Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., Mary Immaculate Hospital Division, and St. Mary's Hospital Divison and New York State Federation of Physicians and Dentists. Case 29-CA-5479 September 28, 1979 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO. AND MURPHY On May 26, 1978, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceed- ing.' The Board, in agreement with Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Mullin, found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with and supply certain requested infor- mation to the New York State Federation of Physi- cians and Dentists (hereinafter called the Federation or the Union), which was certified by the Board in Cases 29-RC-3276 and 29-RC-3278 as the exclusive bargaining representative of physicians and dentists in the stipulated appropriate units at Mary Immacu- late Hospital (hereinafter also called Mary Immacu- late) and St. Mary's Hospital (hereinafter also called St. Mary's),2 respectively. In so doing the Board, in pertinent part, found without merit Respondent's af- firmative defense that in the underlying representa- tion proceedings the Board had erroneously adopted the Regional Director's Reports on Objections which found, inter alia, that supervisors had engaged in con- duct in support of the Federation, but that, looking only at evidence of such conduct occurring after the filing of the operative petitions as required by the Board's Ideal Electric rule,3 there was insufficient ba- sis for concluding that the election should be set aside. The Board also adopted the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by reinstating a system for periodic wage reviews to all its physicians and den- tists except those in the collective-bargaining units "to convince its employees that the Union was re- sponsible for the loss of their wage increase." The Board therefore directed Respondent to cease and de- sist from, in any other manner, infringing upon em- ployees' rights under Section 7 of the Act. '236 NLRB 497. 2 Mary Immnnaculate and St. Mary's are also collectively referred to herein as the Center or Respondent. 3 In The Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 NLRB 1275 (1961), the Board, in considering objections to elections, ruled that it would look only to evidence of conduct which occurred between the time the peti- tion is filed and the election is held. In Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453 (1962), the Board extended the Ideal Electric rule to consent elections. Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals or the Second Circuit issued its decision4 setting aside that portion of the Board's Order finding the Em- ployer guilty of a refusal to bargain. The court re- manded for determination by the Board the question whether the election should be set aside because of alleged objectionable supervisory conduct in support of the Federation which occurred during the pen- dency of a petition for election subsequently with- drawn and replaced. Thus the court, without deciding the validity of the Ideal Electric-Goodyear cutoff in the usual type of cases, directed the Board to consider the evidence of supervisory conduct in support of the Federation prior to the filing of the operative, i.e., second, petition.5 Additionally, the court vacated the Board's Order regarding the 8(a)(3) violation to allow full reconsideration of such matters upon resolution of the alleged unlawful refusal to bargain. The court also set aside the "broad order" with instructions that any cease-and-desist provisions found necessary by the Board be limited to the unfair labor practices found and any like or related unlawful acts. 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, having duly considered the issues out- standing in light of the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanding the proceeding, and the statements of position on re- mand of Respondent and the General Counsel, has, for the reasons set forth below, decided to reaffirm the validity of the Federation's certification and therefore its original finding that Respondent unlawfully re- fused to bargain with and supply certain information to the Federation. Additionally, the Board has de- cided to reaffirm its finding that Respondent discrim- inatorily reinstituted its system of periodic wage re- views in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 1. Alleged objectionable supervisory conduct in support of the Federation The facts, as set forth in the Regional Director's Reports on Objections, are undisputed. The clinical '589 F.2d 1166 (December 5 1978: amended January 9 1979). 5The court, at fn. 6. noted that Respondent, in attacking the Board's application of the Ideal Electric doctrine to conduct prior to the first petition, cited Gibson's Discount ('enter, A Division of Scrivner-Boogaar,t. Inc., 214 NLRB 221 (1974). In Gibsons the Board, applying N L..R B v. Savair Manu- facluring Co., 414 U.S. 270 (1973). found that a prepetition offer to waive initiation fees for employees signing authorization cards prior to the election invalidated the election. Respondent also cited Lyon's Restaurants, A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Consolidated Food Company, 234 NLRB 178 (1978). wherein the Board, Member Murphy dissenting, found objectionable prepe- tition threats of job loss which propelled two employees into signing union authorization cards. The court, observing that the Board had considered 245 NLRB No. 106 808 THE CATHOLIC MEDICAI. CENTER OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS operations of the Center's divisional hospitals are or- ganized into departments which represent medical disciplines or groups of disciplines. Many depart- ments consist of divisions and/or sections. Each de- partment is headed by a chairman. designated by the board of trustees, who is responsible for the profes- sional and administrative operations of the depart- ment and serves on the medical board. The day-to- day operation of each departmental service is over- seen by a director or a chief. Codirectors share de- partment duties and responsibilities with directors. Chairman, directors, codirectors. and chiefs possess and exercise supervisory authority within the mean- ing of the Act. The Federation's organizational campaign at the Center evolved as follows: In spring 1975, Calvin Norman (director of the department of radiology, St. Mary's) spoke to a number of directors and chiefs at St. Mary's and Mary Immaculate about the desirabil- ity of forming an organization to represent the Cen- ter's salaried physicians. Thereafter, in May or June 1975,6 Norman, Alexander Gotta (director of the de- partment of anesthesiology, St. Mary's), Cassim Jadwat (director of' the department of anesthesiology. Mary Immaculate), and Vito Cardo (chief of oral sur- gery of the department of dentistry, St. Mary's) held three or four meetings to ascertain the sentiments among the Center's salaried physicians and dentists regarding forming a labor organization. About the same time, Norman received an unsolicited letter from the Federation stating that it was formed to rep- resent physicians. Norman thereupon contacted the Federation and, subsequently, accompanied by Gotta, Jadwat, and Cardo, attended a meeting with several Federation officers, including Executive Sec- retary Larry Nathan, at which the Federation was discussed. No communications occurred between the Feder- ation and the Center's physicians and dentists until October or November when Nathan, in response to a call from an unidentified physician indicating an or- ganizing campaign might be fruitful, commenced the Federation's organizing campaign at the Center. Nor- man and Jadwat supplied Nathan with the names of Center employees who might be interested in the Federation. Nathan telephoned employees requesting their support for the Federation and the names of other employees to contact, and he mailed blank au- thorization cards and other union literature to em- both of those situations unique, found neither case applicable here The court indicated. however, that Respondent was free on remand to attack Ideal Electric "more generally " 6 Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated. all dates are in late 1975 or earl: 1976. ployees. The Federation held no meeting for Center employees and sent no representatives to the Center. The Federation's initial petition was filed on De- cember 187 and was withdrawn on December 31. Thereafter. on January 15. the Federation filed the operative petitions for separate elections in units of full-time and regular part-time physicians and den- tists at Mary Immaculate and St. Mary's. The elec- tions were conducted on February 26. In addition to the above, there is evidence that, prior to the filing of the December 18 petition, super- visors attended early organizational meetings, spoke favorably to employees regarding unionization, signed authorization cards, and distributed authoriza- tion card:; to employees. The evidence of supervisory activity in support of the Federation after December 18 is as follows: Norman and Cardo distributed au- thorization cards to employees at both hospitals and Manuel Arel (chief physician, emergency room, Mary Immaculate) gave at least one authorization card to an employee at Mary Immaculate. All of these solici- tations took place before January 15, the date the second petition was filed. Several supervisors signed authorization cards, although only one did so after Januarv 15, and she did so in private at her home. Both before and after January 15, Norman, on a few occasions, told employees that he personally favored the Federation, but that the choice was up to the indi- vidual. Up to January 15, Cardo had conversations with employees during which he stated he felt union- ization would be beneficial. About a month before the election Cardo discussed the advantages and disad- vantages of the Federation with an inquiring em- ployee and a few days before the election allegedly told one employee it would be a good idea to have the Federation. Upon employee inquiries regarding the Federation, Howard Adleman (director of the depart- ment of radiology, Mary Immaculate) indicated that, while he personally favored the Federation, employ- ees were free to choose for themselves. Andel and Jadwat similarly told employees who asked that the decision to support the Federation was up to them. Jerome Dobowy (codirector of the department of ra- diology, St. Mary's) told inquiring employees up to the date of the election that he personally favored the Federation. During the election campaign. the Center made known to employees its opposition to unionization and the Federation. On February II. certain Center officials and its attorney held a meeting at each hospi- tal to advise supervisory physicians and dentists that they were ineligible to vote in the election and not to support the Federation. Also, a 10-page document I his petition. a armended on December 31, sought an election in a unit of the ('enter's physicians and dentists at its four hospital divisions 809 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD entitled "Guidelines for Management Employees," which in effect urged supervisors to publicize the Cen- ter's opposition to the Federation, was distributed and discussed.' Between February I I and 18, the Em- ployer held department service meetings for most of the employees at which it presented its opposition to the Federation. The Center also distributed to em- ployees letters, dated February 12, 20. and 23 and signed by the director of labor relations and person- nel, which set out in detail the reasons why they should not support or vote for the Federation. Respondent asserts that the evidence of supervisory support for the Federation between the filing of the first petition on December 18 and the election on February 26 is sufficient to warrant setting aside the election,9 but that, if the Board reaches a contrary result, it should additionally consider the evidence of similar conduct predating the first petition which Re- spondent alleges so tainted the election process as to require a new election. We find no basis for departing from the Ideal Electric rule with respect to the first petition. Nor do we find that the evidence of supervi- sory support for the Federation occurring after the filing of the first petition impaired the employees' freedom of choice in the election or constituted inter- ference which would warrant setting aside the elec- tion. With respect to Respondent's contention that the Board, in considering the objections, should rely on supervisory conduct in support of the Federation pre- dating the filing of the first petition, we concur in the finding of the Second Circuit that Gibson's Discount, supra, and Lyon's Restaurants, supra, are inapplicable to the instant facts.'° Furthermore, we find misplaced Respondent's reliance on R. Dakin and Company" and N.L.R.B. v. Lawrence Typographical Union No. 570, AFL-CIO [Kansas Color Press, Inc.]. 2 In R. Dakin, supra, the Board clearly indicated that it was considering the alleged objectionable prepetition con- duct only because the remanding court had directed it to do so'3 and that the case did not establish a rule of law to govern the disposition of future cases. As to I Excerpts from the "Guidelines for Management Employees" indicating the Center's strong opposition to union representation appeared in a Febru- ary 18 letter sent to employees by the Federation. I As noted above, the court's remand directs the Board to consider evi- dence of alleged objectionable conduct dating back, at least, to the filing of the first petition. l0 See fn. 5, supra. Neither case was intended to indicate "any broad depar- ture from the Ideal Electric rule," Gibson's Discount, 214 NLRB at 222. fn. 3. Lyon's Restaurants, 234 NLRB 178, 179, and Respondent has presented no persuasive reasons why the Board, in considering objections to an election. should rely on prepetition conduct in other than similar, unique situations. Member Murphy, in any event, would not follow Lyon's Resraurants (see her dissenting opinion therein). H 207 NLRB 521 (1973). 12 367 F.2d 643 (0th Cir. 1967). 1' N.L.R.B. v. R. Dakin and Company, 477 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1973). Lawrence Typographical Union, supra, the emphasis therein was not the number of days between the al- leged objectionable conduct and the election, as Re- spondent suggests, but rather the nature of the con- duct at issue. Thus, having determined that an offer of superseniority to strike replacements prior to the filing of a decertification petition would have a con- tinuing coercive effect, the court concluded that the premise of the Ideal Electric rule, i.e., that bh the elec- tion the coercive effects of prepetition conduct have dissipated, was manifestly inapplicable. Accordingly, we find no justification for deviating from the eal Electric-Goodyear rule with respect to the first peti- tion. We will not, therefore, specifically rely on super- visory conduct in support of the Federation antedat- ing December 18 as grounds for setting aside the election. Turning to the evidence of supervisory conduct in support of the Federation between the filing of the first petition and the election. which we are required by the remanding court to consider, we note at the outset that mere supervisory participation in a union's organizational campaign does not necessarily warrant setting aside an election.'4 The Board has found that such participation can constitute grounds for setting aside an election where: (I) employees may be led to believe the supervisor was acting on behalf of the employer and that the employer favors the union: and (2) employees could reasonably have been coerced out of fear of future retaliation by union-oriented supervisors into supporting the union." Neither situation is present here. With respect to the first, it is inconceivable that the employees here could reasonably have believed the supervisors were acting on behalf of the Employer.' 6 The supervisory activity herein occurred predomi- nantly among first-line supervisors whose views were known by employees to differ from those of higher management. Most supervisory comments in support of the Federation were qualified as statements of per- sonal preference, thereby dispelling any notion that 4 Turner's Express, Incorporated. 189 NLRB 106 (1971 ); Steenson Equip- men/ Company, 174 NLRB 865 (1969). 5 Gary Aircrafti Corporation, 220 NLRB 187 (1975). i5 We note that certain of the statements under consideration-supervisors telling employees they personally favored the Federation but hat the choice was up to the individual, and discussing with an inquiring employee the advantages and disadvantages of the Federation would not in themselves be ound objectionable even if attributed to management because not rea- sonably construable as carrying implied threats or promises of benefit. The other statements involved herein -a supervisor telling employees that the supervisor felt unionization would be beneficial, or that it would be a good idea to have the Federation, or in response to inquiries that the supervisor personally favored the Federation are, at most. doubtful or borderline ob- jectionable statements. Here. however, we have considered all of the above statements in the context of the pre-December 18 supervisory conduct sup- porting the Federation insofar as that conduct my lend meaning and di- mension to the supervisory postpetition statements. Selsan Equipment Company. 174 NLRB at 866, fn I; Warren W Parke. d/h/a Parke (ol/ Company. 219 NLRB 546. 547 (1975). 810 THEi A ('AI IOI.IC MEI)I(AI. (EN IER OF BROOKLYN AND Q[ FEtNS the supervisor was speaking on behalf of manage- ment. Further, in a letter to employees dated Febru- ary 18, the Federation stated that certain supervisors opposed management's "heavy handed pressure tac- tics suggested to attack the physicians' representa- tive." The letter went on to cite from Respondent's "Guidelines for Management Employees" Respon- dent's belief that a union could do serious harm to employees, the Center. its patients. and the commu- nity.'7 Additionally, in the 2 weeks immediately pre- ceding the election, Respondent held department meetings during which it indicated to employees its opposition to the Federation. DIuring this same period Respondent also distributed three separate letters de- tailing the reasons why employees should not support or vote for the Federation. The last such letter was dated February 23, only 3 days before the election. Thus, any lingering employee doubt regarding Re- spondent's attitude toward the Federation would have been eradicated by Respondent's explicit and vigorous opposition to the Federation in these closing days of the campaign." As to the second situation, the record is devoid of evidence that any conduct of the supervisors herein could reasonably have coerced any employee into voting for the Federation. Nor is there evidence that any supervisory action was taken to make employees fear possible retribution if they did not concur in the views expressed by the supervisors. To the contrary. most supervisors expressed their views regarding the Federation only in response to employee inquiries as to the pros and cons of unionization, and many super- visors indicated that the decision to support the Fed- eration or not to support it rested with the individual. Further, since employees knew that Respondent had directed management employees to take an active role in opposing the Union, they could easily have reported to management any prounion pressure from supervisors. 1 On the foregoing findings and the entire record herein, we conclude that the evidence of supervisory conduct in support of the Federation did not impair the employees' freedom of choice in the election or constitute interference which would warrant setting aside the election.20 We therefore reaffirm the validity of the Federation's certification. "tCf. Fuqua Homes (Ohio), Inc, 219 NLRB 1033, 1040 (1975). " Gary Aircraft Corporation, supra. Cf. Diversified Products (Corporation, 199 NLRB 1024 (1973). 1See Fall River House, Inc., 196 NLRB 74. 75 ( 1972). 20 We find the instant case distinguishable from Monroe Tube Co(mpuani, Inc., 220 NLRB 302 (1975), enfd. on other grounds 546 F.2d 1320 (2d ('lr 1976). In that case the Board set aside the election based on conduct viola- tive ofSec. 8a)XIl) of the Act. As noted above, the instant record is devoid of evidence of such unlawful conduct. 2. The alleged 8(a)(5) and (I) violations In view of our above finding that the Federation was properly certified as the bargaining representa- tive in appropriate units of Respondent's physicians and dentists, we find that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and ( I ) of the Act by refusing to bargain with, and provide certain requested information re- garding the terms and condition of employment of unit members to the Federation. 3. Tlhe alleged 8(a)(3) and (I) X iolation We adhere to our earlier finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( I ) of the Act by discrim- inatorily withholding wage increases from the units' employees for 3 weeks during the period it was chal- lenging the Federation's certification.2t The remand- ing court, while agreeing that such conduct violates the Act. found it to be "one of the most inconsequen- tial unfair labor practices in the history of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act." apparently based on the fact that the delayed wage increase, occurring a year after the certification, was short lived and, upon the Federation's complaint. "fully rectified." However. with all due respect to the court, we do not find "in- consequential" withholding of wage increases to two entire units of employees. By withholding the wage increases from unit members exclusively Respondent clearly conveyed the message that it had full power to grant or withhold benefits and that union representa- tion was its sole criterion for determining who would and who would not receive a wage increase.? Re- spondent's subsequent retroactive implementation of the wage increase may well have placed unit employ- ees on an economic par with nonunit employees, but this unilateral action could only reinforce its message of the employer's economic power: it could not have eradicated the impact of withholding the increase on the employee's exercise of their free choice as to rep- resentational rights. Thus, while wages were withheld for a limited duration and unit employees were ulti- mately granted the wage increase retroactively. the fact remains that the statutory rights of numerous employees were violated and that to dispel the dis- criminatory effect of such conduct and discourage its future recurrence remedial action by this Board is :1 N.L.R.B. v. United Aircraft Crporaion. Hmdilrn Stnda,ld Diti,,,n. 490 F.2d 1105 (2d Cir 1973) 12 Respondent asserts that its motivation for vlthholding the wage increase from unit emplo.ees was to avoid being charged with an unfair labor prac- tice for unilaterally implementing emplo)ee benefits during the pendenc of the representation proceeding. lowever. at no time did it inform the em- ployees that said wage iuthholding was so mot.ated or :akc ;in action which would impart to unit employees the message that the grant ol benefits was not dependent ,on their union r nonunion status. I I DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD necessary. Accordingly, we shall order that Respon- dent cease and desist from discriminatorily withhold- ing wage increases from employees to discourage their membership in the Federation. Further, inas- much as there is no evidence whether or not Respon- dent paid interest on the retroactive wage increases it ultimately granted the bargaining units' physicians and dentists, we shall adhere to our original Order directing Respondent to pay interest on said moneys in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corpora- tion. 24 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board reaffirms, except as modified below, its Order issued in this proceeding on May 26, 1978 (re- ported at 236 NLRB No. 59), and hereby orders that the Respondent, The Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., Mary Immaculate Hospi- tal Division, and St. Mary's Hospital Division, Brooklyn and Queens, New York, its officers, agents, ;uccessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said Order, as so modified: ;3 Member Penello notes that the court not only characterized the 8(aX3) violation herein as "inconsequential," but also observed. at fn. 10 of its deci- sion, that the Board had " committed public funds to the prosecuting of the miniscule §8(a3) violation here alleged." Member Penello has long advo- cated that the Board not process those cases where the "alleged misconduct is such that no purpose of the Act would be served by the issuance of a remedial order." See his concurring opinion Peoria Journal Star, 242 NLRB No. 139 (1979), s. op. at 3. Member Penello would not consign the Board's scarce resources to those cases involving inconsequential, isolated violations of the Act. In such matters, it is Member Penello's view that the General Counsel should exercise his discretion under Sec. 3(d) of the Act to refuse to issue a complaint and proceed to a hearing. See also his concurring opinions in United States Postal Service, 242 NLRB 228 (1979); United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Bucyrus-Erie Company), 238 NLRB 177 (1978); Peer. less Food Products, Inc., 236 NLRB 161 (1978); and the note his remarks in Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 235 NLRB 8, fn. 2 (1978). The comments contained therein are based on the general principle set forth in American Federation of Musicians, Local 76, AFL CIO (Jimmy Wakely Show), 202 NLRB 620 (1973). which has received the endorsement of the judiciary. See Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers Local No. 705, IBT lJohns-Manville Corporation] v. N.L.R.B, 509 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1974); N.L.R.B. v. Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, International Ty- pographical Union of North A merica, A FL -CIO I The Evening Star Newspaper Co. and the Washington Daily News], 470 F.2d 1274, 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1972); and Dallas Mailers Union, Local No. 143 and International Mailers Union IDow Jones Company, Inc.] v. N.L.R.B., 445 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1971). The court has instructed the Board to reconsider its original finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a(5) by refusing to bargain with, and provide information to. the Union. If Member Penello were to find that no violation of that section had been committed, he would not hesitate to find that the conduct involved in the wage increase matter, alleged as a violation of Sec. 8(aX3), was so insignificant and substantially remedied by Respondent's sub- sequent actions such that he would not utilize it as a basis for either finding a violation or a remedial order. However, Member Penello agrees with his colleagues that Respondent did, in fact, violate Sec. 8(aX5) by refusing to bargain with, and provide information to, the Union. Thus, in the context of this violation, it cannot be said that Respondent's denial of a wage increase was insignificant or isolated. Accordingly, Member Penello will let stand the Board's earlier finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8aX3) of the Act by discriminatorily withholding wage increases from unit employees. 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(d) of the original Order: "(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing: and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that attached to our Decision dated May 26, 1978. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMP.OYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOI refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other conditions of employment with New York State Federation of Physicians and Dentists as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of the employ- ees in the bargaining units described below. WE WILL NOT refuse to supply the aforesaid Union, upon request, with information regarding employees in the appropriate units described be- low with respect to their names, addresses, sala- ries, years of service, and fringe benefits. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the aforesaid Union by withholding wage increases or by discriminating with respect to any term or conditions of employment because of their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization; to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing; and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILt., upon request, bargain with the aforesaid Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate units and, if an understanding is reached, embody such un- derstanding in a signed agreement. The appro- priate units are: All full-time salaried physicians and dentists, and all part-time salaried physicians and den- tists regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or more per week employed at our Mary Im- 812 THE CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS maculate Hospital Division, exclusive of chair- man, assistants to chairmen, directors, codi- rectors, medical directors, clinic directors. associate directors, assistant directors, chiefs, co-chiefs, supervising physicians, senior emer- gency room physicians, coordinators, interns, residents, fellows, guards, and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, and all other employees. All full-time salaried physicians and dentists, and all part-time salaried physicians and den- tists regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or more per week employed at our St. Mary's Hospital Division, exclusive of chairmen, as- sistants to chairmen, directors, codirectors. medical directors, clinic directors, associate di- rectors, assistant directors, chiefs, co-chiefs, supervising physicians, senior emergency room physicians, coordinators, interns, residents, fel- lows, all other employees, guards, and supervi- sors as defined in Section 2(1 1 ) of the Act. and all other employees. WE WILL, upon request. supply the aforesaid Union with information requested by it for the purpose of collective bargaining, including the names, addresses, salaries, years of service, and fringe benefits of our employees in the appropri- ate units herein. WF WILL make whole all employees in the aforesaid units for the losses they suffered, if any. by reason of our failure in February 1977 to re- view their eligibility for salary increases, plus in- terest. THE CATH()I.I( MEI)(AI. ClN IER OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS, INC.. MARY IM- MACULATE HOSPITAl. DIVISION, ANI) ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL DIYISION 813