Greenpark Care Center

GREENPARK CARE ('ENTER Sol Henkind, an individual, d/b/a Greenpark Care Center, formerly known as Willoughby Health Re- lated Facility and Alma Daring and Dieudonne Aime Sol Henkind, an individual, d/b/a Greenpark C'are Center, formerly known as Willoughby Health Re- lated Facility and Local 144, Hotel, Hospital. Nurs- ing Home and Allied Health Services Union. Ser- vice Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, and District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL- CIO, Petitioner.' Cases 29-CA-5622, 29 CA 5637, 29-RC-3134, and 29-RC-3491 June 1, 1978 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPIHY AND TRUESI)AI 1 On October 11, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Alvin Lieberman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, Re- tail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL CIO, herein District 1199, filed exceptions and a sup- porting 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, findings.' con- clusions, and recommendations of the Administra- tive Law Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recommended Order, for the reasons set forth be- low.3 Local 719, International Production. Service and Sales Emplo)ee, Union, appeared as Intersenor at the hearing Respondent has excepted to certain credihilit) findings made b' the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established polio) not to m, er- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to iredibilits unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevsant evidence consrinces iu, that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr1 14'ali Prdiirs, I nt 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We ha:e ca.refuili examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. Respondent has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's refuial Io grant Its request for an adjournment. The request was grounded tIn the un- availability of Respondent's key witness, Simon Pelman, who was sacation- ing outside of the United States. We note that the Regional Dlrector's sup- plemental decision on objections issued on June 29. 1977. and the complalnh herein issued on June 30, 1977. both noticing a hearing for August 22. 1977 The Administrative Law Judge determined this to be ample notice. and he refused to postpone the proceeding simply because Pelman went in asica- We affirm the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when, in earls February 1977, its comptroller, Victor Feld, coercively interrogated and threatened to dis- charge employee Willie Williams if she did not vote for District 1199 in the upcoming election, and when, a few weeks later, Feld again interrogated Williams and ordered her to "get on the ball" and "urge the others to vote for 1199." We also agree with the Ad- ministrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) in December 1976 or January 1977 when, at a meeting, its chief administrator, Si- mon Pelman. promised all unit employees Blue Cross and Blue Shield benefits if they voted "no union." 4 However. in this consolidated complaint and rep- resentation proceeding, we do not agree with the Ad- ministrative Law Judge's basis for invalidating the election held herein. While we would also set the election aside, we would do so for reasons different from those relied on by the Administrative Law Judge. The election in question took place on March 31, 1977. Of the 144 ballots cast, Ii were cast for Local 144. Hotel. Hospital. Nursing Home and Allied Health Services Union, Service Employees Interna- tional Union. AFL-CIO. herein Local 144; 20 were cast for the Intervenor. Local 719. International Pro- duction Services and Sales Employees Union, herein Local 719; 72 were cast for District 1199; and I was cast for "no union." Local 719 filed objections to the election, and the Administrative Law Judge found the election should be set aside on the basis of Re- spondent's promise to the employees to provide them with health benefits if they refrained from voting for an) of the three competing Unions. Respondent and District 1199 have filed exceptions to this finding. We reject the Administrative Law Judge's reliance on the promise of benefits as a ground for setting aside the election, but, for the reasons stated below, we set aside the election on the basis of the 8(a)( ) viola- tions involving Comptroller Victor Feld and employ- ee Willie Williams. The Administrative Laws Judge erred in relying on the promise of benefits as a ground for setting aside the election in that he failed to recognize that Re- spondent urged the employees to oppose all of the competing Unions. A majority of the employees ap- parently were not influenced by Respondent's prom- tin on . eugtt 12. It1 AlsN, before the hearing. Inasmuch as the Adminltlla- ise I a: ludge ha.i the dlscretion to1 grant or den! adjournments. we find that he did notl ahu e this discretlo, i in this instance See. generallk. 4lln H Aralti. 1/ Akrafit sini Sirii Arifi lllfn.,n. (Co Partners. d h a Resottrna tr Hcdlm,tS ( rtr.nl,n 164 NiRB '29, fn 2 ( 1967): Sarkie Ilirziln In . 157 Nl RB 1193 (196r)). ' The record is unilcar i; s to ihethec the meeting occuired in I)ecember ir Ja.nu.lrs Nseerthel,,. the h dmliliistra;tie Law Judge found. and the record lcearls Indli.tIes. thai such a meeting did take place 236 NLRB No. 68 683 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ises, as they voted for District 1199. In situations such as this, the Board has rejected the view that opposition against all competing unions will support an objection by one of them where another won deci- sively.5 There is no basis here for assuming that an- tiunion statements made by Respondent dispropor- tionately affected Local 719 or Local 144 as opposed to District 1199.6 On the other hand, the coercive statements made by Victor Feld in his conversations with Willie Wil- liams were highly supportive of District 1199. As dis- cussed above, the interrogation and threat of dis- charge constitute 8(a)(1) violations, and it is generally Board policy that "[c]onduct violative of Section 8(a)(l) is, a fortiori, conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in an election." 7 We recently noted in Super Thrift Markets, Inc. t/a Enola Super Thrift, 233 NLRB 409 (1977), that "the only recognized exception to this policy is where the violations are such that it is virtu- ally impossible to conclude that they could have af- fected the results of the election." 8 We find that such exception does not apply here for Feld's conduct clearly could have affected the results of the elec- tion.9 While Feld's remarks were only directed at one employee in a unit of 140, the Board has customarily not resolved the issue of whether employer miscon- duct is de minimis solely by measuring the number of violations involved against the number of employees in the unit.'0 Rather, we have considered "the num- ber of violations, their severity, the extent of dissemi- nation, the size of the unit, and other relevant fac- tors." " Here we have a threat of discharge-coercion of a most serious nature-com- mitted by a high-level supervisor shortly before an election. Furthermore, the restraining effect of the coercive conduct is not limited to the employee di- rectly involved, for the Board has previously empha- sized that statements made during an election cam- paign are the subject of repetition and discussion among the voters.' This presumption of repetition is particularly appropriate in the present case in light of the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Feld fol- lowed up his threat of discharge by ordering Wil- liams to spread the word to the other employees. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Feld's illegal conduct tended to restrain the free choice of the employees and a second election, therefore, should be directed. 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, Sol Henkind, an individ- ual, d/b/a Greenpark Care Center, formerly known as Willoughby Health Related Facility, Brooklyn, New York, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDI RED that the election held on March 31, 1977, in Cases 29-RC-3134 and 29-RC- 3491 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Cases 29-RC-3134 and 29-RC-3491 be, and they hereby are, remanded to the Regional Director for the pur- pose of conducting a second election. IDirection of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] See. e.g. PlokAerland PacAing Compani. Inc., 185 NL.RB 653. 654 (1970) Dul-Ter Optical Compans. Inc.. 137 NLRB 1782, 1786 (1962). s 233 NLRB 409. ' We have here a situation in which a supervisor has made coercive pro- union statements during the critical period of an election. In its brief. Dis- trict 1199 urges us to follow a line of cases in which we have held that the prounion conduct of a supervisor does not prejudice an election so long as the employer expresses hostility to the union and thereby dissipates any impression that the employer supports the supervisor's prounion views We do not agree with District 1199's argument. While the Board has declined to set aside elections under the rationale cited by District 1199. in these same cases we have also held that, regardless of an employer's antiunion senti- ment,. a supervisor's prounion conduct could be such that it would coerce employees into supporting the union out of fear of retaliation. See. e.g., Flint Motor Inn Companr d/ b a Sheraton Motor Inn, 194 NLRB 733, 734 (1971). It is this latter circumstance to which we turn. In considering the substance of Feld's prounio : conduct and his position as a high-level supervisor. it is reasonable to conclude that an employee could have been coerced into supporting District 1199 out of fear that Feld would carry out his illegal threat of discharge. Respondent's antiunion sentiments. as expressed at the staff meeting in which employees were promised health benefits in return for no union votes. do not alter this result. '0 In fact, in several instances the Board has invalidated elections despite the fact that the employer committed a small number of violations in a large employee unit. See. e.g.. Standard Knitting Mills, Inc., 172 NLRB 1122 (1968) (interrogations and threat of plant closure involving 4 employees in a unit of 3,000 were sufficient to set aside the election): Intercontinental Manu- facturing Company, Inc.. 167 NLRB 769. 770 (1967) (election was invalidat- ed as 2 supervisors made coercive statements to 6 employees in a unit of 730): Monroe Manufacturing Companvy, Inc.. 200 NLRB 62, 63. fn. 3 (1972) (C(hairman Miller dissenting) (in a unit of at least 138 employees, the Board specifically found. inter alia, the interrogation of I employee on the morning of an election objectionable conduct sufficient to invalidate the election): Custom Recovery. Div. of Keysrone Resources. Inc., 230 NLRB 247 (1977) (the Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision to invalidate an election where the employer threatened to discharge and interrogated one employee in a unit of at least 78). Super Thrift Markers. Inc. t/a Enola Super Thrift, supra 2 See, e.g. Standard Knitting Mills, Inc., supra; Intercontinental Manufac- turing Compani, supra at 770. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALVIN LIEBERMAN. Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant to petitions by Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Health Services Union, Service Employees In- ternational Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter Local 144) and 684 GREENPARK CARE CENTER District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (hereinafter District 1199) filed, re- spectively, on August 18, 1975, and July 12, 1976, a repre- sentation election, directed by the Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board was held on March 31, 1977, among certain employees of the Re- spondent, Sol Henkind, an individual, d/b/a Greenpark Care Center, formerly known as Willoughby Health Re- lated Facility. Eleven ballots were cast for Local 144, 23 for Local 719, International Production, Service and Sales Em- ployees Union (Local 719), and 72 for District 1199. Local 719 filed objections to the election based on con- duct engaged in by Respondent and Local 1199.' On June 29, 1977.2 the Regional Director, after investigating the ob- jections, issued a supplemental decision and notice of hear- ing 3 ordering, among other things, "that a hearing be held . . . on Objection No. 2 relating to [Respondent's] con- duct 4 . . . and on the threats, interrogation, interference and promises of benefits by [Respondent] which were dis- closed during the course of the investigation." On the following day, June 30, the General Counsel is- sued a complaint (Cases 29-CA-5622 and 5637) alleging unfair labor practices by Respondent.5 Thereafter. in an order dated August 2, 1977,6 the Regional Director, noting that the complaint "raises issues of fact and law which are similar and closely related to issues raised by the Supple- mental Decision on [Local 719's] Objections" to the elec- tion, directed that the representation proceeding and the unfair labor practice proceeding be consolidated. The hearing in this proceeding, thus consolidated, with all parties, except Local 144 and the charging parties in Cases 29-CA-5622 and 5637, represented,' was held before me in Brooklyn, New York, on August 22, 1977. In general, the issues litigated were whether Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereinafter the Act),8 and whether Respondent At the hearing Local 719 withdrew its objections relating to District 1199's conduct. 2 All dates hereinafter mentioned without stating a year fall within 1977 ' G.C. Exh. I(e) 4This objection deals with Respondent's designation of a; supers lsor to serve as its observer at the election in an attempt to influence the free sorte of the employees The complaint was issued pursuant to charges filed on Max 4 and 12. 1977. G(.C'. Exh. I (n). At the opening of the hearing counsel for Respondent moved for an adjournment. This motion was denied. Upon the denial of his motion, coun- sel for Respondent withdrew and neither he, nor Respondent. participated further in the hearing. Before withdrawing. however, counsel for Respon- dent amended the answer he filed on Respondent's behalf so as to admit pars 7(a) and (b) of the complaint which allege, among other things. that Victor Feld and Nancs Lieb, respectively, Respondent's comptroller and head nurse. are supervisors and agents of Respondent s Sec 8(aI 1) of the Act is as follows: Sec. 8(a) It shall he an unfair label practice for an emploser (I) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees In the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7; Insofar as pertinent, Sec. 7 provides: Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization. iio form. loin. ior asist labor organizations. to bargain collectivelys through repre- engaged in conduct warranting the setting aside of the elec- tion. More particularly, the questions for decision are as follows: 1. Did Respondent violate Section 8(aX 1) of the Act by interrogating or threatening employees, or by promising them benefits to induce them to refrain from supporting any union? 2. Should the election be set aside? Upon the entire record, upon my observation of the wit- nesses and their demeanor while testifying, and having tak- en into account the brief submitted by District 1199, v and the arguments made by the parties at the hearing,d' I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDIC ION Respondent, a sole proprietorship, is engaged at Brook- lyn, New York, in providing nursing home and health re- lated services. During the 12 months preceding the is- suance of the complaint, a representative period, Respondent's revenues exceeded $500,000. In the same pe- nod, Respondent purchased, from vendors located outside the State of New York, goods valued at more than $50,000. Accordingly, I find that Respondent is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act and that the assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the Board is warranted. 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 144, Local 719, and District 1199, are labor orga- nizations within the meaning of the Act. 111 INTRODUCTION Two related, but separate, matters are involved in this proceeding. One is concerned with the validity of objec- tions, filed by Local 719, to conduct affecting the results of the representation election held on March 31, 1977, among employees of Respondent, at which District 1199 garnered a majority of the votes cast. The other facet of this case deals with events occurring within a period of 3 or 4 months preceding the election. Among these, the complaint alleges, were unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, committed by Respondent, consisting of interrogating em- ployees; threatening them with reprisals unless they sup- ported District 1199 at the election; and promising them benefits if they refrained from supporting any union. sentatives of their own choosing. and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such ai.1t Itles All parties were requested to file briefs. However. only District 1199 did %0. 10 Although all the arguments of the parties and the authorities cited by them. whether appearing In District 1199's brief or made orally at the hear- ing. may not be discussed. each has been carefully weighed and considered. 685 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV THE AI.lEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts Concerning Respondent's Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 1. The interrogations and threats Early in February 1977, Victor Feld, Respondent's comptroller, asked Willie Williams, employed by Respon- dent as a patient care assistant (PCA), "who [she] was vot- ing for" in the forthcoming election. Upon being informed by Williams that she hadn't yet made up her mind, Feld told her that "if [she didn't] vote for [District] 1199 [she was] going to lose her job." Some 2 or 3 weeks later, Feld asked Williams if she had made "up [her] mind" about voting for District 1199. In addition, to putting this question to Williams, Feld ordered her to "get on the ball and tell all the rest of the people to vote for [District] 1199." " For about a week before the election, held, it will be recalled, on March 31, 1977, Alma Daring, also a PCA in Respondent's employ, wore a District 1199 button while at work. On March 27, Nancy Lieb, Respondent's head nurse, asked Daring why she was wearing the button and told Daring, as the latter testified, that she "would prefer if [Daring didn't] wear the button." Lieb also said to Daring that she couldn't "tell [Daring] how or what to do towards [the] button." 2. The promise of benefit In about December 1976 or January 1977, some 200 em- ployees attended a meeting conducted by Simon Pelman, the administrator of Respondent's nursing home. Not only did Pelman chair this meeting, but he also spoke to the employees about the forthcoming election. In this regard, he stated that "if the people voted no union, [respondent] would give the same benefits that all the . . . unions [were] promising . . . and would give [the employees] Blue Cross and Blue Shield" insurance coverage, which they did not then enjoy.12 The findings in this and the preceding paragraph are based on. and the quotations appearing in the text are taken from. Williams' testimnony. Inlil sometime in 1976, Williams was a shop steward for Local 719 Pointing to this fact, District 1199 argues that she was biased against it and that, there- fore, her testimony should not be accepted as true. In determining to credit Williams. I have taken into account her former position as steward for Local 719. In my opinion, however. this is not a sufficient reason for dishe- lieving Williams. This is especially so in view of her demeanor on the wit- ness stand. with which I was favorably impressed. 12 The findings in this paragraph are based on testimony given by tio employees. Renee Velazquez and Dieudonne Aine. who had attended the meeting. The quotation appearing in the text is taken from Velazquez' ac- count of what transpired there. District 1199 urges me to discredit this testimony because of claimed contrary statements contained in pretrial affl- davits made by both witnesses. In the portion of Velazquez' affida it (D)i- trict 1199 Exh. 2) relied on by District 1199 she stated: "Pelmnan nor an' other management official . . . promised me benefits if I voted in any spe- cific waly. Pelman did not discuss the unions running in the election with me at any time." Similar language appears in Aime's affidavit. In context. it seems clear that both affiants. in making the statements in question. were not referring to Pelman's speech at the meeting, but to individual. one-oin- B. Concluding Findings Concerning Respondent's Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act I. The interrogations and threat It is well settled that coercive interrogation violates Sec- tion 8(a)(l) of the Act. I find that the questioning of Willie Williams, an employee of Respondent, by Victor Feld, Re- spondent's comptroller, comes within the purview of this principle. As I have found, Feld asked Williams how she intended to vote at the election to be held the following month. Re- ceiving a noncommittal reply, Feld threatened Williams with discharge unless she voted for District 1199. This threat, being inherently coercive and, therefore, itself viola- tive of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act imparted a coercive na- ture to the preceding question. Merle Lindsey Chevrolet, Inc., 231 NLRB 478 (1977). I come to a different result regarding the inquiry about the union button put to Alma Daring, another employee of Respondent, by Nancy Lieb, Respondent's head nurse. There was nothing significantly coercive about the ques- tion. Lieb did not order Daring to remove the button, nor was Lieb's question accompanied by a threat or other coer- cive conduct on Lieb's part. For the foregoing reasons I conclude that Lieb's interro- gation of Daring was not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. My Order will, therefore, provide for the dismissal of paragraph II of the complaint. 2. The promise of benefit At a meeting attended by about 200 employees, Simon Pelman, Respondent's administrator, urged them to vote "no union" at the forthcoming election. As I have found, Pelman also stated to the employees in attendance at the meeting that if they did so, Respondent would give them what the contending unions were "promising," and, in ad- dition, Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance, not then pro- vided by Respondent. In N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964), the Supreme Court held that an employer's promise of benefits to his employees to influence them to refrain from supporting unions violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. More need not be said insofar as this phase of the case is concerned. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(l) of the Act by interrogating and threatening an employee, and by promising employees benefits to induce them to refrain from voting for any union at the impending representation election. one conversations between Pelman and the affianits. his is made plain In that part of Aime's affidavit (District 1199 Exh. 3I in which she talks aboul the meeting. 1There the following appears: "Pelman said he did not want a union and asked the employees to put no union on the ballot .. He said he would give ever) one blue shield and blue cross because he doesn't want a union." Accordingly. I do not construe the statements contained in the affidavits made hy Velazquez and Aime as being contrary to their testimon, at the hearing. Nor am I moved to discredit their hearing testimons because of what they' stated in their affidavits. 686 GREENPARK (ARE CENTER V THE OBJECTIONS TO TIHF EL.ECTION 1 The Board has held that the "critical period" within which objectionable conduct will be deemed to affect the results of an election starts on the date on which the repre- sentation petition is filed. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Com- pany, 138 NLRB 453, 454 (1962). It has also been held that "conduct violative of Section 8(a)( 1) is, a fortiori. conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and untram- meled choice in an election." Dal-Tex Optical Comnpant, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786 (1962). Notwithstanding the principle enunciated by the Board in Dal-Tex and followed in countless subsequent cases. District 1199, citing Rock Island Franciscan Hospital, 226 NLRB 291 (1976), argues that Respondent's postpetition violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act should not be the bases for setting aside the election conducted here. I do not read Rock Island as broadly as District 1199 does. In Rock Island the conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act consisted of a single threat made by an agent of the employer to two employees, out of a total of 800, that upon the employees' selection of a union in a forthcoming repre- sentation election they would lose existing health benefits provided by the employer. In refusing to set aside the elec- tion because of this infraction of Section 8(a)( 1). the Board pointed to the "relatively minor and confined nature" of the threat. Had Respondent violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act only by the interrogation of, and threat to, Willie Williams, its employee, I might, perhaps, be constrained, as was the Board in Rock Island, to conclude that the election should not be set aside. However, Respondent's violative conduct was not so limited. There was another and a much more serious transgres- sion of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by Respondent. This con- sisted, as I have found, of Respondent's promise to some 200 employees to furnish them with benefits they did not then enjoy, provided they refrained from voting for any union at the election. The serious and widespread nature of this conduct 14 sharply differentiates it from the "relatively minor and confined nature" of the violation found in Rock Island This factual difference between the instant case and Rock Island persuades me that the dispositive precedent is Dal- Tex, not Rock Island. As noted, the last petition upon which the election in this proceeding was held was filed on July 12. 1976. Respon- dent's violations of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act occurred be- tween that date and the date of the election. This being the case, I conclude, in accordance with the teaching of Dal- Tex, that the election held, herein, on March 31. 1977, must be set aside."5 'i As noted at the outset of this Decision, Ihe Regional Director conslli dated Local 719's objections to the representation election cindulted II March 31, 1977. with the complaint issued in this proceeding "'4 lP]romises of benefit. . are. indeed. serious unfair labor practices De lura Brithesr, Inc, 201 NLRB 327. 333 (1973). | In view of this, it is unncessar; to rule on the salhdits of I ocal 719 ' objection to the election based upon Respondent's designation of a siuper- sisor to serve as its observer at the electioin in an .Ittempit i influence the free vote of the empl sees Accordingly. my Order will provide that the election be set aside and that a new election be conducted. VI THE EFFE('T Of RFSPONI)SNT'S UNFAIR LABOR PRA( ICl IS L PON ¢-OMSMIR( f Respondent's unfair labor practices occurring in connec- tion with its operations set forth in section I, above, have a close. intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic. and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce V[iI rHE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, my Order will require Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative action as will effec- tuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONs(cI t SONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. I ocal 144, Local 719. and District 1199, are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. Bv the following conduct Respondent has engaged, and is engaging. in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act: (a) Coercively interrogating an employee concerning the union for which she intended to vote in an impending rep- resentation election. (b) Threatening an employee with discharge unless she voted for a particular union in the aforesaid election. (c) Promising employees benefits to induce them to re- frain from voting for any union in the aforesaid election. 4. The unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent, as set forth in Conclusion of Law 3, above, affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law. and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 1O(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following: ORDER '16 The Respondent, Sol Ilenkind, an individual, d'b a Greenpark Care Center, Brooklyn, New York, his agents. successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: 6 In the event no ex.epoils are filed as prosllded bh Sec 102 4 of the Rules and Regulations of the Niatinal Labo.r Relations Board, the findings. conclusions and Order herein shall as pr'. ided In Sec 102 48 of the Rule, and Regulation.s he adopied bs the Board and hecome its findings. conclu- sin. an d and O lde and all ,hleictiln Ihercti shall he deemed aisi.ed folr ail purp-oes 68 ? DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Coercivelv interrogating employees concerning the manner in which they intend to vote, or have voted, at any election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, or concerning their attitude toward, relationship to. knowledge of, activities on behalf of, or regarding any other matter relating to, any labor organization. (b) Threatening employees with discharge or any other form of reprisal, or effectuating any such threats, unless they vott for a particular labor organization at any election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, or for joining, assisting, or in any manner supporting, any labor organization. (c) Promising, or granting. benefits to employees to in- fluence the manner in which they vote at any election con- ducted by the National Labor Relations Board, or to dis- suade them from joining, assisting, or in any manner supporting, any 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, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National La- bor Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from ans or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in con- formity with Section 8(a}(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended: (a) Post at its premises, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.' 17 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29. after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent 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. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 11 IS FURTIHI-R ORID)RED that the representation election conducted on March 31, 1977. in Cases 29 RC--3134 and 3491, be, and the same hereby is, set aside, and that Cases 29 RC 3134 and 3491, be, and the same hereby are, re- manded to the Regional Director for Region 29 for the purpose of conducting a new representation election at such time as he deems that circumstances will permit a free choice of a collective-bargaining representative by the em- ployees concerned. Ir Is FtIRIIHER oRDtRE n that paragraph I I of the complaint be. and the same hereby is, dismissed. Ini tie event that ithis Order i, enforced hs a Judgme nt of a Itniied 5,;ilcs (ouit of1 ,ppca.ls the '.,old in the nlniic rcadin[ "Proted h ()Order of Ihe Natilonal L ibor Relalion, Boar d" sli:l1l read "IPosted Purilaldl lo a .Judgnicnlt if the I:nited Siate, ( our oif Appeals En lorcingT ain ()rder of lhe Natnional Labor Relations Boaird" APPENDIX Not i( l. To ESiPLOYEtFS Pos-rDi BY ORDER O-F 1HI N-TIONAI LABOR RELA^IONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice and carry out its terms. Wi wliil sot in any way interfere with any right given to employees by the National Labor Relations Act. Wi wiiL.L NOT question you about how you intend to vote, or how you voted, at any Board election. Wi VIII. NoI question you about your union mem- bership or about your union activitY. Wi Wii.L NOI fire you and we ws\ii Noi threaten to fire you foi voting, or not voting, for any union at any Board election. Wl wnll. NOI give you and TVt wrll No[ promise to give you Blue C('ross or Blue Shield benefits, pay raises, or anything else to convince sou to vote "No [1ioN,'" or to vote for any particular union at any Board elec- tion. Wi: wil. respect your right to form any union, to support any union, to help any union, and to deal with us through any union. \WE 'wi 1. also respect your right not to do any of these things. except as required by law. All our employees are free, without any objection from us, to become or remain members of an, union, or not to become or remain members of an) union, except as re- quired by law. GRIENPARK ('ARE CENlI:R (8