Sweetwater Hospital Association

SWEETWATER HOSPITAL ASSN. 321 Sweetwater Hospital Association and Tennessee Li- censed Practical Nurses Association , Sweetwater Unit. Cases 10-CA-11683 and 10-CA-11764 October 7, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER dent violated Section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, by acts and conduct hereinafter spec- ified. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and Respondent, and the briefs have been duly considered, Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and having observed the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. PRELIMINARY MATTERS (COMMERCE, JURISDICTION, AND LABOR ORGANIZATION) On June 25, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Eu- gene George Goslee issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his 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, Sweetwater Hospital As- sociation, Sweetwater, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 'No exceptions having been filed to the Administrative Law Judge's dis- missal of the allegations of violation of Sec 8(a)(3) such dismissal is adopted pro forma. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE GEORGE GOSLEE, Administrative Law Judge: These consolidated cases came on to be heard before me at Sweetwater, Tennessee, on May 3, 1976, upon complaints I issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board and answers filed by Sweetwater Hospital As- sociation, hereinafter called the Respondent. The issues raised by the pleadings relate to whether or not Respon- 1 The complaint in Case 10-CA-11683 was issued on January 26, 1976, upon a charge-filed on December 11, 1975, as amended on January 19, 1976. On March 25, 1976, a consolidated complaint was issued based on an additional charge filed on February 4, and amended on March 15, 1976 The Respondent admits timely service of the charges and amendments. The complaints allege, the answers admit, and I find that (1) Respondent is a nonprofit hospital and operates a gen- eral hospital at Sweetwater, Tennessee; (2) that in the past calendar year Respondent's gross volume of business ex- ceeded $500,000 and it purchased goods and materials in interstate commerce in an amount in excess of $50,000; and (3) that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. For the reasons related below I also find that the Tennessee Li- censed Practical Nurses Association, Sweetwater Unit, hereinafter called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED In the complaint in Case 10-CA-11683, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union as the certified bargaining representative for a unit of Re- spondent's technical employees, including licensed practi- cal nurses. In Case 10-CA-11764, the General Counsel al- leges that Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by (1) unilaterally granting unit employees pay for reporting time worked outside regularly scheduled working hours; (2) unilaterally changing reporting and quitting times for the employees in the bargaining unit; and (3) by unilaterally granting additional vacation time to employees in the bargaining unit. The General Counsel further alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) of the Act by withholding a general wage in- crease from employees in the bargaining unit.2 By its answers, as amended at the hearing, Respondent admits that it has refused to meet and bargain with the Union, but contends that the certification is invalid by rea- son that the Union is not a labor organization, and that the unit certified by the Board is inappropriate. Respondent also pleads that it has refused to bargain because of the Union's insistence on bargaining only for a unit of licensed practical nurses, whereas the unit certified by the Board encompasses technical employees, including licensed prac- tical nurses. As to the allegations in' Case 10-CA-11764, Respondent admits that certain changes were made in the terms and conditions of employment of licensed practical nurses, and also admits that on February 9, 1976, a retro- active general wage increase, granted to other employees, 2 An additional allegation that Respondent unilaterally reduced the work- week and increased the hourly pay rates for employees in the unit was withdrawn at the conclusion of the hearing. 226 NLRB No. 51 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REL4ITIONS BOARD was withheld from the licensed practical nurses in the bar- gaining unit. By way of defense, however, Respondent pleads that no lawful bargaining obligation existed and fur- ther contends that even if, arguendo, the certification is val- id it was legally prohibited from extending the general wage increase to the licensed practical nurses without bar- gaining the issue with the Union. A. The Certification On December 6, 1974, the Union filed a petition in Case 10-RC-10221 requesting certification in a unit of the Re- spondent's licensed practical nurses, excluding all other employees. At a hearing conducted on January 3, 1975, the Union continued to insist on the unit specified in the peti- tion, while Respondent contended that a unit of all its non- professional employees was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Additionally, Respondent contended that the Union was not a labor organization by reason that the bylaws of its parent organization, Athens Area, Ten- nessee Licensed Practical Nurses Association, did not list collective bargaining as one of its functions. After the close of the representation case hearing the matter was transfer- red directly to the Board for decision. On August 9, 1975, the Board issued its decision 3 find- ing, on the basis of the petitioning Union's evidence of a contemplated change in the bylaws of the parent organiza- tion, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The Board rejected the Union's contention for a unit limited to licensed practical nurses, but found that the licensed practical nurses em- ployed by Respondent were technical employees within the scope of prior Board decisions, and directed an election in the following described unit: All technical employees, including licensed practical nurses, employed by the Employer at its facility in Sweetwater, Tennessee, excluding all other employees, professional employees, managerial employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. At a Board-conducted election on August 28, 1975, the Union received a majority of the valid votes cast. There were no determinative challenged ballots, no objections were filed, and on September 8, 1975, the Union was certi- fied as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, or other terms and conditions of employment. With respect to the bargaining unit, Respondent con- tends in its answers that the unit found appropriate was not fully litigated in the representation case hearing, that the unit found was inconsistent with the requests of both par- ties, and that the unit found appropriate is in conflict with 3 Sweetwater Hospital Association, 219 NLRB 803 ° Because of the mcomplete state of the record, the Board directed that a laboratory and X-ray technician vote subject to challenge The record in the instant proceeding reflects that this employee, the only nonsupervisory tech- nical employee not classified as a licensed practical nurse of the date of the Board's Direction of Election, was not listed on the voting eligibility list, and did not participate in the election. the intent of the Act and inconsistent with the Board's pre- vious decisions. In addition, Respondent continues to con- tend that the Union is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act because it is prohibited by its constitu- tion and bylaws from representing any of Respondent's employees other than licensed practical nurses. For obvious reasons, Respondent's contentions with re- spect to the status of the Union and the appropriateness of the bargaining unit must be rejected. It is settled that in the absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evi- dence or special circumstances a respondent in a proceed- ing alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to rehtigate issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior representation proceeding.' In the underlying repre- sentation case the Respondent litigated, or had opportuni- ty to litigate, both the issue of the Union's status as a labor organization and the issue of the appropriateness of the unit. There exists here no newly discovered evidence or special circumstances to warrant reexamination of the Board's determinations, and, I am bound by the Board's prior decision in Sweetwater Hospital Association, 219 NLRB 803. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the unit described above is a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that at all times since September 8, 1975, the Union has been the sole and exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in the described unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment. Notwithstanding that the record in the in- stant proceeding leaves considerable doubt that the Union has amended its bylaws to permit representation of em- ployees other than licensed practical nurses,6 I am bound by the Board's decision in the representation case, and, accordingly, I find and conclude that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. B. The Request to Bargain On October 28, 1975, a representative of the Union sent a letter to Respondent in which he incorrectly recited that the Union had been certified by the Board as the bargain- mg agent for the Hospital's licensed practical nurses, and demanded that Respondent meet for bargaining on No- vember 4, 1975. On October 29, 1975, Respondent replied to the Union's demand, reciting the election of a new board of director and officers, and requesting that the meeting for negotiations be postponed for at least 2 weeks. There is no evidence in the record before me that the Union replied to Respondent's letter of October 29, but on November 13, 1975, Respondent sent a further letter to the Union, declining the request to meet and bargain until the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had an opportunity to review the Board's decision in the under- lying representation case. There is no evidence in the rec- 5 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v NLRB, 313 U.S 146, 162 (1941), Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs 102 67(f) and 102 69(c) 6 The Union did not comply at the hearing in these cases with Respon- dent's request to produce the amendment to the bylaws of the Sweetwater Unit authorizing it to admit to membership and represent employees other than licensed practical nurses. SWEETWATER HOSPITAL ASSN. 323 ord that the Union made any further oral or written re- quest to meet and bargain after the receipt of Respondent's letter of November 13, but on December 11, 1975, the Union filed the charge in Case 10-CA-11683. For the reasons related above, I reject Respondent's con- tentions that its obligation to bargain was obviated by rea- sons that the Union is not a labor organization and that the unit certified by the Board is inappropriate for the purpos- es of collective bargaining. There remains for determina- tion, however, the issue of whether the Union's demand to meet and bargain was codeterminous with the unit certi- fied, or whether the Union adhered to its previously ex- pressed contention that a unit limited to licensed practice nurses is the only unit for which it will bargain. As found above, the Union's demand of October 28, 1975, was predicated on the Board's certification of a unit limited to licensed practical nurses, which is contrary to the Board's decision and the certification. If the evidence of the Union's demand for bargaining in this restricted unit was limited to its correspondence of October 28, Respon- dent's contention might readily be denied on the basis of an inadvertent error readily corrected by the Hospital's in- sistence on bargaining for all of the employees in the certi- fied unit. However, there is other evidence that the Union's demand of October 28 to meet and bargain in a unit limit- ed to licensed practical nurses was not an inadvertent er- ror. The record in the underlying representation case reflects that the Union petitioned for a bargaining unit limited to licensed practical nurses, excluding all other employees. At the outset of the representation case hearing the Union insisted on the appropriateness of this restricted unit, and in summing up its unit position at the close of the hearing the Union affirmatively contended that (1) only a unit lim- ited to licensed practical nurses was appropriate; (2) it did not wish to proceed to an election in any other unit; and (3) it did not wish to represent any employees other than licensed practical nurses. It is clear from the record that the Board's unit finding and direction of election in a bargaining unit of all techni- cal employees, including licensed practical nurses, did not have the effect of changing the Union's previously ex- pressed position that it would represent'only licensed prac- tical nurses. The record contains three letters which the Union distributed to Respondent's licensed practical nurs- es during the period between the date of the Board's Deci- sion and Direction of Election and the date of the election. In the first of these letters, which referred to the Board's decision, the Union advised the employees that "it is a unit composed entirely of LPNs at Sweetwater Hospital." The second letter contained the following two paragraphs: Every member and every officer in this organization is an L.P.N. and is licensed to practice nursing in the State of Tennessee, just as you are. If a majority of the L.P.N.'s employed at Sweetwater Hospital vote YES, they will be the only persons di- rectly involved in stating what the terms of their par- ticular contract may be. The third letter distributed by the Union to solicit votes, and dated August 12, 1975, contained the following para- graph: Since August of 1974, when the amendment to the Taft-Hartley Act went into effect giving employees of nonprofit hospitals the right to collective bargaining there have been numerous attempts by labor unions to gain the membership of the L.P.N.'s. Your profession- al organization has taken the stand that L.P.N.'s and only L.P.N.'s have the right to do their own collective bargaining. Doris Williams, the Union's representative who wrote the three letters reviewed above, testified in this proceed- ing, but at no time did Williams proffer evidence that the Union had changed its position with respect to its right to bargain in a unit limited to licensed practical nurses. Wil- hams testified that there were no technical employees other than licensed practical nurses employed by Respondent on the date of the election, and also testified that the Union was unaware of any other technical employees employed on the date of the Union's demand for bargaining. Other uncontradicted evidence in the record reflects to the con- trary. Employee Pat Wilson, who appears to be the laboratory technician whom the Board directed to vote under chal- lenge, was employed on the date of the representation case hearing, but left Respondent's employment before the elec- tion and returned to work on November 17, 1975. Wilson is no longer employed, but the record reveals that two other non-LPN technical employees were employed on the date of the Union's demand for bargaining, and both are still employed. Nona Williams is a surgical scrub techni- cian and Cindy Glaze performs EKG, as well as clerical functions. Insofar as the record in the proceeding reflects, both employees have the training, work in classifications and perform functions mandating their inclusion in the bargaining unit previously found appropriate by the Board. Whether or not the Union knew of their employment, the whole of the relevant evidence before me requires the con- clusion that the Union's demand for bargaining excluded Williams and Glaze, as it excluded all technical employees other than licensed practical nurses. In the absence of agreement from the employer , a union is obligated to bargain in the collective-bargaining unit pre- viously recognized or certified.? There is no evidence here that Respondent has agreed to exclude from the unit tech- nical employees whose inclusion was required by the Board's Decision and Direction of Election. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Union's demand for bargaining excluded employees whom the Board had properly includ- ed in the bargaining unit, and therefore imposed no valid obligation on Respondent to meet and bargain. C. The Unilateral Changes in Wages and Working Conditions The Respondent admits, as alleged in paragraph 10 of the complaint in Case 10-CA-11764, that at a time on or 7 G. B Curry, President, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No 428, et a! (Phelps Dodge Corporation ), 184 NLRB 976, 977 (1970) 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about October 1, 1975, without notice or consultation with the Union, it granted additional vacation days to its em- ployees in the bargaining unit. Respondent's only defense to this allegation is that the action was directed by the Hospital's former administrator, without approval of its board of directors. Respondent also admits paragraph 11 of the complaint, alleging that it unilaterally granted em- ployees in the bargaining unit pay for reporting time worked outside of regular working hours. As to this allega- tion, Respondent defends its action on grounds that the change was made to encourage employees to attend train- ing classes and to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Further, Respondent admits paragraph 12 of the com- plaint, alleging that it unilaterally instructed its employees in the bargaining unit to clock in for work 6 minutes before starting time, and to clock out no later than 6 minutes after the end of the shift. Again, Respondent contends that the change was made as a recordkeeping procedure and to conform with the requirements of the FLSA. Respondent further admits the allegations of paragraph 14 of the com- plaint, alleging that it withheld a general wage increase from the employees in the bargaining unit. The wage in- crease for all employees other than those in the bargaining unit was granted by Respondent in Janaury 1976, retroac- tive to November 11, 1975. The record reveals that on or about January 26, 1976, Respondent conducted meetings for the licensed practical nurses to advise them that the wage increase had been withheld because of the legal con- test over the validity of the Union's certification. By way of defense, Respondent contends that it was legally prohib- ited from extending the wage increase to the employees in the unit without bargaining with the Union, which it was disinclined to do because of its desire to test the validity of the Union's certification. I have found above that the Union's request for bargain- ing was ineffective by reason of its demand to bargain for a unit contrary to that certified by the Board, and was, therefore, not legally binding on Respondent. The invalidi- ty of the request to bargain did not, however, license Re- spondent to alter the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the bargain- ing unit without giving the Union notice and the opportu- nity to bargain.' The Union was and is the certified bar- gaining representative, and Respondent was legally obligated to give it the opportunity to bargain over matters which are clearly encompassed within the framework of terms and conditions of employment. Respondent's defen- ses that these changes were implemented without approval of its board of directors, or for administrative reasons, or to comply with the FLSA, does not excuse its failure to notify the Union and give it an opportunity to bargain, and I find that the General Counsel has proved the violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act alleged in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 of the complaint in Case 10-CA-11764. As to the withholding of the January 1976 wages in- crease, the record reflects that, since at least 1973, Respon- dent has had an'established practice of adjusting the wages of its employees. The increases have been granted on an annual basis according to the cost of living index and the availability of revenues, and there is no evidence that merit principles played any part in the determination to increase Co., 369 U.S. 736 (1962) the wages of any employee.8 On the basis of its established practice the employees in the bargaining unit would have been granted the wage increase, and Respondent's desire to test the legal validity of the certification clearly did not justify withholding the wage increase without notice to the Union or giving it an opportunity to bargain. Accordingly, I find and conclude that, by withholding the January 1976 general wage increase from its employees in the bargaining unit, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. However, I do not find, as the General Counsel alleg- es, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by its unilateral withholding of the wage increase. There is absolutely no evidence in this record to support a finding that Respondent withheld the wage increase for discrimi- natory reasons. III. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, I shall recom- mend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action to remedy the unfair la- bor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by withholding from employees in the certified bargaining unit a general wage increase granted to its other employees, I shall order that Respondent make its employees whole for the loss of wages they sustained by reason of the unlawful conduct by payment to them of the amounts they would have received, together with interest thereon as established in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Sweetwater Hospital Association, 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. The Union, Tennessee Licensed Practical Nurses As- sociation, Sweetwater Unit, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Union is now, and has been at all times material to these cases, the sole and exclusive bargaining representa- tive of the employees in the following described unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment: All technical employees, including licensed practical nurses employed by Sweetwater Hospital Association at its facility at Sweetwater, Tennessee, excluding all other employees, professional employees, managerial employees, office clerical employees, guards, and su- pervisors as defined in the Act. 4. By changing the terms and conditions of employment of its employees in the above-described bargaining unit without notice to the Union, and without according the 8 Contrast N L R B v. Benne Katz, etc, d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products SWEETWATER HOSPITAL ASSN. Union an opportunity to bargain, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. By withholding from its employees in the above-de- scribed bargaining unit a general wage increase granted to its other employees in January 1976, the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The General Counsel has not proved that the Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to meet and bargain with the Union in the appropriate unit as described in paragraph 3 of these Conclusions of Law. 7. The General Counsel has not proved that the Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 8. The unfair labor practices found herein are unfair la- bor practices affecting commerce 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 proceding, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS The Respondent, Sweetwater Hospital Association, Sweetwater, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Tennessee Licensed Practical Nurses Association, Sweetwater Unit, by unilaterally changing the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other terms and conditions of employment of its employees in the bargaining unit herein found appro- priate. (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Tennessee Licensed Practical Nurses Association, Sweetwater Unit, by unilaterally withholding from its employees, in the bar- gaining unit herein found appropriate, a general wage in- crease granted to all of its other employees in accordance with its established practice and policy. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to remedy the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Tennes- see Licensed Practical Nurses Association, Sweetwater Unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment and other terms and conditions of employment. The appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining is: All technical employees, including licensed practical nurses employed by Sweetwater Hospital Association at its facility at Sweetwater, Tennessee, excluding all other employees, professional employees, managerial employees, office clerical employees, guards, and su- pervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Pay to its employees in the above-described bargain- ing unit the wages they would have received except for the Respondent's unilateral withholding of the wage increase 325 granted to its other employees in January 1976, said back- pay to be computed in accordance with the requirements specified in The Remedy section hereof. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all payroll records, social security pay- ment records, timecards, and all other records necessary to analyze and compute the,backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its facility at Sweetwater, Tennessee, the at- tached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 10, after being duly signed by the Respondent's au- thorized agent, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other mate- rial. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 9In 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. 10 In the event 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" APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Tennessee Licensed Practical Nurses Association, Sweetwater Unit, by unilaterally changing the rates of pay, wages, hours or employment, or other terms or conditions of employment of our employees included in the bargaining unit certified by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Tennessee Licensed Practical Nurses Association, Sweetwater Unit, by withholding from our employees in the certified collective-bargaining unit any wage in- crease granted to our other employees in accordance with our existing practice and policy. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the Tennessee Licensed Practical Nurses Association, Sweetwater Unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other terms and conditions 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employment. The appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining is: All technical employees, including licensed practical nurses employed by Sweetwater Hospital Associa- tion at its facility at Sweetwater, Tennessee, exclud- ing all other employees professional employees, managerial employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Wt WILL make our employees in the bargaining unit whole for any loss of wages they may have sustained by reason that we withheld from them the general wage increase we granted to our other employees in January 1976, which was retroactive to November 11, 1975. SWEETWATER HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION