Catholic Medical Center Of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc.

THE CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOK1LYN AND QUEENS, INC(' The Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., Mar) Immaculate Hospital Division. and St. Mary's Hospital Division and New York State Federation of Physicians and Dentists. Case 29-CA-5479 May 26, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNIN(; AND MEMBE RS P NI IO() AND ML RPHY On February 1, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Mullin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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. findings.' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as herein modified. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National I abor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge. as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent. I lie Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens. Inc., Mary Immaculate Hospital Division. and St. Mary's Hospital Division, Queens. New York, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns. shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: I. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and relet- ter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "(b) 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 the employees in the appropriate units herein." In his Conclusion of Law 4. the Administrative L aw Judge inadvertenIl, referred to February 2, 1976. rather than the correct date of Februar 28. 1 976. as thedateonwhich the Union became theemployees'exclusive representati:e Additionally, we note that the Administrative Law Judge, in the remed? sectilen of his Decision. inadvertently ordered that backpa) hecomputed in accordance with the formula set forth in F W. Woolworth Compnan, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). That formula is only applicable in circumstances involving compiuta- tion of intenm earnings Ogle Protecrion Service. Inc. 183 Nl.RB 682 (1970) 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative law Judge. APPENDIX Noli( I- To EMPFlI O'1 ils PositI) B' ORDI)FR ()F 1H N A llONAIi L XBOR RitI.ArlONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government TW l I .L Not refuse to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other conditions of eniplo, ment with Ncw York State Federation of Physicians and Dentists as the ex- clusive hargaining representative of the employ- ees in the bargaining units described below. Wi wiini Nol refuse to supply the aforesaid Union. upon request. with information regard- ing employees in the appropriate units described below with respect to their names, addresses, salaries, sears of service, and fringe benefits. WI w lii. -soi discourage membership in the aforesaid Union by withholding \wage increases or hb discriminating with respect to any term or conditions of enmploliment because of their union or concerted activities. Wi i't i ,sol in ans other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer- cise of their right to self-organization, to form. join, or assist the ahbove-named Union. or an's other lahbor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. and to engage in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from an) or all such activxities. W I wi l., upon request, bargain with the aforesaid Union. as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate units. and, if an understandingL is reached. embody such un- dersta ndini 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 regularl\ scheduled to work 20 hours or more per week employed at our Mary Immac- ulate Hospital )iisiotn. exclusive of chair- men, assistants to chairmien directors, co-di- rectors, medical directors, clinic director-s, associate directors. assistant directors. chiefs. co-chiefs. supervising phNsicians, senior enmer- gency room pllhsicians. coordinators, interns. residents, fellows. guiards and supervisors as defined in Section 2( 111) of the Act. aind all other emplo, ecs. 236 NLRB No. 59 497 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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, co-directors, medical directors, clinic directors, associate directors, assistant directors, chiefs, co-chiefs, supervising physicians, senior emergency room physicians, coordinators, interns, resi- dents, fellows, all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, and all other employees. WE wUll 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. Wi wlLi make whole all employees in the aforesaid units for the losses they suffered, if any, by reason of our failure in February 1977 to review their eligibility for salary increases, plus interest. ITHe CATHOILIC( MFDICAI. CE NEIR ()F BROOKLYIN AND QU EENS. MA RY IMMAC( IATE HOSPI. AL DIVISION. AND SI MARY'S HOSPITAL DIVISION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERi E. MUI.t.IN, Administrative Law Judge: The com- plaint in this case. issued on April 15, 1977, alleged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act.' In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business operations but it denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair la- bor practices. The hearing was held on August 17, 1977, in Brooklyn, New York. At the hearing all parties were represented. All were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. On September 21, 1977, a brief was received from the Respondent.2 Upon the entire record, including the brief of counsel, and from his observation of the one witness who testified) I make the following: ' The charge was filed on February 24, 1977 ' At the same time the Respondent submitted a motion to corrct t hi official transcript No other party having voiced any objection to this rio- tion and the latter appearing to have merit, it is now granted and the tran- script will stand corrected in accordance therewith. This was William Parsons, director of labor relations and personnel for the Respondent. Apart from the testimon) of this witness, the record con- sists of a large collection of documents which were offered in evidentc hs stipulation along with a statement of facts to which the parties also stipulalt- ed FINDINGS OF FACT . THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, The Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., Mary Immaculate Hospital Di- vision, and St. Mary's Hospital Division (herein CMC), is a nonprofit corporation, organized under and existing by vir- tue of, the laws of New York. It has its principal office in the Boroughs of Queens, in New York City, and at all times material herein has been continuously engaged in the operation of four large hospitals in the Boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. Only Mary Immaculate Hospital Division in Queens (herein Mary Immaculate), and St. Mary's Divi- sion in Brooklyn (herein St. Mary's), are involved herein.4 During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, a rep- resentative period, CMC derived gross revenues from the conduct of its business in excess of $250,000. During that same period the Respondent received medical and surgical supplies and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which amount, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to its place of business in interstate commerce directly from out- side the State of New York. Upon the foregoing findings, the Respondent concedes, and it is now found that CMC is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. ii THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED New York State Federation of Physicians and Dentists (herein Federation) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. tII THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background 1. Mary Immaculate Hospital The Respondent concedes, and it is now found, that all full-time salaried physicians and dentists, and all part-time salaried physicians and dentists regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or more per week employed by the Respon- dent at its Mary Immaculate Hospital, exclusive of chair- men, assistants to chairmen, directors, co-directors, medi- cal directors, clinic directors, associate directors, assistant directors, chiefs, co-chiefs, supervising physicians, senior emergency room physicians, coordinators, interns, resi- dents, fellows, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act. On or about February 26, 1976, a majority of the Re- spondent's employees in the unit described above designat- ed the Federation as their representative in a secret ballot election conducted by Region 29. Thereafter, the Regional 4 The other hospitals not involved in this case are Hol) Family Division located in Brooklyn and St. John's Queens Hospital Division located in Queens. 498 THE CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS, INC. Director issued a Report on Objections wherein he recom- mended that objections to the election filed by the Em- ployer be overruled. On November 15, 1976, the Board issued a Decision and Certification of Representative in that case 5 wherein it certified the Federation as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the above-described unit. It is now found that since that date, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, the Federation has been and is now the exclusive representative of all em- ployees in the said unit. 2. St. Mary's Hospital The Respondent concedes, and it is now found, that all full-time salaried physicians and dentists, and all part-time salaried physicians and dentists regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or more per week employed by CMC at its St. Mary's Hospital, exclusive of chairmen, assistants to chairmen, directors, co-directors, medical directors, clinic directors, associate directors, assistant directors, chiefs, co- chiefs, supervising physicians, senior emergency room phy- sicians, coordinators, interns, residents, fellows, guards and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. On or about February 26, 1976, a majority of the em- ployees in the above-described unit at St. Mary's Hospital designated the Federation as their representative in a secret ballot election conducted by Region 29. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a Report on Objections wherein he recommended that objections to the election filed by the Employer be overruled. On November 15, 1976, the Board issued a Decision and Certification of Representative in that case 6 wherein it certified the Federation as the exclu- sive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the above-described unit. It is now found that since that date, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, the Federation has been and is now the exclusive representative of all em- ployees in the said unit. 3. The Respondent's policy of convention benefits and salary increases for those in the bargaining units In November 1975, the Respondent announced that be- cause of various fiscal problems it was placing a temporary moratorium on the payment of convention benefits, i.e., the allowance of leave to attend professional conventions and reimbursement for expenses and fees incurred by its physicians and dentists who attended.7 On or about March 4, 1976, CMC approved the reinstitu- tion of convention benefits for all of its physicians and dentists, except for those in the appropriate units at Im- maculate and St. Mary's Hospitals. In a memorandum dat- ed March 29, 1976, Irwin Shapiro, director of hospital ad- 5 Case 29-RC3276. 6 Case 29 RC 3278. 7II should be noted that staff officers although members of the units described, supra. were never eligible for such benefits and neser received them. ministration for CMC, announced the implementation of this policy, described in the notice as an "interim policy for attendance at conventions," and specifically stated that the new policy would not apply to salaried physicians and den- tists in the appropriate units at the two above-named hos- pitals. Physicians and dentists in the aforesaid units were allowed to attend approved conventions, but were not reimbursed for their expenses. The Respondent acknowledged that in conformity with the announced policy, during the period from August 24, 1976, to March 8, 1977, several unit employes attended conventions for which they were not reimbursed. On the other hand, during the same period the Respondent's phy- sicians and dentists who were not in bargaining units were reimbursed for convention expenses. For some time the Respondent has had a policy whereby increases for its salaried physicians and dentists have been made periodically on the basis of performance evaluations prepared by their supervisors. Prior to January 1, 1977, the last such salary increases were granted to the Respondent's physicians and dentists in about October 1975. On or about February 15, 1977, the Respondent's non- bargaining unit physicians and dentists, who were recom- mended for wage increases, received such increases retro- active to January 1, 1977, but no members of the bargaining units received increases at that time. In a memorandum to all employees dated March 8, 1977, Shapiro, the director of hospital administration, an- nounced that the Respondent planned to appeal the Board decisions in Cases 29-RC-3276 and 3278. Shapiro further stated that, in the meantime, the Respondent had decided to continue its policy of regular salary increases for physi- cians and dentists in the bargaining units and that it would implement such salary increases based on employee evalu- ations as soon as possible. In that same memorandum, Shapiro stated that, effective March 8, 1977, it had lifted the moratorium on convention benefits for physicians and dentists in the bargaining units and that thereafter those employees would be entitled to the same convention bene- fits as those who were not in the bargaining units.8 On or about March 17, 1977, and in conformity with Shapiro's memorandum of March 8, the physicians and dentists in the bargaining units received wage increases retroactive to January 1, 1977. B. The Al leged Violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto I. The Union's request to bargain and the Employer's response The Respondent concedes, and it is now found, that on or about January 31 and February 9. 1977, the Federation requested the Respondent to recognize it as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate units described above, to bargain collectively with it as to wages, sWilliam Parsons, director of labor relations and personnel for CNIC. testified that he ads ised the Respondent to take the foregoing steps wherehb In March 1977 the CMC made applicable to the phssicians and dentists in the bargaining units its polcs Increases and also lifted the moraiorium on salars lncreaises for them. 499 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hours, and working conditions, and to furnish information regarding said employees including the names, addresses, salaries, years of service, and fringe benefits of those em- ployees. The Respondent concedes, and it is now found, that since about February 28, 1977, the Respondent re- fused, and since that date has continued to refuse, to recog- nize and bargain with the Federation as the employee rep- resentative for the above-described units and that since about February 28, 1977, the Respondent has refused to supply the data requested by the Federation. 2. Concluding findings The Respondent was under an obligation to bargain with the Federation from the time the latter won the elec- tion in each unit on February 26, 1976, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent's objections to those elections were unresolved for many months thereafter. Nor was the Respondent free to make unilateral changes in the wages, hours or working conditions of employees in the units dur- ing the pendency of the postelection challenges. Mike O'Connor Chevrolet-Buick-GMC Co., Inc., et al., 209 NLRB 701, 703 (1974)29 The Respondent acknowledges that it has refused to rec- ognize or bargain with the Federation because it proposed to test the validity of the Board's certification. While it is manifest that the Respondent has this right, it is likewise clear that, in the meantime, if the certification is sustained by a court of appeals, the Employer has been guilty of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) from the time of its initial refus- al to bargain with the Union. Nor does the pendency of the proceedings to review the Board's certification suspend the Employer's duty to bargain with the majority representa- tive of its employees. Section 10(g) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 160(g); N.L.R.B, v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 361 F.2d 512, 516 (C.A. 5, 1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 935; Dixon Dis- tributing Coimpanr'v, Inc., 211 NLRB 241, 244 (1974): Coral Sportswear Company. 156 NLRB 436, 438-443 (1965). In view of the findings set forth above, it is now found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act: (I) by refusing to bargain with the Federation as the representative of its physicians and dentists in the appro- priate units at Mary Immaculate and St. Mary's Hospitals on and after February 28, 1977; and (2) by refusing, after the latter date, to supply data requested by that union as to the names, addresses, salaries, years of service, and fringe benefits of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate units. The Respondent's action on February 15, 1977, in with- holding salary increases from its physicians and dentists in the appropriate unit while granting salary increases to em- I he Board has also held that it was "immaterial that when the Respon- denis acted unilaiterall the Board had not yet certified the U nion. and the Uniton itself had not vet requested the Respondents to bargain After the election the Respondents knew that the Union had won the election ;ind represented a maljorrit of their employees. I hey could act unilaterall) there- aifter only at their peril." 1.mani & DuAlk Storage Wa'irehu.se (-,) , Inc,. l il. 151 Nl RB 248, 266 267 t19651. enfd. in relevant part 369 F. 2d 859. 868 Sg9 (('.A 5, 1966). See a;lso Kev.rtone (Caring Supliv. In .. 196 NLRB 920, 927 (1972). Zelrich ('Ctiparnv, 144 NLRB 1381., 1383 (1963) enfd 344 F. 2d 1l1 I (C.A 5, 1965)! (cmini, .S4nlntfa(touring (C'ompan,' Int., 119 NI.RB 452, 4(4 465 (19 57) ployees with the same classification in other hospitals must be viewed in light of the Board's rule set forth in McCor- mick Longmeadow Stone Co., Inc., 158 NLRB 1237, 1242, (1966): An employer's legal duty in deciding whether to grant [or withhold] benefits while a representation case is pending is to determine that question precisely as he would if a union were not in the picture. If the employer would have granted the benefits because of . . . circumstances unrelated to union organization, the grant of those benefits will not violate the Act. On the other hand, if the employer's course is altered by virtue of the union's presence, then the employer has violated the Act, and this is true whether he confers benefits because of the union or withholds them because of the union. [Emphasis supplied.] In the present case the stipulated facts show that the Respondent had a system for periodic wage reviews for its employees which could result in wage increases. For fiscal reasons this system was suspended in November 1975. When it was reinstituted on February 15, 1977, it was ap- plied to all of the Respondent's physicians and dentists except those who were members of the bargaining units at Mary Immaculate and St. Mary's Hospitals. Clearly, but for their involvement in the representation proceedings, the members of the appropriate units would have been covered by the reinstitution of the Respondent's policy on wage reviews for its physician and dentists. To the employees the Respondent's action would appear to have been taken "to convince its employees that the Union was responsible for the loss of their wage increase." GAF Corporation v. N.L.R. B., 488 F.2d 306, 308 (C.A. 2, 1973). By its applica- tion of the suspension to the members of those units only, the Respondent discriminated against those employees in regard to a term and condition of their employment which discouraged membership in the Federation, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. It is so found. McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co., Inc., supra at 1238. See also: Florida Steel Corporation, 220 NLRB 260, 266 (1975); and G. C. Murphy Company, 223 NLRB 604, 606 (19 76 ).10 The General Counsel further alleged that the Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(l), (3) and (5) by withholding convention benefits from members of the bargaining units while granting them to nonmembers. As found earlier, by an announcement made on March 29, 1976, the Respondent reinstated convention benefits for all its physicians and dentists except for those in the bargaining units. Convention benefits for the latter were withheld until March 8, 1977, when CMC announced that thereafter those in the bargaining units would receive the same convention benefits as the other physicians and den- tists. The charge in this matter was filed on February 24, 1977, and, therefore, covered the 6-month period from the date of filing back to August 24, 1976. The Respondent ac- " As found earlier. on March 8, 1977. the Respondent announced that It would resume the grant of salars increases for physicians and dentists in the bargaining units. Thereafter. on March 17. 1977. the physicians and dentists in the bargaining units received salary increases retroactive to January I, 1977 500 THE CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER OF BROOKLYN AND QUiEENS, INC knowledges that there were members of the bargaining units who had been denied convention benefits during the 6 months in question. However. it now asserts that if tiere was any violation of the Act, it occurred on March 29. 1976. when the Respondent announced the new policy as to convention benefits which separated members of the bargaining units from their colleagues in the unorganized hospitals of the Respondent's system. The complaint al- leged that the benefits in question were "withheld" from the employees in the bargaining units. The General C('oun- sel engaged in some oral argument at the close of the case. but did not discuss the 10(b) issue and specifically reserved that point for discussion later in his brief." However, no brief was forthcoming. The operative action involved here was the CMC's deci- sion on March 29. 1976, announced to all concerned. which excluded bargaining unit employees from conven- tion benefits. This was the event which started the statute of limitations running and, as a result, the 6-month period expired long before the charge in this case was filed on February 24, 1977. Here it would seem that "a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predat- ing the limitations period is directly at odds with the pur- poses of the 10(b) proviso." Local Lodge No. 1424. Interna- tional Association of Machinists, A FL-CIO. et al. v. N.L.R.B., 362 U.S. 411, 422 (1960). See also: Durfee's Tele- vision Cable Company. 174 NLRB 611, 614 (1969). Accord- ingly, it is now found that Paragraph 17 of the complaint must be dismissed because of the application of Section 10(b). CONCLUSIONS OF L.w I. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Federation is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. (a) At Mary Immaculate Hospital: All full-time sala- ried physicians and dentists, and all part-time salaried phy- sicians and dentists regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or more per week, exclusive of chairmen, assistants to chairmen, directors, co-directors, medical directors, clinic directors, associate directors, assistant directors, chiefs, co- chiefs, supervising physicians, senior emergency, room phy- sicians, coordinators, interns, residents, fellows, guards and supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 1) of the Act, and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- pose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. (b) At St. Mary's Hospital: All full-time salaried physi- cians and dentists, and all part-time salaried physicians and dentists regularly scheduled to work 20 hours or more per week, exclusive of chairmen, assistants to chairmen, directors, co-directors, medical directors, clinic directors, associate directors, assistant directors, chiefs, co-chiefs, su- " Thus. the follovwing statement b) the General ( Counsel ;ppe.ars in the transcript: "i have not e at this point determined . if I am taking the position (as to the 10(lb) ssuel that [there wasl "a clntinuing violatlon under various doctrine[s] If I take that position, sour Honor. I'll let sou know hb brief . pervising physicians. senior emergency room physicians. coordinators, interns, residents, fellows, guards and super- visors as defined in Section 2( 11) of the Act, and all other employees. constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times since February 2, 1976. the Federation has been. and is now, the exclusive representative of all employees in each of the aforesaid appropriate units for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. Bs refusing. since on and after February 28, 1977, to recognize and bargain with the Federation as the represen- tative for the purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of the employees in the appropriate units described above, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in. unfair la- bor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. By suspending its program for periodic review of sala- ries of bargaining unit employees from February 15, 1977, to March 8. 1977. the Respondent discriminated against employees in regard to a term or condition of their employ- ment which discouraged membership in the Federation and thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in. unfair la- bor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 8. The Respondent had not committed any violations of the Act other than as herein specifically found. TinE REIEDY Having found that the Respondent interfered with, re- strained. and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, it will be recommended that the Respon- dent be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminated against employees in regard to a term and condition of their em- ployment, it will be recommended that the Respondent make whole each employee for the loss, if any, accruing because of a withheld wage increase. Any backpay for the employees in the units affected shall be computed in accor- dance with the formula set forth in F. W. Wool4worth Cor.- panv, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977)12 It will be recommended that the said Respondent be required to preserve and make available to the Board, or its agents, on request, payroll and other rec- ords to facilitate the computation of backpay due.'13 i See. gener.il\, I t'iPniimhnt & Heating (o, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) As found earher, the Respondent withheld pay increases from the phi- sicians and dentists in the appropriate units at Mary Immaculate and SI Ma;lr's hospitals frol Iebhru.ar 15. 1977, until March 17. 1977 Hoses\er. uon the latter date, it mnade the Increases available to the members of the units in question and a;lso made them retroactive to Januar I. 1'977 Utnder these circumlnstnes It is niot likels that the Respondent in facil. %11 have ans bahckpas hIllhilitx hether there Is ain hackpas oa he assessed is a ('onrinued 501 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The unfair labor practices found being of a character which go to the very heart of the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent be required to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the exercise of employee rights. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Companr,, 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law. and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is issued the following recommended: ORDER 14 The Respondent, The Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., Mary Immaculate Hospital Di- vision, and St. Mary's Hospital Division, Queens, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing and refusing to bargain with New York State Federation of Physicians and Dentists. (b) Failing and refusing to supply the aforesaid Union. upon request, with information regarding employees in the appropriate units with respect to their names, addresses, salaries, years of service, and fringe benefits. (c) Discriminating against any employees regarding ten- ure or a term or condition of their employment to discour- age membership in a labor organization. (d) In any other 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 collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the aforesaid Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appro- priate units and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate units are: (1) All full-time salaried physicians and dentists, and all part-time salaried physicians and dentists regularly sched- matter that may be ascertained at the compliance stage of the proceedings 14 In the event no exceptions are filed as pros ided by Sec. 102 46 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. be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. uled to work 20 hours or more per week employed by the Respondent at its Mary Immaculate Hospital Division, ex- clusive of chairmen, assistants to chairmen, directors, co- directors, medical directors, clinic directors, associate di- rectors, assistant directors, chiefs, co-chiefs, supervising physicians, senior emergency room physicians, coordina- tors, interns, residents, fellows, all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 1) of the Act. (2) All full-time salaried physicians and dentists, and all part-time salaried physicians and dentists regularly sched- uled to work 20 hours or more per week employed by the Respondent at its St. Mary's Hospital Division, exclusive of chairmen, assistants to chairmen, directors, co-directors, medical directors, clinic directors, associate directors, assis- tant directors, chiefs, co-chiefs, supervising physicians, se- nior emergency room physicians, coordinators, interns, res- idents, fellows, all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. (b) Make whole all employees for any loss they suffered by reason of its failure in February 1977, to review the salaries of the physicians and dentists in the bargaining units, in accordance with the section herein entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Mary Immaculate Hospital Division in the Borough of Queens, City and State of New York, and at its St. Mary's Hospital Division in the Borough of Brooklyn, City and State of New York, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places. including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith. In the event that this Order is enforced hb a Judgment of a L nited States (Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading, "Posted by Order of the National L abior Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States (Court of Appeals Enfforcing an Order of the National lIabor Relations Board." 502