Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley, Inc.

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY 217 Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley , Inc. and Hel- en B. Fields. Case 5-CA-7029 September 11, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO warning violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.i For the reasons fully-explained below, I conclude that the Respon- dent violated the Act as alleged in the complaint, except that it did not refuse to call Fields for part-time duty in September. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respon- dent, I make the following: On May 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Al- mira A. Stevenson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun- sel filed a brief in reply to Respondent's exceptions. 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 her recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard in Roanoke, Virginia, on March 5, 6, and 18, 1975. The original charge was filed by Helen Fields and served on the Respondent on December 9, 1974; the amended charge was filed on January 20 and served on January 21, 1975. The complaint was issued on January 23, 1975. The issues are whether or not the Respondent refused to call Helen Fields, a registered nurse, for part-time duty in September 1974; whether or not the Respondent removed Fields' name from the on-call list on October 10, 1974, and refused her application for full-time reemployment on No- vember 29, 1974, because she engaged in protected con- certed activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended; and whether or not the conduct for which the Respondent issued a warn- ing notice to Irene Weinman, a registered nurse, on Sep- tember 26, 1974, was protected, thereby rendering the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. JURISDICTION The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Virginia corporation with its principal office in Roanoke, Virginia, where it is engaged in the operation of a nonprofit hospital. During the preceding 12 months the Respondent had gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and purchased and received materials and supplies valued in excess of $10,000 from points outside Virginia. I conclude that the Respondent is an employer as defined by Section 2(2) and is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce as de- fined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.2 iI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts 3 1. Background The complaint alleges as unlawful only events which oc- curred after August 25, 1974, when the National Labor Relations Act was amended so as to bring nonprofit hospi- tals within its coverage. However, those events must be viewed in the context of what took place before then. The Respondent began operations in the new building it now operates in September 1967. It employs approximately 1,000 employees, of whom there are, on average, 200 regis- tered nurses . There is a big turnover among registered nurses, 14 positions being unfilled at the time of the hear- ing, and hiring of registered nurses is continual. i There is no merit in the Respondent's contention that the allegation with regard to Weinman should be dismissed because it is unsupported by a charge. The amended charge alleges, among other things, that the Respon- dent violated Sec. 8(a)(I) by its conduct toward Fields and by other acts As the allegation with regard to Weinman is closely related in kind and time to that set forth in the amended charge, I find that it is adequately covered by the charge . N.L.R.B. v. Fant Milling Company, 360 U S 301 (1959); Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, and Filling Station and Platform Workers Local No. 705, IBT (Associated Transport, Inc.), 209 NLRB 292 (1974); Casino Operations, Inc, 169 NLRB 328, 330 (1968), Star Expansion Industries Corporation, 164 NLRB 563, 565, (1967). 2Allegheny General Hospital, 216 NLRB No 168 (1975); Butte Medical Properties, d/b/a Medical Center Hospital, 168 NLRB 266 (1967) J Much of the evidence is undisputed Where conflicts exist, I have re- solved them on the basis of comparative demeanor, corroboration, likeli- hood in light of all the circumstances, and other factors specifically referred to below All evidence presented has been carefully considered , and omis- sion of any reference to some of it indicates that it is considered irrelevant or incredible 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Respondent admits that William Reid, administra- tor, and Margaret Hanley, director of nursing service, have authority to hire and fire, and I find that they are supervi- sors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Helen Fields, registered nurse, was employed by the Re- spondent at and before the time it moved into its new building. There is no question that she is a qualified com- petent nurse. At the time she resigned from full-time em- ployment with the Respondent, in September 1973, she oc- cupied the position of supervisor of the 3-11 shift. Thereafter, although working full-time days for a private medical clinic, she was on the Respondent's on-call list for part-time work. Irene Weinman, registered nurse, has been employed by the Respondent since June 1969 and was promoted from staff nurse to in-service instructor, a position which is paid at the same rate as head nurse. She, also, is admittedly competent and skillful. The duties of in-service instructor initially involved interviewing and hiring clerical employ- ees, taking them through a 3-week training course to pre- pare them for work as hospital secretaries, or effectively recommending that they not be retained. In June 1973, another employee was hired for that position, and Wein- man became the in-service instructor, responsible to Direc- tor Hanley, of staff nurses assigned to intensive care and coronary duty. From then on, Weinman helped out with some orientation programs, but her assignment was teach- ing specialized nursing skills." From 1972 until April 1, 1974, the wage increases given by the Respondent to its employees were limited to 5-1/2 percent a year under wage controls imposed on the hospi- tal industry by the Federal government during that period. The 1974 increase in that amount was given by the Re- spondent on January 1. When Weinman heard that economic controls over the hospital industry were to be lifted, she wrote a letter to the Roanoke World-News, which published it, along with an- other letter on the same subject, on April 3, 1974, under the headline "Another Group Has Pay Gripe." Weinman's let- ter began: I am writing to let the public know that nurses, along with other professionals in this valley, are underpaid. I feel this is the main reason for the shortage of nurses in this area. Weinman then contrasted the training and responsibilities of nurses with those of grocery store checkout clerks who received approximately the same pay, and ended with the following appeal: I hope people will support the health industry's efforts to be released from economic controls before they be- Based on Weinman's credited testimony that although she was paid at the same level as a head nurse, a supervisory position, she had no discipli- nary authority, did not select nurses for training or weed them out, or rec- ommend job assignments, I find that Weinman was not a supervisor after June 1973. 1 place no reliance on Hanley's uncorroborated and generalized testimony not further developed in the record that Weinman was a member of the head nurse committee and participated fully in policy-making deci- sions, or in Hanley's uncorroborated testimony which Weinman said was contrary to her understanding that Weinman was solely responsible for evaluating the qualifications of nurses for critical care work. come patients in a hospital and then find out the hard way about the shortage of nurses. The letter made no reference to the Respondent. Two or three days later, Weinman spoke to 20 to 40 nurses employed by the Respondent, encouraging them to join Virginia Nurses' Association, or VNA (an affiliate of American Nurses' Association). If 60-percent membership at the hospital could be achieved, she told them, VNA could bargain for increased wages. On April 11, Director Hanley, who was at that time president-elect of VNA, sum- moned Weinman to her office and told her Hanley had heard about Weinman's encouraging nurses to join VNA for collective-bargaining purposes. Weinman admitted it, and Hanley told her ... that it was improper or inappropriate to be doing this on hospital property and time and that it also didn't encourage good members, because you would be giving them false promises or false hope and they would quickly become disillusioned and leave the or- ganization and they wouldn't become long-term mem- bers. Meanwhile, Helen Fields read the letters to the newspa- per and, after consulting with another nurse employed by the medical clinic where she worked full time, drafted a letter to the World-News which represented the views of the two of them. This letter was published on April 17 over Fields' name and was headlined "Nursing Dilemma." Af- ter referring to the salary situation as a hard fact in every local nurse's life, the letter stated that "Eleven years of hospital nursing have taken their toll on me." The letter went on to say, I recently left hospital nursing for employment in a physician's office. The salary is good, the benefits are excellent. The duties are a challenge not a frustration. After a day's work I know I will not be asked to work eight hours more because of a help shortage, and feel guilty when I say No. For the first time in nine years I have time to spend with my family. Many more nurses in this area are leaving hospital nursing for the same reasons. The public cannot afford to continue to sit idle or remain mute concerning such a sad situation as nurs- ing finds itself in in our area. Won't you speak up before more nurses leave hospital nursing? Again, no reference was made to the Respondent. About 3 months after these events, on August 6, 1974, Weinman and a part-time staff nurse, Laura Wilbon, in- formed Director Hanley that they intended to make a tele- phone survey of the nurses at the hospital to find out whether they were satisfied with the 5-percent cost-of-liv- ing wage increase which had been announced, and whether they would be interested in collective bargaining. They also informed Hanley that if the results of the survey were posi- tive they intended to communicate with Barbara Walker, executive director of VNA. Hanley responded that she could understand Wilbon's participation as a staff nurse, but she could not understand Weinman's because Hanley considered Weinman, as a head level nurse, to be a part of management. Weinman disagreed. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY The telephone survey was made by a group of about 10 nurses during the period August 6 to 11. Subsequent tally of results showed the nurses still dissatisfied with their pay, that they would like to be covered by a collective-bargain- ing contract, and that they preferred to work through VNA rather than through a union. Wilbon thereupon contacted Walker, sent her the survey results, and set up a meeting of hospital staff nurses with her on August 27, 1974. Meanwhile, Director Hanley sent for Weinman on two occasions, August 14 and 22, and on both occasions in- formed Weinman that Hanley could not tolerate one in Weinman's position working with the staff nurses to pro- mote collective bargaining, and that Weinman would have to decide whether she was management or labor. At their August 22 conference, Hanley asked Weinman, "was she reading me correctly in saying that I thought that an out- side organization could do more for the hospital employees financially and professionally . . . than the hospital ad- ministration could do." Weinman indicated assent, and ticked off the factors she believed made her position labor and not management. That same evening Director Hanley telephoned Weinman at home and Weinman agreed to come to Hanley's office the next day, Friday, August 23, although it was her day off. Weinman subsequently recon- sidered, however, and canceled the appointment. On Friday afternoon, August 23, Hanley personally de- livered a letter to Weinman's home demoting Weinman to staff nurse. In her letter, Hanley referred to "the need of Nursing Service Administration to function as a team with all members loyal to and supportive of the same hospital philosophy," and stated that "it appears to me that you have a deep conflict with the hospital philosophy." Hanley outlined the hospital's efforts on behalf of its employees despite wage controls and its plans for them in the future, and ended, The Community Hospital's position is that it is well aware of the needs of its employees as well as the needs of its patients . . . We do believe that the hospi- tal can achieve the goals of satisfactory wages and working conditions within the hospital organizational framework. Inasmuch as you have indicated to me that you can not concur with Nursing Service Administration, and since your position as Inservice Instructor involves you as a member of Nursing Service Administration, I have no other alternative except to regretfully inform you that as of this date, August 23, 1974, you are ter- minated from your position as Inservice Instructor. I am transferring you to the position of Staff Nurse and our records will so indicate with a concomitant reduc- tion in salary.5 As stated above, it was 2 days later, August 25, that nonprofit hospitals became subject to the National Labor Relations Act. 5 I do not credit Hanley's testimony to the effect that she was motivated in demoting Weinman by her belief that as the holder of a management position Weinman might be accused of domination of or interference with employee organization activities after the Respondent came within the pro- visions of the Act. Hanley did not claim she expressed such concern to Weinman, Weinman testified she did not , and no mention was made of such a motive in the letter of demotion. 2. Immediate events 219 Three events took place on August 27, two days after the amendment of the Act became effective: The Respondent made effective a 5-percent cost-of-living increase; Helen Fields had an interview with Hanley about full-time staff nurse positions available at the hospital; and staff nurses met with VNA Executive Director Walker at the public library in the evening. At her interview, Fields told Hanley she was interested in returning to the hospital. Hanley replied that she was surprised "after the letter you wrote to the newspaper and your unhappiness with hospital nursing." Fields asked Hanley to read the letter again because she had not intend- ed to express unhappiness with hospital nursing but only with situations in hospital nursing which could be changed. She explained that she was spending her time with comput- ers in her present job and wanted to get back to patient care, and asked if there were any positions available as staff nurse. Hanley inquired whether Fields had either re- signed or notified her present employer of her intent to resign, and Fields said she had not. Hanley then refused to give any information regarding positions available for the stated reason that it would be unethical to do so before Fields had given notice.' That evening 40 to 50 of the Respondent's staff nurses met with Walker at the public library. The meeting was called to order by Wilbon who led a discussion of the tele- phone survey results and possible objectives of the group. Walker took the stage and a heated argument ensued be- tween her and the group over whether they had made ade- quate use of in-hospital channels for dealing with employee complaints. As a result, Walker was asked to step down and the group selected a steering committee with tempo- rary officers including Weinman, chairman; Wilbon, vice chairman; and Fields, secretary. The committee met sepa- rately and set a date for another meeting. Afterwards, Weinman, Wilbon, and another instructed Walker to ad- vise Hanley and Administrator Reid of the nurses' concern regarding salaries, fringe benefits, grievance procedures, and other matters, and of their interest in forming a chap- ter of VNA to discuss such matters with hospital adminis- tration. Walker subsequently reported back that she had done as instructed, and that Reid and Hanley expressed willingness to receive input from staff nurses on such mat- ters through regular hospital channels. On September 8 or 10, the steering committee met in a private home and drafted a letter over the names of its officers and members, which was mailed to all hospital staff nurses on September 19. The letter set October 10 as the date of the next nurses' meeting in the public library to 6 Where Fields' and Hanley's testimony is contradictory as to what was said in this and other interviews, I have relied in most instances on that of Fields as she impressed me as the more credible of the two overall In addition, Hanley's statements that in the first interview Fields merely ex- pressed interest in vacancies without asking for a job and that Hanley ex- pected an applicant to apply for a particular position, and Hanley's denial that she told Fields to give notice to her present employer are not believable because they are inconsistent with the probabilities in light of other credited evidence 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organize a chapter of VNA to continue efforts to obtain more professional recognition and better wages and bene- fits. At about that time, Fields received a request from Sue Davidson, reporter for WDBJ-TV, Inc., for an interview to be recorded as part of a news story on dissatisfaction among the Respondent's nurses. Fields got in touch with Weinman who checked the matter out with other members of the steering committee and the two of them agreed to grant the interview. Davidson also interviewed Administra- tor Reid, and the story was included in the TV station's news broadcast at 6 and II p.m. on September 24. Davidson reported over the air in the 6 p.m. newscast that nurses at Community Hospital had begun to informal- ly organize through VNA because they felt understaffed and underpaid and that regular hospital channels were no longer effective. Weinman was shown making the follow- ing statement: There are times, especially the 3 to 11, and 1l to 7 shifts when there are not RNs to cover the whole med- ical-surgical unit of 40 patients. And this isn't just par- ticular at our hospital alone in the Valley. That's a known fact. And, you know, we feel very badly about this, we feel it's directly related also to the salary and benefits situation we're having, like Helen was saying earlier. The cost of living, according the National Chamber of Commerce figures, that have come out, are just as high here in the Roanoke area as they are anywhere in the country. And yet our salaries in this area are like 60-80 cents an hour lower than they are anywhere else in the country. Reid was then shown defending the hospital wage struc- ture, and Davidson asserted that the nurses at Community Hospital did not want to unionize but did want the oppor- tunity to bargain collectively. There followed a discussion between Davidson and Reid of Weinman's demotion on August 23 which did not mention Weinman by name and which she took no part in. The II p.m. broadcast was simi- lar but shorter, and Fields, as well as Weinman and Reid, was shown. After Davidson referred to a "part-time and a full-time nurse at the hospital" who "say three-fourths of the staff nurses favor the drive," Fields and Weinman made the following remarks. Fields: According to a telephone survey that we made, according to a first meeting that we held with the group, and the response we've had since then from staff nurses. Davidson: Also, this administrative official told me you're going to be asking for salaries that they pay in California and New York. Weinman: I don't think so. I feel if their salaries are higher, that's fine. But I think we should be, in this area, making at least what other areas of the coun- try are making, who have similar costs of living that we do have. Remaining remarks on the newscast were made by Reid and Davidson. Two days after the broadcast, September 26, Director Hanley sent for Weinman and told her Hanley "was ap- palled at what she had said on the television interview." Weinman retorted she had said nothing that was untrue. Hanley replied: That may be so; but the impression that you created with the public was disastrous to the hospital as far as I was concerned. Hanley handed Weinman the warning notice which is a subject of the complaint in this proceeding, and which specified: Breach of hospital and professional ethics in broad- casting via the television news media her dissatisfac- tions with the hospital working conditions regarding staffing and her demotion. Further incidents of this nature would be cause for dismissal. Weinman told Hanley she understood it was a requirement to have a registered nurse on every unit every shift. Hanley informed her there was no such requirement, as long as licensed practical nurses responsible to registered nurses were assigned. Weinman asked on what basis Hanley found she had breached hospital and professional ethics, and Hanley showed her portions of Respondent's employ- ee handbook pertaining to the necessity for personnel to assume responsibility of the image of the hospital to the public; and the ANA Code for Nurses, pertaining to "the appropriate channels" for improving economic and general welfare conditions of the profession, which, the code indi- cated, was "her professional association." Hanley told Weinman she had no objections to collective bargaining but that she did object "when the image conveyed to the public was not a true one of the concern and care that the patients received at our hospital," and that Weinman must proceed ethically and professionally. Weinman appealed the disciplinary notice, and other conduct of Hanley's, to the Respondent's personnel direc- tor, L. E. Collier. Collier's memo denying the appeal ad- vised Weinman, "Your efforts beginning April 1974, to se- cure larger salaries, greater benefits, and improved staffing, is without foundation" as the hospital employees had been given many improvements since 1967, "without the neces- sity of asking or pressuring the Administration for them." Collier upheld Hanley's warning notice on the ground that Weinman was identified on television as an employee of the Respondent and that her remarks "could only cause the viewing public to form erroneous opinions of, the qual- ity of care and treatment patients of Community Hospital could expect." Administrator Reid testified that he concurred in this judgment. The October issue of the in-plant hospital newspaper carried an article by Administrator Reid advocating use of in-hospital procedures for the presentation of personnel matters and bona fide grievances, and expressing his belief "that in our situation, any extraneous organization would be detrimental to the best interest of the patient and per- sonnel alike of Community Hospital." On October 10 the staff nurse meeting to organize a chapter of VNA was held. Fields did not attend, and the turnout was disappointing. No action was taken, and it was COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY decided by those present not to work through VNA as it was thought that the Association leaned toward manage- ment. The evidence shows that more than 50 percent of the members of VNA occupy positions of head nurse or high- er. Membership in ANA or VNA is not required for licens- ing as a registered nurse nor for employment by the Re- spondent. At the time of the hearing , Hanley was president of VNA, and Weinman and Fields were members. About a month later, on November 7, Fields notified the medical clinic of her intent to resign effective December 5. On November 18, she had another interview with Hanley during which she requested a transfer from the on -call list to a full-time staff nurse position on the 11-7 shift in any unit except pediatrics. Hanley responded that Fields was no longer on the on-call list as she had not worked 2 week- end days a month as required . Fields protested that she had received no notice of having been removed from the list, and asked when it happened . Hanley said, "We are tying up the loose ends now." Hanley said she was not sure there was an opening for a full -time nurse on the shift re- quested by Fields and that Hanley would have to check with the assistant director for the 11 -7 shift. Fields asked whether Hanley had a warning for her like the one she had given Weinman. Hanley replied she did not, as she did not consider Fields to represent the hospital ; and asked wheth- er Fields thought she would be happy at Community Hos- pital "after the letter you wrote to the newspaper where you stated your unhappiness with hospital nursing." Fields again requested Hanley to read the letter over as she had misinterpreted it. The two then discussed the possibility of a union coming to the hospital , Fields predicting it would happen "if VNA did not support the nurses there and try to help them in the situation they were in." Hanley replied, "She would rather deal with a union any day than be un- dermined from within ." The interview ended with Hanley's saying she would get in touch if a job was available. Hanley testified that she deleted Fields' name, and the names of two other nurses, Cassell and Lott, from the on- call list on October 10, 1974. The list is kept, and calls are actually made, by a secretary . Hanley testified as follows with regard to the October 10 deletions: the secretary who keeps the list and makes the calls happened about that time to ask Hanley whether she should continue to call "those people who are on call and don't work," and gave Hanley these three names . This was the first time, Hanley claimed, that she became aware that Fields' name was on the on-call list. Hanley told the secretary she would check into the matter. She obtained the call-in sheets for 1974 and ascer- tained that the three nurses were not working a weekend per month . Fields conceded that this was a requirement of which she was aware, but insisted it had never been strictly enforced; no one, to her knowledge , had ever been dropped from the list for failure to meet the requirement. ' The name of Lott does not appear on the call-in sheets in evidence, but Hanley said her name was on another call-in list which is otherwise unidentified . Hanley's testimony i Although Hanley testified she had dropped one nurse from the list be- fore this, in June 1974, 1 do not credit this statement Hanley failed to give the name, and the Respondent's call-in sheets in evidence do not reflect It I find the testimony to be a self-serving afterthought. 221 continued to the effect that the timecards of Fields, Cassell, and Lott bore out their failure to meet the monthly week- end requirement, so she notified the personnel office to drop their names. No notice was given to those affected, as Hanley considered it "comparable to simply abandoning a position." Lott is now working regular part time for the hospital. Cassell, who had last accepted a call-in to work in May 1974, thereafter telephoned in late December 1974 asking for call-in work. Hanley told her, "I was only clean- ing out some files and it's my mistake that I did not let you all know; but you can come back to work whenever you want to, if you will let us know...:. Cassell returned to on-call work on January 3, 1975, at which time Hanley discussed with her the weekend-a-month requirement for the first time. The Respondent's call-in sheets in evidence reveal that the last time Fields worked 2 weekend days in 1 month was January 26 and 27, 1974; after that she worked 1 weekend day in March and 1 in September 1974; she refused re- quests to work on three other dates in September. Fields claimed that she called in and asked for weekend work many times, including two unspecified dates in September, when work was not given her. The call -in sheets reveal that nurse Elizabeth Moore failed to meet the weekend require- ment 1 month, and that Dianne Rice failed to meet it 6 different months, in 1974. Neither was dropped. Hanley testified that all such nurses except the three whose names were dropped were on leave of absence or sick leave, but no notations to that effect appear on the call-in sheets for Moore and Rice. On November 29, Fields again saw Hanley. Hanley ad- mittedly told Fields Hanley had decided "that it would be in neither her best interest nor the hospital's for me to reemploy her because of her obvious and public discontent or dissatisfaction with hospital nursing." Hanley added that, it was our hospital philosophy and nursing service phi- losophy that we believed that the quality of patient care is related to the happiness and morale and satis- faction of our employees and that I did not feel that it would be in the patient's interest to re-employ her. Hanley testified that in these remarks she made reference to the letter Fields had written to the newspaper in April 1974, and conceded that there were positions available on the shift Fields had requested. Fields asked Hanley if she could be allowed to do private duty nursing through the hospital. Hanley took the matter under advisement. Administrator Reid testified he agreed with Hanley's de- cision not to reemploy Fields "Because when a person says publicly" that she "is not happy with us, we are happy that they leave, because it is best for everybody.... And we did not feel that she should come back and still do not feel that she should come back." Although a copy of a letter dated December 17, 1974, from Hanley to Fields accepting her request for private duty nursing is in evidence, the original apparently had been sent to an old address and Fields never received it. There has been no further communication between Fields and the hospital. 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Conclusions The General Counsel contends that the treatment ac- corded both Weinman and Fields was motivated by their participation in the television broadcast of September 24, which brought to public attention the dissatisfaction of the Respondent's staff nurses with their wages and conditions of employment, and that the reasons advanced by the Re- spondent are pretexts. The Respondent contends that it did not refuse to call Fields for on-call duty in September 1974. The Respondent in effect concedes that at material times both Fields and Weinman were employees engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of organizing staff nurses for collective bar- gaining which were protected by the Act. It asserts, howev- er, that it dropped Fields from the on-call list solely be- cause she failed to work 2 weekend days a month as required, and that it refused to reemploy her as a full-time staff nurse because of her public personal and individual declaration in her letter to the newspaper published on April 17 that she could not tolerate the frustrations and demands of hospital nursing. The Respondent further as- serts that it gave Weinman the disciplinary warning notice because in the television interview she engaged individually in unprofessional, unethical, and disloyal conduct by mak- ing a damaging statement which would mislead the public into believing that the hospital did not provide safe and adequate patient care. I agree with the Respondent that the allegation that it refused to call Helen Fields for part-time duty in Septem- ber must fail. The hospital records, offered into evidence by the General Counsel, show that the Respondent called Fields for part-time duty on four different occasions and that she actually worked once during the month of Septem- ber 1974. I shall therefore recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, it is not disputed that the Respon- dent dropped Fields from its on-call list, and refused her application for full-time employment as a staff nurse, at a time when positions were available , and that it issued the warning notice to Weinman. In my opinion a preponder- ance of the credible evidence supports the General Counsel's contention that the reasons advanced by the Re- spondent for this conduct were pretexts. The evidence detailed above clearly reveals that the Respondent's true motivation was to channel or control its employees' organizing efforts. While at times professing no objection to the principle of collective bargaining, Reid, Hanley, and Collier as well, all revealed their determina- tion to contain their employees' organizing efforts within the confines of in-hospital procedures to the exclusion of any outside organization; and, failing that, to channel those efforts through the Virginia Nurses' Association. I infer from Hanley's forceful personality as I observed it on the witness stand, from her predisposition stated to Fields not to be "undermined from within," and from her other conduct and statements set forth above, that Hanley in- tended to control these efforts, either as the director of nursing service or as the president of VNA. It is also clear that the appearance of these two employee leaders of the organizational movement on the television news broadcast brought their cause to public attention and thereby triggered the Respondent's coercive conduct to- ward them. Only the broadcast explains the timing of the sudden enforcement of the weekend rule, and the disparate en- forcement of the rule against Fields. The facts show that five nurses had been out of compliance with the rule for a considerable time, Fields for 7 months. The Respondent did nothing about this until shortly after the broadcast. Then instead of warning them of the need to comply, or seeking to obtain their compliance as one would expect during a period when nurses were in short supply, it sud- denly selected three of the five to be dropped without even telling them. Thereafter, two of the three were restored to duty, leaving only Fields, a leader of the organizational movement, permanently dropped. The broadcast also presents a more rational explanation for the refusal to reemploy Fields than her purported un- happiness with hospital nursing. In the first place, as Fields repeatedly told Hanley and as is clear from her letter to the newspaper, it was the salary situation and consequent staff shortages that Fields expressed her unhappiness with.8 Moreover, although Hanley accused Fields, in their first interview on August 27, of being unhappy with hospital nursing, Hanley did not, on that occasion, indicate a dispo- sition not to employ her. Hanley implied that Fields' appli- cation would be favorably received if she gave notice to her present employer. In their next interview, which took place after the broadcast, Hanley's attitude toward Fields' appli- cation changed and she indicated, untruthfully, that she was not sure there was an opening for Fields. There fol- lowed, 10 days later, the flat refusal to reemploy Fields despite her admitted competence, the shortage of nurses, and available openings. Weinman's warning was, of course, admittedly caused by the broadcast. Moreover, here again the reason ad- vanced by the Respondent does not withstand analysis. I agree with the General Counsel that the likely overall im- pression created in the public mind by the broadcast was that the Respondent's employees were dissatisfied with their wages and conditions of employment. Weinman's ref- erence to times when there are not enough RN's to cover all units was specifically stated to be directly related to the salary and benefits situation. In my opinion, most listeners would take this as an expression of the widely held view that low wages cause labor shortages. As the view would be as applicable to a hospital as to any other employer, I can see no discernible basis for the Respondent's professed alarm over implications regarding patient care. The Re- spondent explains Weinman's purported breach of hospital ethics as being based on the responsibility with which she is charged in its handbook for the hospital's image with the public. Here, also, there appears to be no appreciable dif- ference between a hospital employee's responsibility and 8 Even if Hanley's reason were accepted, it would not, in the circum- stances, be a valid reason . Where the evidence indicates , as it does here, that reemployment would have been accepted had it been tendered, an employee's knowledge of, or unhappiness with, the employer's working con- ditions does not rob her of the protection of the Act See Lipsey, Inc, 172 NLRB 1535 (1968). COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY that of employees of any other retail establishment . Final- ly, it is clear that Weinman's so-called breach of profes- sional ethics meant her taking the organizational activities outside the VNA and the regular in-hospital channels pre- ferred by management, which is merely further evidence of the Respondent's unlawful motivation. For the reasons set forth above, as well as the credibility findings heretofore made, I do not credit the Respondent's witnesses as to the reasons for this treatment accorded Fields and Weinman, and find that the real reason was the employees' bringing to public attention their efforts to or- ganize for the improvement of their wages and working conditions through collective bargaining, which manage- ment was attempting to channel and control. The Respondent concedes , and I find, that these efforts were protected by Section 7 of the Act. I also find that these employees had the additional right under the Act to appeal for public support of their efforts, which is in es- sence what they did here.9 Moreover, there is no merit in the Respondent's contentions that Fields and Weinman lost the Act's protection because (1) the views they ex- pressed publicly were personal and individual; and (2) that Weinman's remark was misleading and disloyal. As to (1), the right to engage in concerted activity extends to the right, exercised here, of each individual in a group of em- ployees to speak in favor of, as well as on behalf of, such activity. As to (2) the Respondent concedes that what Weinman said was true, and I have found above there were no reasonable grounds for the Respondent to conclude that the viewing audience was misled to the detriment of the hospital's public image. I have also found that Weinman's statement was made in a context of, and was specifically related by her to, the employees' efforts to im- prove wages and working conditions. Nor is there any evi- dence at all that Weinman deliberately intended to alienate the public by impugning the quality of the hospital's pa- tient care.10 I conclude that by dropping Helen Fields' name from the on-call list on October 10 and refusing her application for reemployment on November 29, and by issuing a warn- ing notice to Irene Weinman on September 26, 1974, the Respondent interfered with , restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." 9 Southern Business and Industrial Development Corporation d/b/a The Jackson Hilton, et al., 216 NLRB No 99 (1975) See, also, Schnell Tool & Die Corporation and Salem Stamping & Manufacturing Co., Inc, 144 N LRB 385, 406 (1963), modified in other respects 359 F.2d 39 (C,A, 6, 1966) 10 N L.R.B. v. Cement Transport, Inc., 490 F 2d 1024 (C.A. 6, 1974); Ow- ens-Corning Fibreglas Corporation v. N.LR.B., 407 F.2d 1357 (C.A. 4, 1969), N.L.R.B. v. National Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., 315 F.2d 280 (C.A. 7, 1963); Frontier Guard Patrol, Inc., d/b/a Frontier Guard and DeLue, Inc., et al., 161 NLRB 155 (1966). In Bowling Green Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R. B., 416 F.2d 371 (C.A. 6, 1969), relied on by the Respondent, the court found, contrary to the Board, that an employee's broadcast statements were false and calculated to expose the employer to public contempt. That case is clearly distinguishable from this case where there is no evidence that Weinman's remark was so calculated , and where the Respondent admits that what she said was true and relies solely on its unsupported assertion that its import was misleading. 11 See N.L R B v Crystal Tire Company, 410 F.2d 916 (C.A 8, 1969); Champion Papers, Inc. (Ohio Division) v. N L R B, 393 F.2d 388 (C A 6, 1968); Signal Oil and Gas Company v. N. L. R. B., 390 F 2d 338 (C.A. 9, 1968), Belts Baking Company, Inc v N L.R.B, 380 F 2d 199 (C.A 10, 1967); III. REMEDY 223 'In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recom- mend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from any like or related conduct, and that it take certain affirmative action detailed below. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully issued a warning notice to Irene Weinman on September 26, 1974, I shall recommend that it be ordered to rescind that notice and remove all copies of it from the Respondent's files. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully dropped Helen Fields' name from its on-call list on October 10 and refused to reemploy her on November 29, 1974, I also rec- ommend that it be ordered to restore her name to the list, and offer her immediate and full employment in a position as staff nurse, for which she applied, or if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, plus interest at 6 percent per annum. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). The Respondent's contention that no backpay should be awarded Fields because there is no standard against which to measure it is rejected, as this matter can be properly dealt with at the compliance stage of this pro- ceeding. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER12 The Respondent, Community Hospital of Roanoke Val- ley, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Issuing warning notices or refusing employment to employees, or dropping their names from the on-call list, because of their protected concerted activity. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Rescind the warning notice issued to Irene Weinman and remove all copies of the notice from the hospital files. (b) Restore Helen Fields' name to the on-call list, and offer her immediate and full employment in a position as staff nurse, for which she applied, or, if such position no Reno's Riverside Hotel, Inc. d/b/a Riverside Hotel, 166 NLRB 426, 433 (1967) N L R B. v. Local Union No 1229, International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers [Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Co], 346 U S 464 (1953), and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc) v. N L R B, 466 F 2d 380 (C A D C., 1972), cited by the Respondent, and similar cases, are inapposite as the employee conduct there were deliberate attacks on the employer's product made in a manner unrelated to a labor dispute 12 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 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. (c) Make Helen Fields whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, in the manner spelled out in the Remedy section hereof, plus 6-percent interest. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all pay- roll records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (e) Post at its hospital in Roanoke , Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director of Re- gion 5, after being duly signed by an authorized represen- tative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respon- dent 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 the Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it here- by is, dismissed as to all allegations not specifically found herein. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT issue warning notices or refuse employ- ment to employees , or drop their names from the on- call list because they engage in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL rescind the warning notice issued to Irene Weinman and remove all copies of it from hospital files. WE WILL restore Helen Fields' name to the on-call list and offer her immediate and full employment to a position of staff nurse for which she applied or, if such position no longer exists , to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL make Helen Fields whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered plus interest at 6 per- cent. 13 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY, INC.