Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center, Inc.

EVERGREEN NURSING HOME 775 Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. and Service Employees International Union, Local 50, AFL-CIO. Cases 14-CA-6374 and 14-RC-6811 August 8, 1972 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On May 8, 1972, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respon- dent filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Respondent also filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt his recommended Order with the modifications indicat- ed hereinafter. In recommending that the election be set aside and a new election directed, the Trial Examiner relied, inter alia, on findings that Hunter unlawfully interrogated Bunton and created an impression of surveillance to Dixon, while Abrams created an impression of surveillance to Suggs. The record indicates that Hunter's conduct occurred outside of the "critical period,"2 and the finding relative to Abram's conduct is not supported by the evidence. We find, however, that the remaining findings of the Trial Examiner describe conduct of the Respondent which occurred during the "critical period." This conduct included interrogation of unit employees, threats of discharge for union activities, and creation of an impression of surveillance, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and it clearly interfered with the exercise by employees of a free and untrammeled choice in the election. Such conduct warrants setting aside the election and directing a new election. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and 198 NLRB No. 101 assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on September 27, 1971, in Case 14-RC-6811 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Case 14-RC-6811 be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 14 for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] ' We find that the Trial Examiner's conclusion with respect to the "special circumstances" which justified Respondent's prohibition against its nurses' wearing of union buttons to be in accord with the views set out in United Parcel Service, Inc., 195 NLRB No. 77. 2 Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: These cases consolidated for hearing were tried at St. Louis, Missouri, on February 8 and 9, 1972, with all parties participating. The complaint' in Case 14-CA-6374, issued by the General Counsel on September 29, alleges, in substance, that in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center, Inc., hereafter referred to as Respondent or the Home, threatened employees with discharge for supporting the Union, promised employee benefits to discourage union activity, interrogated employees about the Union, created an impression of surveillance of employee union activities, prohibited the wearing of union buttons on employee uniforms, precluded employees from working while wear- ing union buttons and suspended them, and discharged employees for wearing union buttons. Respondent in its amended answer denied engaging in any of the alleged violations, stated that the employees allegedly suspended for wearing union buttons were advised that they could not work while wearing slogan buttons on their nursing uniforms, and alleged that said employees chose to temporarily cease working rather than remove said buttons. In representation Case 14-RC-6811, pursuant to a petition filed on July 29, an election (directed by the Regional Director) was conducted on September 27, to which Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of an Election were filed by the Petitioner (Union) on October 1. On November 2, the Regional Director ordered a hearing therein with respect to alleged employee interrogation, employee discharges because of union activity, threats of reprisals to employees wearing union buttons, discharges of employees who disregarded the Employer's directive against wearing union buttons, and creation of an impression of surveillance of union activities, and further ordered that such hearing be consolidated with the hearing I Based on charges filed by Service Employees International Union, Local 50, AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to as the Union , on August 2, 10, and 16 and September 8. 1971 (All dates hereafter refer to the year 1971 unless otherwise noted). 776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in Case 14-CA-6374 before a Trial Examiner and that his rulings and decision therein be transferred to and contin- ued before the Board. All parties were represented and were afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to file briefs . Briefs received from the General Counsel and Respondent have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE At all times material herein, Respondent, a Missouri corporation, has operated a nursing home at 12705 Olive Boulevard, Creve Coeur, Missouri, where it provides nursing and custodial care and related services. During the year ending January 31, 1972, Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations derived revenues in excess of $100,000 from the operation of its nursing home facility and purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its facility goods and materials valued in excess of $10,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $10,000 have been transported and delivered to Respondent's facility directly from points located outside the State of Missouri. Respondent admits, and I find, that it has been engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material herein the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues 1. Whether Respondent interrogated employees about the Union, made threats and promises of benefits to employees to discourage union support, created the impression of surveillance of their activities, and prohibited the wearing of union buttons on their uniforms in violation of Section 8(a)(1). 2. Whether Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(3) suspended three employees from work for as long as' they refused to remove union buttons from their uniforms. B. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations Several former employees called by the General Counsel testified as to alleged incidents as follows: 2 Hunter did not recall this conversation but denied asking any employees about their union sympathies or the sympathies of other employees 3 Abrams denied telling her he had been in a union or asking whether she had ever been in a union 4 Hunter denied having the conversation or threatening any employees with discharge for supporting the Union 5 Kramer testified that after two employees informed him they had heard of a walkout and asked whether they could continue working, he became concerned and advised a number of employees, including Suggs and Dixon. Jacqueline Suggs, a nurses aide, stated that: about the end of July she overheard Irene Hunter, director of nurses, tell Sandra Serra, a licensed practical nurse, that she would have to get rid of Doris Null, a nurses aide, because of the confusion with the Union; that, about the end of July or August 1 she also overheard Hunter ask Jeanette Bunton, a nurses aide, how she felt about the Union; 2 about August 1, Maurice Abrams, Respondent's administrator, called Suggs to his office and, after questioning her as to whether she had placed a union contract on Respondent's bulletin board and receiving an answer in the negative, he asked whether she had ever been in a union and told her that the Union was after her money, that he had been in a union, and that she did not know what she was getting into; 3 and on or about August 1, Hunter called her to her office and asked how she felt about the Union, and, after she replied she didn't have to answer, Hunter told her that with or without a union she could get rid of her if she wanted. Elizabeth Dixon, a nurses aide, testified that about July 1 Hunter told her that she (Dixon) was for the Union, as were nurses aides Jacqueline Suggs and Clara Hays, and then asked her whether she realized that if the Union got in they would get rid of hero and that about a week later Assistant Administrator Kramer told her and Suggs that he had heard they were going on strike and asked them about it. He then told them all the Union wanted was a big initiation fee and dues of $23 or $24 a month, and, when she replied that she would not have wanted a union if it hadn't been for Hunter and what Hunter had said.about getting rid of her, Kramer assured her she did not have to worry about being gotten rid of.5 Dixon also stated that on July 30 Abrams, after calling her to his office and questioning her as to who had placed a union contract on the bulletin board, something she denied doing, then informed her that he did not want any of them to place anything on the bulletin board, and that he had heard that she and Suggs were for the Union which only wanted a big initiation fee and dues.6 Doris Null, a nurses aide, testified that about the end of July, while in the presence of two other nurses aides, Kramer, after asking, and discussing, whether they had any gripes and what medical supplies were needed, inquired why they wanted the Union, what they thought about it, where they had gotten the union cards, and where they had attended a union meeting.? Jerry Bulah, a nurses aide, testified that, in early July, Hunter asked whether she was for or against the Umon and what she thought about it; after she responded that she had not heard both sides, Hunter discussed the pros and cons of unionism, stating that it would not better them if they joined and a lot of girls would lose theirjobs over the Union; about a week later in another conversation, Hunter again brought up the subject of the Union and asked of their rights to continue working in the event of a strike 6 Abrams denied telling her he had heard that she and Suggs were for the Union or talking about union dues and fees 7 According to Kramer, he met with the night-shift employees to ascertain what problems they were having, after a discussion along that line, he mentioned the discussion he had with the day-shift employees about the Union, and Null then stated her strong prounion feelings, and he told her she could vote that way He denied asking why they wanted a union, where they got their union cards, or how they felt about the Union EVERGREEN NURSING HOME 777 whether she was going to join, who was for it, and if Suggs, Dixon, Null, Zimerly, and Street were for the Union; and when she replied that they were, Hunter discussed the advantages and disadvantages and stated that the Union could not deliver what it promised.8 She testified further that about the third week in July, Kramer called an employee meeting and asked them to voice their com- plaints; when they complained about being understaffed, yelled at by Abrams, and underpaid, Kramer replied that they had been in business only a short while and could not afford wage increases; when she then remarked that the Union told them they could get higher wages with a union, Kramer asked why they needed a union, and, when she replied they needed someone to speak up for them, he said she was doing a good job herself .9 Cordelia Florian testified that when interviewed for a job as a nurses aide by Hunter at the end of August, she was asked how she felt about unions and if he had ever belonged to one. When she replied that she was in favor of unions, Hunter told her she had a couple of girls who were instigators for the Union but that she was free to join or not to join. She was hired but worked only a few days before quitting. to Conclusions Based on the demeanor of the witnesses and the plausibility of their testimony, I credit the testimony related above indicating that (1) Suggs, Dixon, Bunton, Null, Bulah, and Florian were each interrogated about the Union; (2) Hunter voiced threats to discharge Null because of the confusion over the Union, impliedly threatened to discharge Suggs when the latter refused to answer questions concerning the Union, asked Dixon whether she realized that if the Union got in they would get rid of her, and told Bulah lots of girls would lose their jobs over the Union; and (3) an impression of surveillance of employee union activities was created by Hunter when she told Dixon that she, Suggs, and Hays were for the Union and told Florian she had a few girls who were instigators for the Union, and by Abrams when he told Dixon he had heard she and Suggs were for the Union. I accordingly conclude that in a context of union opposition, and within the meaning of and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, Respondent interrogated employees concerning the Union, threatened to discharge employees because of the Union, and created an impres- sion of surveillance of the union activities of employees. C. Promise of Benefits The General Counsel contends that about the middle of July, during the Union's organizing campaign, Respondent distributed a written personnel policy booklet to employees with their paychecks, which contained application cards a Hunter admitted having a conversation with Bulah but did not recall the specifics of the conversation and denied interrogating her about the Union or threatening any employees with discharge for supporting it 9 According to Kramer, this was a regularly scheduled meeting called to ascertain what problems the employees were encountering and he asked them to state their complaints, and he then expressed the Company's position on unionization, mentioning that, if there were an election, the for a Blue Cross membership plan, in order to discourage union support, It is undenied that Respondent began operating its nursing home in January. In February, Respondent contacted the local Medicare officials for the purpose of obtaining Medicare certification and was advised by one of its representatives who visited the Home that certain requirements had to be met, including the issuance of a written personnel policy to its employees. In March, the Medicare representative reviewed the personnel policy drawn up in draft form by Kramer and gave him further instructions for its final form. Meanwhile, in mid-March, Respondent decided to enroll in a group health insurance plan, which was not a requisite for Medicare certifications, and contacted a Blue Cross enrollment representative. Following a meeting with this representative to discuss the various plans available, Kramer compiled the necessary employee information required for such plans and on March 22 gave it to the enrollment representative when he visited the nursing home. Early in April, the enrollment representative returned to the home and presented Kramer with three alternate group insurance plans. In May, Kramer selected a plan and made provision in its personnel policy for inclusion of information concerning the plan with applica- tions for membership. In June, arrangement for the Blue Cross plan and a description prepared by the enrollment representative were completed. Kramer then typed the final form of the personnel policy and included the Blue Cross plan with applications, all of which was put into a booklet form. In July, the booklets were distributed to the employees with their paychecks on a regular payday. Although Kramer testified that he first heard of the union organizing campaign in July, Hunter stated that she told him on June i about the termination of nurses aide Barbara Tecurmera who had refused to sign a union card, and Abrams in his pretrial affidavit stated he knew of the Union's campaign in June, despite his contention on the stand that it was in July. Nor does it appear that the employees were advised of an impending group health insurance plan prior to the distribution of the personnel policy booklet. CONCLUSIONS The General Counsel contends that the timing of the distribution of the Blue Cross plan during the union organizing campaign was intended to discourage union activity and support. Respondent claims that the plan had been explored and decided upon well prior to the advent of the organizing campaign and that it was legally obligated to proceed with it as if no union had appeared on the scene, citing The Gates Rubber Company, 182 NLRB 95, and Danadyne, Inc., 182 NLRB 74. In the Gates case, the company announced the withholding of increases which employees could decide whether or not they wanted a union He denied asking them why they needed a union or promising any benefits 10 According to Hunter, she told Florian that a union was trying to organize the Home and that she could do as she wished, but denied asking her how she felt about the Union or mentioning that she knew who were the instigators for the Union 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD normally would have been granted because of the pendency of an election, while at the same time granting increases to members of another union. The Board held that the company failed to maintain its neutrality by granting the increases to one group of employees and not to another and that the withholding of the increase was violative of the Act. I find that situation wholly inapplica- ble to the instant case. In the Danadyne case, which I also find inapposite, an employee, prior to the filing of an election petition, requested the company to change its health insurance plan to a better one. The company announced its agreement to consider the matter during the critical period prior to the election and so advised the employees. The Board held that a refusal to consider the change would have made it appear that the company was punishing the employees because of their organizational efforts and that it would have violated Section 8(a)(1). The underlying issue is whether Respondent timed the distribution of the Blue Cross plan to influence the employees to withdraw their support of the Union.11 Inasmuch as Respondent was required to issue a personnel policy for its certification, I find that the inclusion of the Blue Cross plan in its personnel policy booklet was both logical and reasonable because it constituted another benefit conferred on employees in addition to those already included in the personnel policy. Had it been issued separately or related to a specific union matter, its impact would have been greater and it would have commensurably strengthened the General Counsel's con- tention. Considering the fact that these events occurred so soon of ter the nursing home began operating with all of the problems attendant to such operation, I find that the personnel policy booklet was processed expeditiously with reasonable speed. I conclude that the circumstances relating to its processing and issuance adequately explain the timing of its distribution and that the preponderance of the evidence does not support an inference that Respon- dent timed it to adversely affect the union support. I therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the issuance and distribution of the Blue Cross plan violated the Act. D. The Ban on Wearing Union Buttons There is no substantial dispute in the evidence which would affect the results reached herein concerning the wearing or banning of union buttons by employees on their uniforms while working. Nurses aides Suggs, Hays, and Dixon were advised about the middle of August by Kramer that they could not wear the union buttons on their uniforms while working. In reply to their inquiry about carrying ballpoint pens bearing a union inscription, he told them they could take the pens with them while working. Suggs then called the Union and, after being advised that she had a right to wear the button, she so informed Kramer. Kramer, however, insisted that they could not wear the buttons, and they removed them and resumed working. About 9 a.m. on September 1, Kramer again observed that Suggs was wearing a union button 11 The distribution took place prior to the filing of the representation petition and, accordingly, may not be considered in determining whether to set aside the election. while working, and he ordered her either to remove the button and continue working or to stop working. She thereupon left the premises. A few days later she received a letter from Respondent advising her that, if she failed to report for work by September 8, she would be regarded as having voluntarily resigned. She returned to work on September 5, apparently without the button. Her button, bright yellow and 1-3/4 inches in diameter, had the name of the Union displayed prominently in bold black printing. On September 4, nurses aides Hays and Dixon were told by Abrams to go home and take off their union buttons and come back to work. Hays understood his remark to mean that she could have taken the button off and continued working. Both of them, however, left but returned to work the following day. The button worn by Dixon was about one-half inch larger in diameter than the one worn by Suggs. Respondent's home caters primarily to elderly patients, many of whom are in various stages of senility. The nurses aides and the licensed practical nurses are required to wear white uniforms with no adornments, including jewelry, other than their nametags and graduation or school pins related to their nurses training. Their work brings them into close physical contact with the patients. According to Hunter, who has had 25 years of nursing experience, much of it in geriatrics, it is important for a nursing home to present a professional appearance, especially in dress and deportment, by adhering to strict rules of dress. Contradictory evidence was presented to the effect that one elderly senile patient, who apparently was difficult to handle, as indicated in his medical record, had become greatly agitated at breakfast one morning when he observed a union button being worn by a nurses aide, identified as Clara Hays. He allegedly stated that he would not eat in a union hall and had to be given a tranquilizer that night to quiet him down. Hays denied being involved in the incident. Based on the record evidence, I am not convinced of the occurrence of this isolated incident. Nor would such an incident affect my findings in the matter made herein. CONCLUSIONS The right of employees to display union insignia on their person while at work has long been recognized as a reasonable and legitimate form of union activity.12 An employer's prohibition of such display in the absence of "special circumstances" is an unwarranted interference with the employees' right to engage in organizational activities.I3 In Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 137 NLRB 1484, cited by both parties and involving hotel employees, the Board, following a remand by the court of its prior decision, reiterated the right of employees to wear union insignia at work as a protected activity in the absence of "special circumstances." The Board found in that case that the union button was smaller than a dime, neat, inconspicuous, and unprovocative with respect to its legend and did not detract from the dignity of a hotel or cause any diminution 12 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 801-803. 13 Mayrath Company, 132 NLRB 1628, enfd. 319 F.2d 424 (C.A. 7). EVERGREEN NURSING HOME 779 of its business and that maintenance of discipline did not necessitate a ban on wearing buttons. The Board held the ban was violative, on its face, of Section 8(a)(1) and reaffirmed its original order. In Davison-Paxon Company, 191 NLRB No. 10, sales personnel having direct contact with customers in a retail store were discharged for refusing to remove union buttons the size of a half dollar. The Board rejected the store's defense that the violation of the store's dress code constituted a "special circumstance," or that a button the size of a half dollar was large and conspicuous, noting that in other cases it approved the wearing of much larger insignia, citing Fabri-Tek, Incorporated. i4 Since its formation and prior to any union organizing efforts, Respondent has enforced a rule regulating employ- ee dress and prohibiting employees from wearing any attachments to their clothing while working, except for nametags and pins relating to nursing service.15 Respon- dent's rule on dress must be viewed in the nature of its business in determining the proper balance between the rights of the employees to engage in organizing activities and the rights of the employer in operating its business. The employees are constantly in direct contact, frequently in very intimate contact, with elderly ill patients, many of whom are confused and disoriented. Their reactions to outside stimuli of any sort are unpredictable and could cause severe agitation, upsetting Respondent's operations and control. The bright yellow union buttons worn herein were 1-7/8 and 2-1/4 inches in diameter, far greater than the five- eighths-inch diameter button in the Floridan case, supra, or the half dollar size (1-1/8 inches in diameter) button in the Davison-Paxon case, supra. Such buttons are not inconspic- uous, and their size did detract from the dignity of the all- white uniform worn by the employees. The neat and professional appearance of the nurses is an important part of Respondent's image both to its patients and the public. Based on the foregoing considerations, especially the fact that Respondent's rule on dress was promulgated when it started operating, long antedating the Union's organizing efforts, I conclude that the "special circumstances" found herein justified Respondent's rule on dress, implemented to ban the wearing of the union buttons used herein. I accordingly recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges 8(a)(I) and (3) violations based on the buttons. IV. THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING; THE OBJECTIONS TO CONDUCT AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION an election, it is necessary to establish that during the critical period-beginning with the filing of a representa- tion petition and the holding of the election-the employ- ees were subjected to the influences specified in the Regional Director's order which interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the election; As determined above, the following violations were found to have occurred during the critical period: interrogation by Hunter of Bunton and Florian, by Abrams of Suggs and Dixon, and by Kramer of Null; and the giving of an impression of surveillance of employee union activities to Dixon and Suggs by Abrams and to Dixon and Florian by Hunter.16 The Board has consistently held that conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) a fortiori interferes with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in an election.17 I, therefore, find merit in and sustain the Union's objections to the extent found during the critical period as indicated above and recommend that the election be set aside and a new election ordered; V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all times material herein, Respondent has been engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2, At all times material herein, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interrogating employees about their union senti- ments and the union sentiments of fellow employees, by creating the impression that employee union activities have been kept under surveillance, and by threatening to discharge employees because of their union support, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. As related above, the Regional Director ordered a hearing in connection with certain objections to conduct affecting results of the election herein; In order to set aside 14 148 NLRB 1623 , reversed 352 F 2d 577 (C A 8), on the ground that the unusual and large insignia worn by the employees distracted or tended to distract the concentration of the employees in their precision defense work However, it should also be noted that the button wearers were factory workers who did not come in contact with the public or customers 15 The ballpoint pens , despite their union inscription, were not prohibited presumably because their use was required in the performance of the employees' work, THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair 16 Although threats of reprisal against employees during the critical period because of their union support have been found violative of Sec 8(a)( I). they have not been considered as a ground for setting aside the election The objection based on that ground was overruled by the Regional Director and therefore not referred to the Trial Examiner 17 Oleson's Foods, No 4, Inc, 167 NLRB 543, 551 , and Irving Air Chute Company, Inc. 149 NLRB 627,629 780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: Is ORDER Respondent, Evergreen Nursing Home and Rehabilita- tion Center, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities and those of their fellow employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (b) Creating the impression of surveillance of employee union activities within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (c) Threatening to discharge employees because of their union support. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to enforce the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices in Creve Coeur, Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecu- tive 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 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.20 I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent has engaged in any unfair labor practices other than those found herein. ix In the event no exceptions are filed as provided 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 ie In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 20 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board, having found after trial that we violated Federal law by interrogating employees concerning the Union, creating the impression of surveillance of employee union activities , and threaten- ing to discharge employees because of their union support, has ordered us to tell you: WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union sentiments or the sentiments of your fellow employees. WE WILL NOT create an impression of surveillance of your union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you because of your union support. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. EVERGREEN NURSING HOME AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room 448, St. Louis, Missouri 63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.