Windsor Castle Health Care

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1994

314 N.L.R.B. 1270 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1270
314 NLRB No. 210
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to herein relate to
the year 1993.
Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc. and
New England Health Care Employees Union,
District 119, AFL–CIO. Case 34–CA–6259
September 23, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHEN
On April 19, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Joel
P. Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions, with attachments, and the
General Counsel filed a brief in answer to the Re-
spondent’s exceptions.
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 brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and con-
clusions 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, Windsor Castle Health
Care Facilities, Inc., New Haven, Connecticut, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the Order.
Darryl Hale, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Morris Tuchman, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P. BIBLOWITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard by me on January 4, 1994, in Hartford, Connecti-
cut. The complaint herein, which issued on September 17,
1993,1 and was based on an unfair labor practice charge filed
on August 4 by New England Health Care Employees Union,
District 1199, AFL–CIO (the Union), alleges that Windsor
Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc. (the Respondent) violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to furnish the
Union with information it requested by letter on about July
1, said information being necessary and relevant to the Union
as the representative of certain of Respondent’s employees,
and by failing and refusing to bargain with the Union.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of
business in New Haven, Connecticut (the facility), has been
engaged as a health care institution in the operation of a
nursing home providing in-patient medical and professional
care services for the elderly and infirm. During the 12-month
period ending August 31, Respondent derived gross revenues
in excess of $100,000 and, during the same period, pur-
chased and received at the facility goods valued in excess of
$5000 directly from points outside the State of Connecticut.
Respondent admits, and I find, that it has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The collective-bargaining unit involved herein is:
All service and maintenance employees employed by
the Employer at its New Haven, Connecticut facility,
but excluding office clerical employees, licensed prac-
tical nurses, registered nurses, and guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
In October 1989 Respondent recognized 1115 Nursing Home
and Service Employees Union (Local 1115) as the collective-
bargaining representative of these employees, and on about
October 16, entered into a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 1115 covering these employees. By Order dated
March 4, the Board found that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by, among other things, as-
sisting Local 1115 and by recognizing and entering into a
contract with Local 1115, at a time when it did not represent
an uncoerced majority of these employees. At the same time,
the Board found that Local 1115 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act. The remedy required, among other things,
that Respondent would not give effect to the existing collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and would not recognize Local
1115, absent certification by the Board. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit enforced this Order
on January 11, 1994.
Pursuant to an election, on June 16 the Board certified the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
Respondent’s employees in the unit described above. Re-
spondent and Local 1115’s request for review of the Re-
gional Director’s Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representative, that was the basis for this certification, was
denied by the Board by Order dated February 17, 1994. The
Board’s Order also denied Respondent’s Motion for a Stay
of Certification.
That brings us to the instant matter. The complaint alleges,
and Respondent admits, that on about July 1, the Union, by
letter, requested that Respondent furnish it with certain infor-
mation and that Respondent bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit employees. That the information requested by the
Union in items 1, 2, 3(1–6), 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35(1, 2 & 3), 36, 37, and 38 of the letter described above
is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of
its duties as the collective-bargaining representative of the
unit. That since about July 1, Respondent has refused to fur-
nish the Union with the above-described information, and
that since about July 1, Respondent has failed and refused
to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
1271WINDSOR CASTLE HEALTH CARE
2 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.
3 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.’’
ing representative of the unit. Respondent, in its answer, ad-
mits all these allegations. I therefore find that Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing
to provide the Union with the necessary and relevant infor-
mation it requested of Respondent by letter on about July 1,
and by failing and refusing to bargain with the Union, the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of certain of its
unit employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All service and maintenance employees employed by
the Employer at its New Haven, Connecticut facility,
but excluding office clerical employees, licensed prac-
tical nurses, registered nurses, and guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. Since on about July 1, 1993, Respondent has failed and
refused to bargain with the Union, the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees in the above-mentioned ap-
propriate unit, and has therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act.
5. Since on about July 1, 1993, Respondent has refused to
furnish the Union with necessary and relevant information
that it requested from Respondent in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
As I have found that Respondent has failed and refused to
bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative for its employees in an appropriate unit, I shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered, on request, to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union, and on the conclusion of
those negotiations, to embody in a written agreement all the
agreed-on terms. Further, as I have found that Respondent
has refused to furnish the Union with certain information re-
quested in its July 1, 1993 letter, information that is relevant
to, and necessary for, the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of certain of Respondent’s employees, I shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered to promptly provide
the Union with the information requested in that letter under
items 1, 2, 3(1–6), 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35(1, 2
& 3), 36, 37, and 38.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities,
Inc., New Haven, Connecticut, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All service and maintenance employees employed by
the Employer at its New Haven, Connecticut facility,
but excluding office clerical employees, licensed prac-
tical nurses, registered nurses, and guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to furnish the Union with information that it
requested, which information is necessary for, and relevant
to, the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit described above.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
as guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, negotiate and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the above-described collective-bargaining unit and,
if these negotiations resulted in an agreement, to set forth
that agreement in a signed written agreement.
(b) On request, promptly provide the Union with the infor-
mation it requested in its letter dated on about July 1, 1993,
under items 1, 2, 3(1–6), 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35(1, 2 & 3), 36, 37, and 38.
(c) Post at its facility in New Haven, Connecticut, copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 34, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
1272 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 bargain in good faith with
New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199,
AFL–CIO, the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of our employees, in the following appropriate unit:
All service and maintenance employees employed by us
at our New Haven, Connecticut facility, but excluding
office clerical employees, licensed practical nurses, reg-
istered nurses, and guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union with requested
information, when such information is necessary for, and rel-
evant to, the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the above-described employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights as guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain in good faith with the Union
on the terms and conditions of employment of our employees
in the above-described unit and, on reaching an agreement,
we will embody that agreement in a written memorandum.
WE WILL, on request, furnish the Union with the relevant
and necessary information requested by the Union in its let-
ter to us dated about July 1, 1993.
WINDSOR CASTLE HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, INC.