Alondra Nursing Home & Convalescent Hospital

ALONDRA NURSING HOME AND CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital and Hospital and Service Employees Local 399, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-8314 May 29, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE On February 14, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Timothy D. Nelson 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 briefs 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 Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or- ders that the Respondent, Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a Alondra Nursing Home and Convales- cent Hospital, Gardena, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. I In its exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, Respon- dent, inter alia, seeks modification of par. 2(b) of the recommended Order which states, "Upon the Union's request, cancel any unilateral changes made on or after its July 1. 1978, assumption of operations .... " Respondent requests a modification of the Order to include cancellation of only so much of the wage increases as was in excess of that required by state law. Our Order herein is not to be construed permitting the Union to demand cancellation of any portion of the increase in wages which is compelled by state minimum wage requirements. Nor is our Order to be construed as requiring Respondent to cancel any wage increase without a request from the Union. In affirming the Administrative Law Judge, Chairman Fanning also relies on the views expressed in his opinion in Spruce Up Corporation, 209 NLRB 194 (1974). APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing during which all parties had the op- portunity to present their evidence and arguments, it has been found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and must remedy that violation. In ac- cordance with the Board's Order, we hereby notify our employees as follows: The National Labor Relations Act gives employ- ees the following rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or support unions To bargain as a group through a representa- tive they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any of the above activities except to the extent that the employees' bar- gaining representative and their employer have a bargaining agreement which has a law- ful requirement that employees become union members. In recognition of these rights, we hereby further notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collectively with Hospital and Service Employ- ees Local 399, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (herein the Union), as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the following unit: Included: All dietary employees, maids, jani- tors, storekeepers, maintenance employees, grounds keepers, orderlies, nurses aides, li- censed vocational nurses, and laboratory help- ers employed at Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital in Gardena, California. Excluded: All professional employees, includ- ing physicians and registered nurses, all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT discontinue or change terms and conditions of employment of employees in the above-described unit without first giving notice to and affording the Union an opportunity to bargain about discontinuing or changing those terms and conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights, as set forth above, 242 NLRB No. 85 595 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. WE WII.L. immediately recognize and, upon re- quest, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as your exclusive representative respect- ing rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding or agreement is reached, upon re- quest, embody the terms of such understanding or agreement in a signed, written document. WE WILL., upon the Union's request, cancel any changes which we made after taking over operations of Alondra Nursing Home and Con- valescent Hospital respecting rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of employment in the unit and reinstate such rates and terms and conditions as existed when we took over such operations, and WE WILL make whole any employees in the unit for any losses sustained as a result of any such changes, with interest. GARDENA BUENA VENTURA, INC., D/B/A ALONDRA NURSING HOME AND CONVALES- CENT HOSPITAL DECISION STATEMENT OF HE CASE TIMOTHY D. NELSON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Los Angeles, California, on January 9, 1979, based on original charges filed on August 24, 1978,' by Hospital and Service Employees Local 399,2 Service Em- ployees International Union, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union) and a complaint dated October 16 by the Regional Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board). The complaint alleged, in substance, that Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a Alon- dra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital (herein called Respondent), Gardena, California, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union after it took over operation of Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital (the Hospital) on July , under cir- cumstances where the Union had been the representative of an essentially "wall-to-wall" unit of nonprofessional and nonsupervisory employees when Respondent's predecessor had operated the Hospital. Upon the entire record,' and consideration of post-hear- ing briefs timely filed by all parties, I make the following: i All dates are in 1978, unless otherwise noted. Name amended at hearing to correct typographical error appearing in earlier pleadings and formal papers which referred to Local "300." 3In addition to the briefs and formal papers, the record herein consists solely of a written stipulation of facts, with appended exhibits, received in evidence as Jr. Exh. I, together with certain supplemental and clarifying factual stipulations entered into orally at the hearing by counsel for the respective parties. No witnesses testified. FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent is subject to the Board's jurisdiction and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, it having been stipulated by the parties that Respondent's operations involve, on a pro- jected basis, annual receipts in excess of $100,000 from its operation of the Hospital, together with monthly receipts of Medicare payments in excess of $50,000. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. as the parties have also stipulated. A. Events and Circumstances Associated with Respondent's Assumption of Operations General Background The "Hospital," as used herein, consists of a building and medical equipment on Rosecrans Avenue in Gardena, Cali- fornia, owned by an entity known as Paramount Medical Enterprises (Paramount). Before July I, Paramount had leased the Hospital for a term of 10 years to Gardena Health Services, Inc. (Gardena). Effective July I, Gardena terminated its leasehold interest in the Hospital and Re- spondent acquired the same under a negotiated arrange- ment with Paramount providing for a 5-year lease, with option to purchase. Both Gardena and Respondent oper- ated the Hospital under the "Alondra" business name. Before the takeover, the Union and Gardena had been parties to a written, 3-year collective-bargaining agreement with a scheduled expiration date of September 14, covering a comprehensive unit of employees, which the parties stipu- lated, and I find, to be an appropriate unit for collective- bargaining purposes, described in said agreement as fol- lows: Included: All dietary employees, maids, janitors, store-keepers, maintenance employees, grounds keepers, orderlies, nurses aides, licensed vocational nurses, and laboratory helpers [employed by Garde- na at the Hospital]. Excluded: All professional employees, including physicians and registered nurses, all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. II. PRE- AND POST-TAKEOVER UNIT COMPLEMENTS The parties' written stipulation refers to total staff com- plements at the Hospital at various times before, at, and after takeover, together with the numbers of persons em- ployed in various bargaining unit classifications (see gener- ally, Jt. Exh. 8, par. 8, and clarifying oral stipulations at transcript pages 8-11). Extrapolating with the aid of said clarifying stipulations, Gardena's bargaining unit comple- ment immediately before takeover was 80 employees. Im- mediately after takeover, for reasons not evident from the record, while all of the unit employees were former employ- ees of Gardena (Jt. Exh. 1, par. 8(b)), the unit complement 596 ALONDRA NURSING HOME AND CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL totalled only 57.' Evidently, about 23 Gardena employees were either discharged, laid off, or they resigned incidental to the takeover. Thereafter, on unspecified dates between July I and Sep- tember 25, Gardena hired a total of 58 persons in unit clas- sifications, although the unit complement did not increase by anything near that number since substantial numbers of them, totalling 21, were "terminated" at unspecified dates during the same period. (Jt. Exh. 1, par. 8(d), and see clari- fying stipulation and discussion at transcript page 10.S) Notwithstanding this post-takeover hiring (and firing) spurt, the record reflects that former Gardena employees continued to constitute the numerical majority of unit em- ployees during the same period.' Thus, the parties stipu- lated that, as of September 25, out of a total unit comple- ment of 87 employees,7 48 had been employed as of July I and were former employees of Gardena (Jt. Exh. 1, par. 8(e), and see previously cited clarifying stipulations). Respondent's Post-Takeover Changes Immediately upon takeover, Respondent's administrator, Keith Fortune, posted a notice to employees (Jt. Exh. I, appended "exhibit 2") at the Hospital on stationery bearing the letterhead, "Alondra Nursing Home & Convalescent Hospital" containing the following text: ALL EMPLOYEES Effective July 1, 1978, Alondra Nursing Home was taken over by a new company, Gardena Buena Ventu- ra, Inc. The new company has filed for a new nursing home license from the California Department of Health. All prior contracts, commitments and agreements entered into by the prior owners were automatically cancelled as of June 30, 1978. The new owners have structured pay rates in the facility differently than what they were prior to July I, 1978. Most of you will see this reflected in your new paychecks. 4An additional four persons formerly employed by Gardena in non-unit positions were retained in non-unit jobs after takeover (Ibid.). ' Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected. 'Respondent does not specifically argue otherwise, although its brief con- tains somewhat cryptic assertions in this regard (e.g., that "... respondent did not hire a majority of Gardena's employees when compared with the total employees hired by respondent dunng the period July i, 1978 to and including September 25, 1978." (Resp. br. p. 4.) Such a comparison is mis- leading for reasons noted, supra, and is not pertinent to the successorship questions raised herein (see discussion, infra). Nor is Respondent's defense based on a claim (itself having no record support) that former Gardens employees constituted less than a majority of the post-takeover unit comple- ment (see discussion, infra). I This figure is presumed to represent the approximate "full" or "normal" complement under Respondent's operation, absent evidence to the con- trary-which evidence it would be expected Respondent would have intro- duced had the eventual "full complement" been any greater than the num- bers stipulated to exist as of September 25. Moreover, such a presumption is consonant with the stipulated fact that the pre-takeover complement was roughly the same size, i.e. 80, and the fact that nothing in this record would suggest that Respondent had substantially increased the scope of its opera- tions, thereby requinng a significantly larger complement than that required by Gardena. The new management is interested in good patient care and happy employees. If any of you have ideas on how to improve either, please let us know. /s/ Keith Fortune Mr. Keith Fortune, Administrator Consistent with that announcement, substantial numbers of unit employees thereafter received wage increases (Jt. Exh. I, par. 8(c)). The Union was not notified of, nor con- sulted about, these increases before their implementation. Consistent with Respondent's contention herein that it has no obligation to deal with the Union, it has acted unilater- ally in all matters affecting unit employees' wages and other terms and conditions of employment.8 The record does not show whether any employees suffered losses as a result of any post-takeover changes. Other post-takeover changes from Gardena's operation of the Hospital consisted of the following stipulated facts and events: Keith Fortune was installed as administrator, replacing an unnamed Gardena predecessor. Of the six pre- existing departments, new personnel have been designated department heads in three of them, and a seventh depart- ment-social services-has been created by Respondent. Respondent has also entered into contractual relationships with new, "outside" consultants in the dietary, medical rec- ords, physical therapy and occupational therapy depart- ments at higher rates of pay than those paid by Gardena to counterpart consultants under the old operation. In addi- tion, Respondent has entered into new "patient transfer agreements"9 with various area hospitals with which Garde- na had also had such agreements, and has also entered into such agreements with two other hospitals with whom Gar- dena had not had such agreements. Moreover, as previously noted, Respondent's leasehold interest in the Hospital is different from Gardena's in that it is for a 5-year term, with a purchase-option feature. Finally, Respondent has ex- pended $35,000 of a total projected expenditure of $60,000 in "refurbishing and furnishing" the offices, lobby and pa- tients' rooms, including new wallpaper and panelling, fresh coats of paint, some new floorings, and the acquisition of $5,000 worth of oil paintings. 111. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Contrary to Respondent's contentions discussed below, I conclude that, in assuming the operations of the Hospital on July I under the circumstances outlined above, Respon- dent assumed the obligations imposed upon a "successor" employer, as set forth by the Supreme Court in N. LR.B. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972), and that the rights of the Hospital's employees to collective representation were not curtailed by what amounted here to ". . . a mere change of employers or of ownership in the employing industry .... " Burns, supra at I By letters dated August 2 and August 22. the Union sought recognition and bargaining with Respondent, the August 22 letter also containing an offer to submit authorization cards for third-party verification of the Union's majority support. Respondent ignored those requests. I Stipulated at the hearing to be bilateral arrangements between a hospital and a nursing home setting terms for transfer of patients from nursing home to hospital, or vice versa. 597 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 279. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent was un- der a legal obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union in the established unit when it succeeded Gardena as the operator of the Hospital and the employer of the em- ployees who worked there. In seeking a contrary ruling, Respondent places emphasis in its brief on the fact that, unlike the situation in Burns, supra, the Union had not been recently "certified" by the Board as the employees' representatives. Respondent's reli- ance on this point is misplaced. The cited passage from Burns plainly did not purport to limit the Board's applica- tion of the successorship doctrine solely to situations involv- ing "certified"-let alone "recently certified"-labor or- ganizations. The Board has so held, with the approval of reviewing courts, in cases, as here, involving unions whose representative status derived from prior recognition, rather than certification. See, e.g., Eklund's Sweden House Inn, Inc., 203 NLRB 413, 416 (1973); Stockton Door Co., Inc., 218 NLRB 1053, 1054 (1975), enfd. 547 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1976); see also Potter's Drug Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Pot- ter's Chalet Drug and Potter's Westpark Drug, 233 NLRB 15 (1977), enfd. 584 F.2d 980 (9th Cir. 1978). While not linked to specific argument or citation to au- thority, Respondent also emphasizes in its brief the "changes" which it instituted upon its takeover of the Hos- pital. Suffice it to say that such "changes" as expenditures for interior decorating, replacement of some (but not all) department heads, acquisition of new and higher-paid con- sultants, and entering into "patient transfer" arrangements with two more hospitals than Gardena had used, neither affected the continuing appropriateness of the established bargaining unit," nor in any other manner materially af- fected the basic "continuity" of the hospital enterprise whose operation Respondent assumed. Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, 417 U.S. 249 (1974); see also, e.g., Boston-Needham Industrial Clean- ing Co., Inc., 216 NLRB 26, 27 (1975); C.M.E., Inc., 225 NLRB 514 (1976); Potter's Drug Enterprises, supra at 17, fn. 4. Similarly, the fact of Respondent's unilateral grant of wage increases to many employees in the bargaining unit after takeover, absent some showing (never made herein) that the increases were linked to substantial changes in unit employees' job duties or functions, or to substantial opera- tional changes affecting the continuing appropriateness of the bargaining unit, does not alter the essential continuity of the employment relationship for purposes of application of the doctrine of successorship. Foodway of El Paso, a Di- vision of Kimbell Foods, Inc., 201 NLRB 933, 936-937 (1973).12 i0 Citing language in Burns, supra at 281, in which the Court stated that there was ". .. little basis for faulting the Board's... ordering the [successor employer to bargain with the incumbent union [under circumstancesl . . . where the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of the employ- ees hired by the new employer are represented by a recently certified bargain- ing agent .... " (Emphasis supplied.) Burns, supra at 280), fn. 4. 2 Moreover, inasmuch as it is found hereafter that Respondent's obliga- tion to bargain with the Union concerning, inter alia, unit employees' pay rates, had attached immediately upon its assumption of hospital operations on July I, Respondent may now be heard to say that its illegal, unilateral grant of pay increases affords a basis for finding that it never was under a duty to bargain with the Union. The complaint asserts that Respondent's violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(5) of the Act commenced on July 1, the takeover date, thereby implicitly suggesting that the bargaining duty attached on that date.', I agree. This case involves one of the situations discussed in Burns in which it was "perfectly clear"" at the point of takeover that Respondent's complement of employees in a continuing appropriate unit would be composed, in the main, of employees of the predecessor. Nor does Respon- dent argue otherwise. Under such circumstances, Respon- dent's obligation was to ". . . consult with the employees' bargaining representative before ... [fixing initial] terms" of employment,' 5 and that obligation was breached by the uni- lateral announcement and grant of wage increases immedi- ately following Respondent's assumption of operations. Having concluded for the reasons discussed above that the complaint has been sustained and that Respondent's asserted defenses are without merit, I hereby render the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital, Garde- na, California, is an employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, Hospital and Service Employees Local 399, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following-described unit of Respondent's employ- ees is an appropriate one for collective-bargaining pur- poses: Included: All dietary employees, maids, janitors, storekeepers, maintenance employees, grounds keep- ' The date on which such duty attached is of some significance since Respondent admittedly instituted wage rate changes on a unilateral basis immediately upon takeover. "' Burns, supra at 294-295. Problems in interpretation and application of the cited passage sometimes occur in cases where, unlike here, the post- takeover complement is initially composed of mostly predecessor employees due to an unusual and drastic shrinkage from the unit's "normal" size, but the eventual "full complement" proves to consist of a majority of "new hires." See and compare, e.g., differing Board and court approaches in Pa- cific Hide & Fur Depot, Inc., 223 NLRB 1029 (1976), enforcement denied 553 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1977). No such problem is posed herein where the succes- sor's eventual unit complement of 87 (as of September 25) was not signifi- candy greater than the pre-takeover complement of 80, and all of the unit employees as of July 1, i.e. 57, were carried over from the predecessor opera- tion. It was, therefore, "perfectly clear" at takeover that any post-takeover hiring needed to bring the unit back to full strength would not involve the hire of so many new employees as to undermine the evident "majority" existing at the point of takeover. Thus, while I would be bound to follow the Board's approach in any case, nothing in the present analysis would appear to conflict with the admonition of the Ninth Circuit that these determina- tions are not to be made ". . . by the application of a mathematical formula but only by considering the facts of each case in light of the general goal which is sought-to assure majority rule within the new employer's unit .... Pacific Hide & Fur, supra at 613. Put another way the temporary reduction in size of the immediate post-takeover complement herein was so "slight" as to be ". . . presumed not to affect the majority status of the representative." Fabsteel Company oLouisiana, 231 NLRB 372, 378 (1977), enfd. 587 F.2d 689 (5th Cir. 1979). " Ibid 598 ALONDRA NURSING HOME AND CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL ers, orderlies, nurses aides, licensed vocational nurses, and laboratory helpers employed at Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital in Garde- na, California. Excluded: All professional employees, including physicians and registered nurses, all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. At all times material, including on and after July 1., 1978, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargain- ing representative of the employees in the above-described unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By failing and refusing, on and after July 1, 1978, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative of its employees in the above-described unit, including by its failure to give the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain thereon before implementing changes in the wage rates of said unit employees from those paid by its predecessor, Gardena Health Services, Inc., Respondent has, by each of said acts or defaults, and by their totality, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. 6. Those violations of the Act, occurring in connection with Respondent's operations, have a close, intimate and substantial relationship to trade, traffic and commerce among the several states, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la- bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act, as follows: Because Respondent totally disregarded its obligation upon takeover of the Hospital to recognize and bargain with the Union as its employees' representative, I shall rec- ommend that Respondent be ordered to confer such recog- nition upon the Union and, at the Union's request, to bar- gain collectively with it concerning all appropriate subjects affecting employment terms and conditions in the unit. In- asmuch as Respondent engaged in impermissible unilateral changes affecting such terms and conditions in derogation of the Union's status as exclusive representative, I shall fur- ther recommend that Respondent, at the Union's request, cancel any changes from terms and conditions of employ- ment enjoyed by unit employees before the July I takeover, as established in the collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Union and Respondent's predecessor, Gardena, or as otherwise established,'6 and reinstate said previous terms and conditions; and make said unit employees whole for any losses which they may have suffered as a conse- quence of Respondent's unilateral approach to setting em- ployment terms and conditions after the July I takeover. This would include, if need be, retroactive payment of wages and restoration of benefits lost from the date on '1 See, e.g., Bellingham Frozen Foods, a Division of San Juan Packers etc, 237 NLRB 1450 (1978). which such losses or detriment were incurred, together with interest on any monetary amounts owing, computed in ac- cordance with the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpora- tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); see, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 139 NLRB 716 (1962), enforcement denied on other grounds, 322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1963).1? Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER" s The Respondent, Gardena Buena Ventura, Inc., d/b/a Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital, Garde- na, California its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing and refusing to recognize and to bargain col- lectively with the Union in the unit found appropriate herein, including by: (b) Making changes in the wages, hours of work, or other terms or conditions of employment of said unit employees from those in existence immediately prior to July 1, 1978, as established in the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and Respondent's predecessor, Gardena Health Services, Inc., or as otherwise established, without first giv- ing the Union reasonable advance notice thereof and a rea- sonable opportunity to bargain thereon. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of all employees employed in the bargaining unit heretofore found appropriate and described in Conclusion of Law 3, above, respecting rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of em- ployment and, should any understandings or agreements be reached, upon request, embody the same in a signed, writ- ten agreement. (b) Upon the Union's request, cancel any unilateral changes made on or after its July 1, 1978, assumption of operations at Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital regarding rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of employment which were in i' As noted above, the only "change" in this regard appeanng in the rec- ord was the grant of wage increases to substantial numbers of unit employ- ees. Accordingly, absent such a "cancellation" request from the Union and to avoid use of the Board's processes to deprive unit employees of a benefit already conferred, nothing in the proposed remedy is intended to require Respondent to rescind such benefits as were granted. Bellingham Frozen Foods, supra at 36, fn. 30. Whether any actual detriment to unit employees resulted from any post-takeover changes may be determined, if need be, at the compliance stage of these proceedings. See, e.g., Allied Mills, Inc., 218 NLRB 281, 290 (1975). '" 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. 599 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effect immediately prior to said July assumption of opera- tions, and reinstate said prior terms and conditions, all as set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Make whole any unit employees who suffered losses or detriment as a consequence of any unilateral changes affecting rates of pay, wages, hours of work, or other terms and conditions of employment occurring on or after its July I assumption of operations at Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital, in the manner set forth above in the Section entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents all payroll and other records necessary to compute any "make whole" requirements to which it may be bound as a consequence of this Order, and consistent with the section above entitled "The Remedy." (e) Post at Alondra Nursing Home and Convalescent Hospital, Gardena, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of the notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. 19 In the event that this 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 Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board." 600