Monongahela Valley Hospital, Inc.

MONONGAHELA VALLEY HOSPITAL. INC. 69 Monongahela Valley Hospital, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America and its Local Union NO. 8041, AFL-CIO. Case 6-CA-11995 March 3, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND TRUESDALE On November 9, 1979, Administrative Law Judge David S. Davidson issued the attached Deci- sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Monongahela Valley Hospital, Inc., Charleroi and Carroll Town- ship, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Administrative Law Judge: Pur- suant to a charge filed on January 22, 1979, by United Steelworkers of America and its Local Union No. 8041, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Union, a complaint issued on March 19, 1979, alleging that boiler firemen/ maintenance mechanics' at Respondent's Charleroi divi- sion are included in the bargaining unit for which Re- spondent recognizes the Union or in the alternative are an accretion to that unit and that Respondent has violat- ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to rec- ognize the Union as the representative of the Charleroi boiler firemen. In its answer Respondent denies the com- mission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before me in Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- vania, on June 19, 1979. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties waived oral argument and were given leave to file briefs which have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent. I For convenience, boiler firemenl/maintenance mechanics are referred to herein sinply as boiler firemen 248 NLRB No. 13 Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office located in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, where it provides health care services. Respondent's annual gross revenues are in excess of $250,000 and it an- nually recieves goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert ju- risdiction herein. II. THE I.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE AL..EGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts Before September 1978, Respondent operated two sep- arate hospital facilities at Charleroi and Monongahela, Pennsylvania. Following Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board and National Labor Relations Board elections, the Union was certified as the collective-bargaining represen- tative first at Charleroi and then at Monongahela for units consisting of all employees other than nurses, confi- dential employees, professional employees, and supervi- sors. Following the second certification, the parties agreed to merge the two units into a single bargaining unit and to extend the terms of the existing Charleroi contract to the Monongahela employees. By July 1977, when the contract expired, Respondent had undertaken to build a single replacement facility in Carroll Township to which it intended to remove the pa- tient care facilities at Charleroi and Monongahela. In the negotiations for a new agreement in the spring of 1977, the parties discussed the impact of the move on the con- tract and agreed that the contract would apply to the new facility upon its completion. The Union proposed in addition that if the old facilities remained in use after the move, the jobs at those facilities should remain a part of the bargaining unit. However, it offered to exempt those facilities from operation of a successorship clause if Re- spondent were to sell the old facilities thereafter. The Union argued that the bargaining unit employees should have an opportunity to retain jobs at the old facilities be- cause it was anticipated that up to 100 of them would be laid off as a result of the move.2 Respondent took the position that the future disposition and use of the old fa- cilities had not been determined and that it would be more difficult to sell them if the Union continued to rep- resent the employees at them. The issue was discussed 2 Although Respondent had anticipated a reduction in force after the move, ultimately Respondent needed to add employees at Carroll Town- ship because of the size of the building and the addition of new services 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the beginning of negotiations in April through the end of May when the Union removed its proposal from the table. The parties ultimately reached an agreement effective July 1, 1977, for a 4-year period which contained the fol- lowing provisions pertinent to recognition: SECTION I - AGREEMENT This Agreement, effective July 1, 1977, is be- tween Monongahela Valley Hospital, Incorporated which presently operates non-profit acute care fa- cilities at its Charleroi and Monongahela Divisions and will in the future replace such facilities with a facility adjacent to Country Club Road in Carroll Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, her- einafter referred to as the "Hospital" and United Steelworkers of America, in behalf of Local Union 8041, hereinafter referred to as the "Union." SECTION III - UNION SECURITY B. Recognition I. The Hospital recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the purposes of negotiating wage rates, hours of work and other conditions of employment for all of the employees of the Hospital excluding nurses, supervisors, confi- dential and all others as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. In the spring of 1978, as the Carroll Township facility was nearing completion, Respondent informed the Union that the old facilities were not going to be sold at that point and thereafter, in May or June 1978, Respondent indicated that it would continue to need boiler firemen at the Charleroi facility. Respondent suggested that four of the boiler firemen then at Charleroi remain there, that the Union continue to represent the boiler firemen at Charleroi, and that the boiler firemen positions at the new location be posted. The Union initially agreed, but in July Respondent asked the boiler firemen who wanted to remain at Charleroi to sign a statement which union representatives construed as waiving their seniority rights at Carroll Township. The Union protested and again proposed broader recognition for the Union as the representative of all employees Respondent might employ at Charleroi with seniority rights at both loca- tions, but with no right to continued recognition if Re- spondent sold the facility. Respondent rejected the pro- posal and told the Union that in the circumstances the boiler firemen working at Charleroi would all be trans- ferred to the new facility. In September 1978, shortly before the new facility was to open union representatives asked Personnel Director Frederick Auretto about the possibility that some laun- dry employees would be kept at Charleroi until the laun- dry facilities at the new building were operable. In that connection the Union repeated its proposal for continued representation of Respondent's employees at Charleroi. Respondent again rejected the Union's proposal and in- formed the Union that the laundry employees would move to the new facility at the same time as the rest of the bargaining unit. On September 29, 1978, Respondent moved both pa- tients and staff into the new Carroll Township facility, which is about 3 miles from each of the old buildings. After the move, two doctors, who are members of Re- spondent's staff, continued to maintain and regularly uti- lize offices at Charleroi to see patients, and Respondent continued to store medical records, furniture, and sup- plies at Charleroi because of a lack of storage space at the new facility. Respondent's board of directors has established a plan- ning committee to investigate possible future uses for the Charleroi facility, including possible renovation so that Respondent can operate it as an extended care facility. At the time of the hearing that committee had reached no conclusions. In September, before the move, Respondent advertised for boiler firemen to work at Charleroi after September 29, and Respondent hired several boiler firemen to con- tinue operating the boilers there. Since September 29 the boiler operators at Charleroi receive the same benefits as unit and nonunit employees at Carroll Township. The nature of their work is essentially the same as the work of the boiler firemen at Charleroi before September 29 and is similar to the work of the boiler firemen at Carroll Township. Both before and after the move, the boiler firemen in Charleroi were supervised by Assistant Engi- neer Hassick who also supervises the boiler firemen at Carroll Township. For the first 2 weeks after the move Hassick spent considerable time at Charleroi training the new boiler firemen, and thereafter visited Charleroi oc- casionally to bring in work schedules, pick up timecards, and to help the boiler firemen with any problems that arose. On occasion Charleroi boiler firemen visit the Carroll Township facility to get supplies, paychecks, and time- cards. Clerical employees in the bargaining unit at Car- roll Township have visited Charleroi to obtain and return patient records stored there, and boiler firemen from Carroll Township have visited Charleroi to move wheelchairs and furniture stored there and to borrow supplies. 3 After Respondent hired the boiler firemen at Charle- roi, Local Union President Oliphant discussed the matter with then International Union Representative Czelen. As Czelen was about to retire, and they were trying to finish a job description classification program, they did nothing further about the boiler firemen until Interna- tional Union Representative Kutska was assigned to re- place Czelen in January 1979. On January 9, 1979, Kutska notified Respondent that the Union claimed the right to represent the Charleroi boiler firemen. On January 16, Respondent informed the Union that it would not recognize it as the representative I There is disputed testimony as to the use of the Charleroi laundry facility by bargaining unit employees since the move to Carroll Town- ship. I have credited Respondent's administrator that those facilities were used only by supervisors from Charleroi on two occasions and that a bar- gaining unit employee drove the truck between the two locations on those occasions. MONONGAHELA VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. 71 of the boiler firemen at Charleroi, Thereafter the Union filed the charge in this case. B. Concluding Findings The General Counsel contends that the Charleroi boiler firemen were concededly in the bargaining unit before the Carroll Township facility opened and that when Respondent continued to employ boiler firemen at Charleroi after the move they remained a part of the bar- gaining unit. In the alternative, the General Counsel con- tends that if the original unit is viewed as having been transferred entirely to Carroll Township the boiler fire- men at Charleroi are an accretion to that unit. Respondent contends that the new facility at Carroll Township and the old facility at Charleroi are two sepa- rate and distinct operations, that Carroll Township is a health care facility while Charleroi is not, and that it would be inappropriate to combine the employees at the two locations in a single unit because it would subject the Charleroi employees to restrictions not otherwise ap- plicable to them and would burden collective-bargaining negotiations. Respondent contends that such a combina- tion is particularly inappropriate for boiler firemen be- cause they are traditionally found to constitute separate appropriate units even in the face of factors showing their community of interest with other employees. Re- spondent also disputes the General Counsel's contention that the Charleroi boiler firemen constitute an accretion to the Carroll Township unit and Respondent contends finally that the Union waived its rights to represent the Charleroi boiler firemen by its conduct during and after 1977 contract negotiations. There is no question that the classification of boiler firemen falls within the description of the unit for which the Union is recognized. The only issue, apart from waiver, is whether the move of practically all of Respon- dent's operations into new facilities effected such a change at Charleroi that the employees working there as boiler firemen, the only category of employees remaining at Charleroi, lack a community of interest with Respon- dent's other employees and should be excluded from their bargaining unit. It is true that what remains at Charleroi is but a shadow of Respondent's former full hospital facility at that location. However, what remains retains its relation to the former use of the Charleroi facility, and there is no additional use of that location which might be deemed to change its character. It is still used for the of- fices of two doctors and to house records and supplies of the hospital. Employees at each facility have occasion to visit the other in the course of their duties. The boiler firemen directly at issue have common supervision with those at Carroll Township, and the benefits of both groups are the same. At the inception of the bargaining relationship between the parties and at the time the most recent agreement was executed the bargaining unit spe- cifically included Charleroi division employees. These factors all support a conclusion that the two groups of employees retain a community of interest and that the 3- mile physical separation of Charleroi from Carroll Township would not warrant excluding the Charleroi boiler firemen from the unit represented by the Union. Respondent's initial contrary contention is that the em- ployees at the two facilities lack a community of interest, because the two facilities are separate and distinct, with one constituting a health care facility and the other not. Respondent's premise that Charleroi is no longer a health care facility is subject to question. The cases relied on by Respondent deal with employers who furnish no patient care at any facility. 4 The appropriate characterization of a facility such as Charleroi which is part of an institution devoted to patient care does not appear to have been previously decided. I would find that the proximity of Charleroi to Carroll Township, the interrelation of the limited operations at Charleroi to the operation of the Carroll Township hospital, the common supervision of the Charleroi employees with Carroll Township employ- ees, and the visits of employees from one facility to the other warrant viewing Charleroi and Carroll Township as an integrated entity, all constituting a health care insti- tution.6 However, I find it unnecessary to decide that issue, for, even if Charleroi were viewed otherwise, the claimed impediments to including employees at both lo- cations in a single unit are insubstantial and to some extent internally inconsistent. Respondent contends first that to include the Charleroi employees within the Carroll Township unit would ave the undesirable result of requiring the Charleroi employ- ees to comply with the special notice and mediation pro- cedures applicable to health care institutions despite the fact that they do not work in one. Respondent then con- tends that including health care and nonhealth care em- ployees in a single unit would also add to the burden of the parties in negotiations because part of the unit would operate under one set of negotiating rules while the other would be subject to different rules. If in fact the Charleroi employees are subject to health care notice and mediation procedures, then the parties would not be confronted with two sets of negotiating rules. But in any event neither possibility presents a substantial factor which outweighs factors set forth above which show a community of interest between the two groups of em- ployees. The special notice and mediation procedures simply allow more time for negotiation and mediation before parties may resort to a strike. Assuming that in- clusion of the Charleroi employees in the unit with the Carroll Township employees would subject the Charle- roi employees to these provisions and defer their right to strike, they would gain from such inclusion the advan- tages those procedures are designed to provide in the form of increased opportunity for settlement without striking. Their inclusion would bring to them the added advantage of uniform concerted action among all of Re- spondent's nonprofessional employees. Assuming that in- clusion of the Charleroi employees in the same unit with the Carroll Township employees would subject the par- ties to two sets of negotiating rules, since there would be a single unit, the more stringent health care notice provi- sions would undoubtedly be followed by the parties for Boston Medical Laboratory, Inc., 235 NLRB 1271 (1978); Damon Medical Laboratory, Inc.., 234 NLRB 333 (1978). Cf Orange Belt District Council of Painters No. 48, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (Saint Joseph Hospi- tarol), 243 NLRB No. 113 (1979) 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the entire unit, and the only likely difference would be that a strike could commence at Charleroi sooner than at Carroll Township and without 10 days' notice of intent. The burden on the parties would be no less and probably greater if separate units were established, for separate ne- gotiations as well as negotiating procedures might then be required. Thus the claimed burden on the parties is not a factor to be considered in determining whether the Charleroi employees should be excluded from the overall unit. Respondent next contends that inclusion of boiler fire- men at Charleroi with other employees is especially inap- propriate because of the Board's policy of finding sepa- rate units of such employees appropriate even where there is a high degree of plant integration. The Board's policy is to find such units appropriate where a separate unit is actively sought. 6 But these policies do not weigh against a finding that such employees have community of interests with other employees where their inclusion with other employees is sought. Thus, it is the Board's policy to direct self-determination elections where craft or de- partmental severance is sought, where either a separate or overall unit may be appropriate. ? Moreover, in this case, the community of interests between the Charleroi boiler firemen and the Carroll Township employees is buttressed by the fact that the boiler firemen at Carroll Township are included in the unit. I find therefore that the Charleroi boiler firemen have a community of inter- est with the Carroll Township bargaining unit employees which supports their continued inclusion in the unit. There remains for consideration Respondent's conten- tion that the Union by its conduct in and after the 1977 negotiations waived its right to bargain for the Charleroi boiler firemen as part of the overall bargaining unit. Re- spondent contends initially that the standard to be ap- plied in determining this issue is the normal contractual interpretation test set forth in the majority opinion in Ra- dioear Corporation, 199 NLRB 1161 (1972), rather than the clear and unmistakable waiver test more traditionally applied by the Board in determining whether rights under the Act have been waived. However, since Ra- dioear, a panel majority has applied the stricter standard in Hunt Brothers Corporation, Inc., 219 NLRB 177 (1975), which involved a waiver issue similar to that in this case, and I find that standard applicable here.8 First to be considered is the effect of the 1977 negotia- tions and contract. At the time of those negotiations the Carroll Township facility was not yet completed and for more than a year after the agreement was reached it ap- plied to the operations at Charleroi and Mononogahela as in the past. At the time of the negotiations, while the parties knew that the Carroll Township facility would eventually be occupied, they did not know what disposi- tion would be made of Charleroi and Monongahela. In the recognition clause of the agreement Respondent rec- ognizes the Union as bargaining agent of all employees * Sr. Vincent Hospital, 223 NLRB 638 (1976); New England Confection- ery Company, 108 NLRB 728 (1954). ' Victor Manufacturing & Gasket Company, 133 NLRB 1283 (1962); American Potash & Chemical Corp., 107 NLRB 1418 (1954). 8 See also Pepsi-Cola Distributing Company of Knoxville. Tennessee, Inc., 241 NLRB No. 136 (1979). of the hospital in the unit classifications without refer- ence to any location. The introductory paragraph of the agreement makes reference to the projected replacement of Charleroi and Monongahela by Carroll Township. Neither contains anything which might be viewed as a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to represent Charleroi employees after the projected move took place. The Union's bargaining proposal and Respondent's re- jection of it also do not establish such a waiver. What the Union sought was the right to represent all future employees in covered classifications without regard to how the old facilities might be used or their relation to the continuation of Respondent's existing operations at Carroll Township. When Respondent rejected the Union's proposal, it was withdrawn. Particularly as the future use and work to be performed at Charleroi had not yet been determined, the failure of the parties to agree to include the Union's broad proposal in their con- tract does not establish that the Union agreed to yield its right to claim continued representation rights under its existing certifications for employees who might be em- ployed at Charleroi after the move and who might be engaged in functions and work related to that previously performed there. What the Union sought and failed to gain went far beyond the obligation it seeks to enforce in this case. Respondent urges that, in order to avoid a find- ing that it waived any future claim to representation at Charleroi, the Union, at that point, was required to have specifically expressed its intentions to seek resolution of its bargaining claim later in another forum. However, that requirement would place the burden on the Union to show that it had not waived its claim and to invert the applicable waiver standard. I find that the Union did not waive its rights to claim representation rights for the Charleroi boiler firemen in the 1977 contract or the ne- gotiations leading to it. Respondent contends that the Union's conduct in the summer of 1978, when it rejected Respondent's limited offer of recognition for the Charleroi boiler firemen, is further evidence of waiver. However, at that time the Union did not reject recognition. It had initially agreed to Respondent's offer, and only changed its position when it became concerned with the effect of what Re- spondent was asking the Charleroi boiler firemen to sign. Then it raised again its proposal that Respondent had re- jected in the 1977 negotiations and without further bar- gaining Respondent withdrew its offer and put an end to the discussions. Nothing in the Union's conduct demon- strates that it abandoned any claim to represent the Charleroi boiler firemen. The next incident on which Respondent relies is the Union's protest over the possible use of the laundry fa- cilities at Charleroi by employees at Carroll Township. Again the Union unsuccessfully sought agreement to its proposal for recognition at Charleroi. The fact that Union President Oliphant at that time may have told management that she did not want laundry employees working in a nonunion building reflects only continued desire on the part of the Union to represent the Charle- roi employees and recognition of the fact that Respon- MONONGAHELA VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC. 73 dent had not acceded to the Union's position. It does not reflect an abandonment of its position. Finally, Respondent contends that the Union's failure to grieve or otherwise protest Respondent's rejection of its representation claims in the summer of 1978, when the continued use of boiler firemen at Charleroi was first dis- cussed; in September, when the possible use of laundry facilities at Charleroi was discussed; or in late Septem- ber, when the Charleroi boiler firemen were first em- ployed establishes a waiver of its claim. Respondent points to the fact that, from late September until Kutska became union representative in January, the Union made no effort to apply the contract to the filling of the Charleroi boiler firemen's jobs, to enforce the union-se- curity provisions of the agreement as to them, or to pro- test the discharge of one of them. It is true, as Respondent contends, that the Board will not clarify a unit to include employees who have been excluded for substantial periods of time by agreement or acquiescence.9 But the circumstances in this case are by no means analogous. The Union never agreed to the ex- clusion of the Charleroi boiler firemen from the bargain- ing unit. Respondent's withdrawal of its limited recogni- tion proposal in July and its consistent rejection of the Union's proposals made it clear that any grievances would have been denied and that ultimately the Union would have to rely on either arbitration or Board pro- ceedings to enforce its claim. That the Union waited ap- proximately 3-1/2 months from the time Respondent first hired boiler firemen to work at Charleroi until it filed its unfair labor practice charge shows neither acquiescence to Respondent's position that they were excluded from the unit nor abandonment of the union's claim. I con- clude that the evidence fails to establish that the Union waived its right to continue to represent the boiler fire- men at Charleroi as part of the overall bargaining unit of Respondent's employees. For the above reasons I find that the Charleroi boiler firemen remain a part of the bargaining unit for which the Union has been recognized. ° I conclude therefore that, by Respondent's admitted refusal to recognize the Union as the representative of the Charleroi boiler fire- men as part of that unit, Respondent has refused to bar- gain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: " Plough., Inc., 203 NLRB 818 (1973); Union Electric Company. 217 NLRB 666 (1975) 'O In the light of these findings I find it unnecessary to consider fur- ther the General Counsel's alternative contention that the Charleroi boiler firemen are an accretion to the bargaining unit or Respondent's contentions in opposition to it. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Monongahela Valley Hospital, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. United Steelworkers of America and its Local Union No. 8041, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All employees employed by Respondent, including its boiler firemen/maintenance mechanics at its Charleroi Division, but excluding nurses, confidential employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors, as de- fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(b) of the Act. 4. The Union is, and at all times since July 1, 1977, has been, the exclusive representative for purposes of collec- tive bargaining of the employees in the appropriate unit described above within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. Since on or about January 16, 1979, Respondent has refused to bargain in good faith with the Union with re- spect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with the boiler firemen/maintenance me- chanics employed at the Charleroi Division who are in- cluded in the appropriate unit set forth above, thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER I ' The Respondent, Monongahela Valley Hospital, Inc., Charleroi and Carroll Township, Pennsylvania, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with United Steelworkers of America and its Local Union No. 8041, AFL-CIO, with respect to wages, hours, and conditions of employment as the exclusive representative for pur- poses of collective bargaining of its employees in the fol- lowing appropriate unit:All employees employed by Re- spondent, including its boiler firemen/maintenance me- chanics at its Charleroi Division, but excluding all nurses, confidential employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage in or refrain from engaging in any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above- named Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment, and honor any understandings which may II In the event no exceptions are filed as provsided hb Sec. 102 4 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted bh the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. _. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD exist or be reached with respect to all employees in the appropriate unit. (b) Post at its Charleroi and Carroll Township, Penn- sylvania, places of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 12 In the event that 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 Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order 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 WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with United Steelworkers of America and its Local Union No. 8041, AFL-CIO, with respect to wages, hours, and conditions of employment as the exclu- sive representative for purposes of collective bar- gaining of our employees in the following appropri- ate unit: All employees employed by us including our boiler firemen/maintenance mechanics at our Charleroi Division, but excluding all nurses, con- fidential employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to engage in or refrain from engaging in any or all of the activities speci- fied in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the exclusive representa- tive of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and honor any un- derstandings which exist or may be reached with respect to all employees in the appropriate unit. MONONGAHELA VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC.