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background Before 1 September the nursing home now designated as Westridge Manor Nursing Home (Westridge) was named Timberland Nursing Center (Timberland) Tim berland was owned by Beverly Enterprises (Beverly) Local 606 represented the employees at Timberland and was party to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Beverly covering the employees The CBA with Beverly was effective 28 May 1986 to 29 May 1988 (G C Exh 2 1 29) 5 Respondent is a corporation owned by Larry W Simpson and Doris Moore (1 81 143) Charles Edward Williamson Jr is Respondents administrator at Wes tridge and has been such since Respondent assumed ownership and operation of the nursing facility on 1 Sep tember (1 80) Beverly and Respondent contracted for Respondent to purchase (among other assets apparently) Beverly s Tim berland facility The closing under the agreement was set for 28 August with the effective date of the transfer of title to be at 12 01 a in on 1 September (R Exh 1 at 7) By prearrangement at 11 30 p in Monday 31 August Simpson Moore and Williamson arrived at Timberland Beverly s management was represented by Regional Manager Jim Myrick and Deone Rivera Timberland s administrator (1 31 83-85) At the approach of midnight Myrick and Rivera called in the three Timberland em ployees then at work introduced Simpson Moore and Williamson announced that Timberland had been sold to Respondent instructed the employees to punch out and then left with the timecards Williamson and Moore then informed the employees that the new name of the nurs ing home was Westridge and that Williamson and Moore would now accept their employment applications Appli cations were made and Williamson and Moore inter viewed the three hinng two of them on that occasion About 50 patients were in the nursing facility at the time At each shift change the next day Beverly s represents tives appeared and the announcement interviewing and hinng process was repeated Williamson testified it took 4 The General Counsels commerce allegations which Respondent admits focus on Respondents Nacogdoches operation rather than en compassing Respondent s overall corporate business 5 References to the one volume transcript of testimony are by volume and page 5 to 6 days to see all of the former employees of Beverly (1 93) The parties stipulated that Respondent is engaged in the same business operation at the facility providing nursing care services for the same patients or residents as did Beverly (1 22) They further stipulated that Respond ent added no new job classifications and that with the exception of a dispute concerning the classification of medication aide Respondent has retained the same job classifications that existed at Timberland (1 18-21) They also stipulated that in general the Timberland employ ees Respondent hired were hired onto the corresponding shifts at Westridge and for the same number of hours (1 75-76) Orell Fitzsimmons an organizer for the SEIU admin istered the contract at Timberland on behalf of the Union (1 28-29 39) On 1 September Dorothy Gates the Union s chief steward at Timberland telephoned Fitzsim mons and informed him the nursing home had been sold but she did not know the buyer s name Fitzsimmons im mediately called Jim Myrick at Beverly Myrick gave him the names of Respondents co owners and a tele phone number where Fitzsimmons could reach Simpson (1 30-34) Fitzsimmons testified he then telephoned Simpson that same day identified himself and his pose tion with the Union explained that the Union was the bargaining agent and asked Simpson to meet and bargain with him concerning wages hours benefits and terms of employment Simpson declined and said his company was represented by Attorney Steven Greenberg He gave Fitzsimmons Greenberg s telephone number (1 36- 37) Admitting to such a call from Fitzsimmons Simpson denies it was on 1 September because he would have been in Nacogdoches on that date (1 147-148) Presum ably the call was to Simpson s Lufkin office Simpson testified he was attending to two construction projects at the time and that he does not spend much time in his office (1 147) As an atlas reflects Lufkin is about 20 miles from Nacogdoches-hardly more than a 25 to 30 minute drive Fitzsimmons testified with a more favor able demeanor than did Simpson and I find that the tele phone conversation occurred as he described on 1 Sep tember Instead of then calling Attorney Greenberg Fitzsim mons elected to send Simpson a demand letter dated 3 September and addressed to Simpson and Respondent at Respondents post office box number in Lufkin Because Fitzsimmons has no secretary he typed the letter and mailed it himself (1 35 44) In the letter of 3 September the Union advises Respondent that SEIU Local 606 is the elected and Board certified representative of Re spondent s employees at Westridge demands bargaining for a collective bargaining agreement suggests a meeting date of 21 September and attaches a list of eight num bered items of requested information (G C Exh 4) Fitz simmons never received a response (1 36) Simpson admits receiving the letter but asserts it was not until near the end of the week of Labor Day (Labor Day was Monday 7 September) that someone from his office went to the post office and picked up the mail (1 144- 147) Simpson testified with an unfavorable demeanor WESTRIDGE MANOR NURSING HOME 29 and I do not believe him I find that at the latest Re spondent claimed the Union s letter at the post office on Tuesday 8 September 6 and quite possibly on either Friday 4 September or Saturday 5 September I decline to take notice as requested by Respondent that Satur days are postal holidays (Br at 4) Although recent news stories indicate some Saturday closings there is no evidence the U S Post Office at Lufkin was closed on Saturday 5 September Having no response from Simpson Fitzsimmons called Greenberg on 20 September and repeated his demand Greenberg stated he had advised Simpson that Respond ent had no duty to bargain Fitzsimmons then sent Greenberg an Austin Texas attorney a demand letter (G C Exh 5 1 37-39) Greenberg apparently did not send a reply letter The information request attached to the Union s letter of 3 September 1987 reads Information Request September 3 1987 (1) Names telephone numbers address classifica tions date of hire and wage rates of all bargaining unit employees (2) Present wage scale in effect at the facility (3) Description of all benefit plans such as health insurance and utilizations and cost information to employer and employees (4) A copy of all current work rules and person nel policies along with job descriptions for all bar gaining unit employees (5) Staffing schedules for all departments for July and August 1987 (6) Medicaid Cost Reports for 1985 and 1986 (7) Department of Health inspection reports for June and July 1987 (8) Number of beds in the facility and census in these beds for June and July 1987 B Employee Complement Chief Steward Dorothy Gates testified the bargaining unit at Timberland had 28 employees at the time of the sale to Respondent (1 49) Reading from her list of em ployees in the unit she named 28 (1 52) The evidence regarding the hiring by Respondent is largely undisputed Placement of three individuals is con tested The General Counsel would include in the repre sentative complement two medication aides laid off from Timberland in the spring of 1987-Teresa Lone and Rosie Pruitt The General Counsel would count them on the basis they had a reasonable expectation of recall Re spondent would exclude them from any count of the em ployee complement because they had no reasonable ex pectation of recall Both were hired by Respondent on 15 September Respondent would count the administrators brother Wayne Williamson hired as a maintenance man on 1 September The General Counsel would exclude Wayne Williamson from the count on the basis he was hired only as a casual employee Wayne Williamson had not worked at Timberland Payroll records covering August to mid October were received in evidence as joint exhibits The parties have included in their briefs their versions of the employee complement as of different dates For the most part their listings agree Based on the record 7 including the pay roll records and the credited testimony of Chief Steward Gates I find the following to be the employee comple ment as of 10 September 8 Timberland Employees Hired New Hires by West ridge Westridge Employee Date Hired in by Westridge No Sept Mertie Akwani 4 1 Cheryl Bean 5 8 Lynda Bndwell 7 8 Lavada Butler 9 7 Della Cabeen 10 1 Mary Cartwright I1 1 Alice Curtis 12 8 Donna Gillespie 17 2 Diannah Haffert 42 2 Marsha Hale 18 1 Essie Henderson 19 1 Joy Isham 20 7 Teresa Land 22 3 Tennie Lane 24 2 Helen Leonard 25 1 Margaret Lloyd 26 1 Francis Low 27 1 Robin Morgan 28 7 Irene Takata 33 1 Janice Teal 34 1 Mike Thrash 35 1 Velma Upshaw Alfreda 36 3 Veronneau 37 8 Steve Walters 38 8 Gloria Ward 43 1 Alice Washington 39 1 Alice Watts 40 8 As of 10 September therefore Westridge employed 27 (bargaining unit) employees Of those 59 3 percent (16 of 27) had been employed at Timberland on 31 August and ' The General Counsel contends Henderson was employed at Timber land but Respondent argues there is no evidence to support that conten tion There is no dispute that Sherdale Henderson was employed at Tim berland through 31 August that there was no one named Essie Hender son on the Timberland payroll and that Sherdale Henderson is listed on the payrolls of Westndge Chief Steward Gates testified Sherdale Hen derson was a dietary employee ( 152) and Respondent hired Essie Hen derson in the dietary classification (1 12) The two names carry the same social security number on the payroll records Finding that they are the same person I include Essie Henderson as a former Timberland employ 6 As Respondent observes no employees were hired on either 9 10 or I1 September (Br at 5) Some employees were hired on 8 September however ee 6 Respondents first list is as of 10 September I use tl1iat date rather than 8 September or earlier because no employees were hired on either 9 or 10 September 30 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 40 7 percent (11 or 27) were new hires The percentages can be modified if additional findings were made Thus if Wayne Williamson were counted the respective per centages would be 57 1 (16 of 26) and 42 9 (12 of 28) The General Counsel would include three former Tim berland employees whom I have not counted Linda Dumas (Westridge employee number 14 hired 1 Septem ber) Pearlia King (employee number 21 hired 1 Septem ber) and Darolyn White (employee number 41 hired 1 September) The payroll record for 1 through 15 Sep tember (ALJ Exh 4) reflects that they worked a limited number of hours They do not appear on the subsequent payroll listings In that initial pay period Dumas worked only 10 34 hours King 30 31 and White 30 82 The record does not show by what date these hours were completed By contrast I list Alice Watts Hired 8 Sep tember Watts worked only 5 68 hours (ALJ Exh 4 at 14) Although Watts employment with Westridge appar ently ended after her first day (and she therefore would not have been on the payroll on 10 September) I have listed her at this point only because her listing has no bearing on the result Respondent sought employee aplicants from the first week Williamson testified Respondent contacted the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) for applicants early on 1 September and placed an advertisement in the local newspaper the Daily Sentinel that it was hiring The TEC sent some applicants on either 2 or 3 Septem ber but because of a timelag at the newspaper the hiring notice was not published for a few days When it was published many persons applied (1 92-94) During Sep tember Respondent received at least 96 applications (1 94 125) Williamson testified that 90 to 96 percent of the applicants were interviewed (1 136-137) A chart is in evidence which shows the number of applications re ceived on each date (R Exh 6b) The largest number by far 23 was submitted on 8 September Except for 1 Sep tember when Respondent received 11 applications the next highest number was 8 on 9 September In September and until mid October employees left the payroll and new ones were added Although the total never reached more than 33 (unit employees) during that timeframe Respondent contends that by 17 September the number of Timberland employees dropped below 50 percent of the total For reasons I discuss later I need not reach that issue Administrator Williamson testified it was not until about 1 October that he felt confident or comfortable with his staff (1 102 105) His testimony apparently refers not only to the number of employees but also to his confidence in their ability In any event Williamson concedes that as of the first week (of Sep tember) Westridge had employees in every (bargaining unit) job classification who were basically operating the nursing home (1 115) As earlier mentioned the classification of medication aide is disputed Williamson testified that classification had been eliminated at Timberland About mid Septem ber Williamson testified Respondent decided it would be cost effective and not sacrifice an j patient care to hire medication aides and employ fewer licensed voca tional nurses (LVNs) LVNs are not included in the bar gaining unit In mid September therefore Westndge interviewed and hired the first two medication aides Teresa Lane and Rosie Pruitt As Williamson and others testified a medication aide is permitted to do nearly ev erything a LVN may do with patients However Wil liamson testified Westndge pays a LVN a starting hourly rate of $7 but only $3 95 to a medication aide (1 95-99 104) Respondents position is that a representa tive complement of employees could not be complete without the important position of medication aide and therefore any employee count must be no earlier than mid September (Respondent fixes 17 September as the earliest date Br 5 15 ) C Analysis and Conclusions There is no dispute Respondent is a Burns9 successor to Beverly at the Westndge nursing facility in Nacog doches Texas insofar as the substantial continuity in the employing industry factor is concerned Nor is there any dispute as to the description of the bargaining unit The major dispute here is the continuity of work force factor-majority status As Respondent writes (Br 12) The parties are in agreement that this case is controlled by the recent Supreme Court decision in Fall River Dyeing Corp v NLRB 482 U S 27 (1987) I concur The Union s demand for recognition was made I find on 1 September when Orell Fitzsimmons spoke by tele phone with Co Owner Larry W Simpson 10 Under Fall River the demand is a continuing one and remains in force until the moment Westridge acquired a substantial and representative employee complement The task then is to determine the date Westridge reached that point Although that point may well have been reached before 10 September I need find only that at least as early as 10 September Westndge had acquired a substantial and rep resentative employee complement As of 10 September the Union had attained majority status because at least 57 1 percent of the bargaining unit at Westridge as of that date had been on Timberlands payroll on midnight of 31 August-1 minute before title to the facility passed to Respondent t i As mentioned Respondent contends that a representa tive complement of employees could not be complete without the important position of medication aide Re spondent s argument is without merit because it would require a full complement of the ultimate number of job classifications Well before 10 September Respondent was fully operational with the job classifications it then had Moreover it was not until mid September that Re spondent decided to add the medication aide classifica tion-a date subsequent to 10 September when at the latest the Union had achieved majority status Respondent s final argument is that it is not required to bargain with the Union because it had a good faith doubt NLRB v Burns International Security Services 406 U S 272 (1972) 10 The Union s written demand was made on 3 September the date of its letter to Respondent The date of that mailing fixes the date of the written demand Good N Fresh Foods 287 NLRB 1231 (1988) Fall River Dyeing Corp 272 NLRB 839 (1984) 11 This is a payroll fact I recognize there is an issue which I do not reach that Timberland employees in layoff status with a reasonable ex pectancy of recall who are hired by the successor may also be counted as part of the majority status WESTRIDGE MANOR NURSING HOME of the Unions majority status in light of Respondent s contention that beginning about mid September the ma jority of the Westridge employees were not former Tim berland employees That is Respordens asserts the Union lost its majority status Respondent s argument is without ment It refused on 1 September to recognize and bargain with the Union Its duty to recognize and bargain attached no later than 10 September Respondent was obligated to meet and bargain with the Union in good faith This it failed to do and it therefore is in no position to claim a good faith doubt Had it recognized the Union and began good faith bargaining it would have been free as the Supreme Court notes in Fall River to suspend bargaining if objective facts arose sufficient to justify a good faith doubt of the Union s continuing ma jority status Fall River supra at 41 fn 9 53 fn 19 In light of this analysis I find that as alleged by the General Counsel Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Westridge Manor Inc d/b/a Westridge Manor Nursing Home (Westridge) is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act 2 SEIU Local 606 (Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The following employees of Westridge constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act All full time and regular part time service and main tenance workers including nursing aides medication aides housekeeping dietary laundry and mainte nance employees employed by Respondent at its Nacogdoches Texas facility 4 At all material times and no later than 10 Septem ber 1987 the Union has been and is the exclusive repre sentative of all the employees in the bargaining unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act 5 Respondent Westridge violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act on and after 10 September 1987 by refus ing to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent and by refusing to furnish the Union the informa tion it requested by letter dated 3 September 1987 6 The unfair labor practices found affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer tarn unfair labor practices I find it necessary to order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act If bargaining ensues pursuant to my recommended Order presumably the parties will discuss whether the Union wants the date for the specific months or years it requested or more current information 31 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed12 ORDER The Respondent Westridge Manor Inc d/b/a Wes tridge Manor Nursing Home Nacogdoches Texas its officers agents successors and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Service Employees International Union SEIU Local 606 AFL- CIO-CLC as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the unit described below (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with SEIU Local 606 by refusing to furnish it with information requested by it which is necessary for and relevant to the Union s performance of its function as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described below (c) 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) On request bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the following appro prate unit concerning terms and conditions of employ ment and if an understanding is reached embody the un derstanding in a signed agreement All full time and regular part time service and main tenance workers including nursing aides medication aides housekeeping dietary laundry and mainte nance employees employed by Respondent at its Nacogdoches Texas facility (b) On request furnish the Union with the information requested in its letter to the Respondent dated 3 Septem ber 1987 (c) Post at its office and place of business in Nacog doches Texas copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 13 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16 after being signed by the Respondents authorized representative shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic uous places including all places where notices to employ ees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material 12 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur poses 13 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 Nation al 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 32 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent 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 violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or dered us to post and abide by this notice Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form join or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect ed concerted activities AFL-CIO-CLC as the exclusive bargaining represents tive of all the employees in the unit described below WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Union by re fusing to furnish it with information it requests which is necessary for and relevant to the Union s performance of its function as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees 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 on request bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions of employment for our employees in the bar gaining unit All full time and regular part time service and main tenance workers including nursing aides medication aides housekeeping dietary laundry and mainte nance employees employed by Westridge Manor Nursing Home at its Nacogdoches Texas facility WE WILL on request furnish the Union all the infor mation it requested in its letter dated 3 September 1987 to us WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with Service Employees International Union Local 606 WESTRIDGE MANOR INC D/B/A WEST RIDGE MANOR NURSING HOME