Grand Valley Health Center

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 278 Grand Valley Health Center, a subsidiary of Spec- trum Health, Continuing Care Group and In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers, Local 547A,B,C,E,H, AFL–CIO. Case 7–CA–42686 February 9, 2001 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND HURTGEN On August 14, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief in answer to the Respondent’s exceptions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. The judge found that employee Charles Barber’s De- cember 20, 1999 resignation, which was to be effective January 3, 2000, was not the result of an unlawful con- structive discharge by the Respondent in retaliation against Barber’s union activities. No exceptions were filed to this finding, and we adopt it. The judge found that the Respondent also did not vio- late Section 8(a)(3) of the Act when it accelerated its acceptance of Barber’s resignation and barred him from its premises on December 27 because a day earlier he had solicited nurses to sign union cards in patient care areas.2 In cross-exceptions to this finding, the General Counsel contends that the Respondent relied on an exist- ing and allegedly invalid written no-solicitation rule. Specifically, the General Counsel argues that “[w]hile not alleged in the Complaint, . . . inasmuch as Respon- dent’s no-solicitation, no-distribution rule is invalid, any discipline resulting from the enforcement of the invalid rule is also invalid and violative of the Act.” Although a footnote in the judge’s decision notes the existence of the Respondent’s written no-solicitation rule, the footnote correctly states that the Respondent did not mention the rule as justification for accepting Bar- ber’s resignation early.3 Contrary to the General Coun- sel’s argument before us, there is no evidence that the Respondent relied on the rule in this instance. Indeed, we note that when the Respondent sought to introduce its employee relations policy manual into evidence at the hearing in support of its defense to the complaint’s con- structive discharge allegation, the General Counsel pro- posed, on grounds of relevance, to exclude the section of the manual that contained the no-solicitation rule.4 1 The General Counsel excepts to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis- trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder- ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. In agreeing with his colleagues and the judge that the 8(a)(1) allega- tions in the complaint are closely related to the timely filed 8(a)(3) allegations, Member Hurtgen notes that a defense to the 8(a)(3) allega- tions (viz lack of animus) would include the defense that the 8(a)(1) allegations lack merit. 2 The Respondent nevertheless paid Barber through January 3. Accordingly, we find no merit in the General Coun- sel’s cross-exceptions on this issue, as they are based on a limited theory that incorrectly relies on the Respon- dent’s enforcement of an existing and allegedly invalid written no-solicitation rule.5 Apart from this rule, the General Counsel does not challenge the Respondent’s justification for restricting Barber’s solicitation of nurses working in immediate patient care areas.6 We therefore affirm the judge’s finding that the Respondent did not act unlawfully by accelerating its acceptance of Barber’s resignation. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec- ommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Grand Valley Health Center, a subsidiary of Spectrum Health, Continuing Care Group, Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. Richard F. Czubaj, Esq., for the General Counsel. Peter J. Kok and Nathan D. Plantinga, Esqs. (Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey, P.L.C.), of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on June 6, 2000. The charge was filed on January 7, 2000, and the complaint was issued February 29, 2000. 3 See fn. 9 of the judge’s decision. 4 Tr. 102–103. 5 Inasmuch as the rule is not relevant to the issue of whether the Re- spondent unlawfully accelerated Barber’s resignation, we do not rely on the judge’s statement that this rule appears on its face to be lawful. Nor do we rely on the judge’s statement that the General Counsel had to prove that Barber was soliciting in areas in which he was allowed to do so. Furthermore, we reject as untimely the General Counsel’s posthear- ing argument in cross-exceptions for an independent finding that the rule violates Sec. 8(a)(1). 6 See generally Doctors’ Hospital of Staten Island, 325 NLRB 730, 735 (1998), and Daylin, Inc., 198 NLRB 281 (1972). 333 NLRB No. 35 GRAND VALLEY HEALTH CENTER 279 On the entire record, including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent, Grand Valley Health Center, a subsidiary of Spectrum Health, Continuing Care Group, a corporation, oper- ates a nursing home in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where it annu- ally derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and pur- chases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside of the State of Michigan. Grand Valley admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 547 A, B, C, E, and H, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Charles Barber, the alleged discriminatee herein, worked at Villa Elizabeth Nursing Home, which is owned by Respon- dent’s parent company, Spectrum Health, Continuing Care Group, from November 1994 to August 1996. In November 1998, he was hired to work as a maintenance technician at Grand Valley by Ronald Klump, Respondent’s director of building services. Klump had been Barber’s supervisor at Villa Elizabeth. Barber normally worked at Grand Valley’s main building with maintenance technicians Bruce Stothard and Larry Palmer. Palmer was also a former Villa Elizabeth employee. In the fall of 1999, Barber contacted the Union in order to start an orga- nizing drive at Grand Valley. He set up a meeting for employ- ees to discuss the Union; only 5 of the approximately 250 em- ployees at Grand Valley attended the meeting. On December 1, Klump called Barber into his office and asked Barber if he had heard anything about union activity. Barber told Klump that he had heard some people talking about a union, but could not recall the identity of the these individu- als.1 1 I find neither Klump nor Barber to be a completely credible wit- ness. I deem some of both witnesses’ testimony to be highly implausi- ble and some of Klump’s to be rather evasive. For example, I find incredible Barber’s testimony that during one of the anonymous phone calls he received, the caller told Barber to call the union stuff off. There is nothing in the record that would suggest that these calls were related to Barber’s union activities, while there is a strong suggestion that they were related to a personal dispute with coworker Larry Palmer. Moreover, most of Barber’s testimony is completely uncor- roborated—except in a few rather immaterial respects by his fiancée, Myra Mayes. Klump, on the other hand, testified that he could not recall whether he said certain things to Barber, such as “I ought to fire you” and “are you wired?” I conclude that Klump would recall whether or not he made such statements. In view of his failure to deny making such statements, I credit Barber’s testimony that he did so. I find Klump’s testimony, that he invited Barber to the Bean Around, where Barber, without prompting, volunteered information about his union activity, to be implausible. The next day, Klump paged Barber at the home of his fi- nance, Myra Mayes. At Klump’s suggestion, the two men met that evening at the Bean Around Café in Grand Rapids. Klump told Barber that he had heard Barber was involved in an effort to organize Respondent. Barber acknowledged that this was true. Klump became very upset. His first response was, “I ought to fire you.” Next, Klump asked Barber if he was wired. After Barber opened his coat to show that he was not wearing any recording device, their conversation continued. Klump told Barber that if Grand Valley became unionized, benefits and “that sort of thing” would be jeopardized. Barber complained that two employees had been fired for smoking marijuana, while a nurse, who apparently admitted to smoking marijuana, was retained. Klump asked if Barber would like to meet with Respondent’s administrator, B. J. Hockenberry, the next morning. Barber agreed. On the morning of December 3, Barber met Klump and Hockenberry at a Bob Evans Restaurant in Grand Rapids. They discussed union activity and what Barber perceived to be prob- lems at Grand Valley. Hockenberry mentioned that she had worked at unionized facilities and that a union would adversely affect the facility.2 Barber again complained about the firing of two employees for smoking marijuana and the retention of another. Hocken- berry suggested that employee problems could be addressed at quarterly forums that Respondent held with employees. After further discussion, Barber and Hockenberry agreed that the forums would be more productive if they were conducted on a departmental, rather than a facilitywide basis. She may also have promised to hold them more frequently. Barber told Hockenberry that he would like to discuss the departmental forum idea with Union President Jennifer Trudeau and then meet again with Hockenberry and Klump. Barber spoke with Trudeau and then informed Hockenberry and Klump that “he had talked with Jennifer and things were on hold”. Barber, Hockenberry, and Klump agreed to “go forward with the forum and work through whatever the problems were” (Tr. 91).3 During the week of December 6–10, Barber received a num- ber of harassing phone calls. Some of these calls were received on a beeper that Barber was provided by Respondent. The number for this beeper was posted at various places at Grand 2 I do not credit Barber’s testimony regarding this conversation in its entirety. However, Hockenberry concedes that she discussed unioniza- tion and I infer that she opined it would not be good for Grand Valley. 3 I do not credit Barber’s testimony that Hockenberry asked him whether he could back off on his union activity if Respondent was to conduct these forums. Barber’s testimony suggests that he relayed this proposal to Union President Trudeau and that Trudeau agreed it. It is highly improbable that a union would agree to cease organizing in exchange for a promise by an employer to unilaterally address employ- ees’ concerns. It is more probable that Hockenberry said nothing about ceasing union activity as a condition for addressing Barber’s concerns and that Trudeau indicated that the forum was an appropriate place to raise his concerns because the organizing drive was making little, if any, progress. I also do not credit Barber’s testimony that Hockenberry asked him again to identify other employees involved in the organizing drive. I find Hockenberry’s denials more credible than Barber’s testimony. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 280 Valley. Barber’s finance, Myra Mayes, who works for Re- spondent as a staff educator, also received harassing phone calls. During this period, Barber was embroiled in a dispute with coworker Larry Palmer. Barber believed that Palmer did not have a driver’s license and that a driver’s license was re- quired for the job Palmer held at Grand Valley. During the month of December, Barber shared his opinions on this matter with Palmer. Barber received no more harassing phone calls after Decem- ber 10. Myra Mayes reported to Hockenberry that she and Barber had been getting harassing phone calls, but that Barber’s calls stopped when he told coworkers that he had placed a tap on his phone line. Mayes told Hockenberry that she was still getting calls. Hockenberry observed that Barber should have gotten “caller ID” or asked the phone company to trace his calls before telling his coworkers that he had a tap on his line. Mayes did not tell Hockenberry that she and Barber sus- pected that Larry Palmer was responsible for the harassing phone calls. That they suspected Palmer is established by Mayes’ testimony that the harassing phone calls to her stopped when she told Palmer that he must know the number that you need to block caller ID. During the same week, Barber found oil in his toolbox and broken light bulbs on his maintenance cart on two occasions.4 On Friday, December 17, somebody put water in a pair of Bar- ber’s workboots.5 A few hours later, Barber complained to Klump, who said there was nothing he could do about it.6 On Monday morning, December 20, 1999, Barber reported to work and handed Klump a resignation letter. Before opening it, Klump asked, “[I]s this what I think it is?” The letter (G.C. Exh. 2) is entitled 2-week notice of resignation and states that Barber will be resigning effective January 3, 2000. The letter relates some of Barber’s contentions regarding his meetings with Klump on December 2 and with Klump and Hockenberry on December 3. It mentions the harassing telephone calls and the fact that they had stopped. Barber further asserts that for the prior 2 weeks he has been doing many more work orders than normal and relates the incident about water in his boots on December 17. The letter also states that Larry Palmer told him that Klump wanted Barber to fabricate certain records. This is an assertion not repeated by Barber at this hearing. Barber’s letter con- cludes that he has decided to resign as a result of this harass- 4 I decline to credit Barber’s uncorroborated assertion that his work- load dramatically increased this week. He does not allege that he com- plained to anybody about an increased workload prior to his resigna- tion, and there is little evidence suggesting Respondent had much of a motive to retaliate against Barber. So far as Respondent knew, Barber had ceased his union activities. 5 That Barber and Mayes suspected Palmer as the source of their harassment is indicated by Barber’s testimony at Tr. 32 that when he found the wet boots, Mayes “starts asking Larry questions”. Although Barber claims to have complained to Klump that someone put water in his boots he does not assert that he ever shared his suspicions regarding Palmer. 6 I do not credit Barber’s testimony that he tried to file a formal complaint with Klump or Lisa Rice, Respondent’s human resource director. I credit their denials. ment. Klump said he was sorry about the water in Barber’s boots and asked Barber if he would reconsider his resignation. Barber reiterated his intention to resign on January 3. On December 26, Barber came to Grand Valley despite the fact that he was neither working nor on call. Several nurses told Nursing Supervisor Shirley Wyngarden that Barber had been trying to get them to sign union authorization cards. A few hours later, Wyngarden saw Barber handing out union authorization cards to several nurses in patient care areas. Wyngarden called Director of Nursing Jane Boomstra to inform her of Barber’s activities.7 The following morning, Ron Klump called Barber into his office to meet with Klump and Human Resource Director Lisa Rice. Klump informed Barber that Respondent was accepting his resignation early, that he was not to reenter the facility, but that he would be paid through January 3.8 On January 7, the Union filed the charge in this matter, alleg- ing that, “Mr. Barber was discharged on or about December 23, 1999, because of his union activity by his supervisor.” On January 9, Barber sent Respondent a letter stating that he had been advised by the Board agent to send it a letter seeking his reinstatement. He alleged that he resigned under duress, due to harassment that was not addressed by management. He also stated that his termination, 1 week early, constitutes discharge (R. Exh. 1). The complaint alleges that Respondent caused Barber’s resignation on December 20. Analysis Respondent did not Cause or Constructively Discharge Charles Barber on December 20, 1999 Under Board law, the test for determining whether an em- ployer caused the resignation of, or constructively discharged, an employee, is as follows: First, the burdens imposed upon the employee must cause, and be intended to cause, a change in his working conditions so difficult or unpleasant as to force him to resign. Second, it must be shown that those burdens were imposed because of the employee’s union activities. Crystal Princeton Refining Co., 222 NLRB 1068, 1069 (1976). The General Counsel has failed to establish a constructive discharge for a number of reasons. First of all, Barber’s work- ing conditions were not so difficult or unpleasant as to force him to resign. He received anonymous, harassing telephone calls for 3 or 4 days and then the calls stopped. On two occa- 7 I find Wyngarden’s testimony more credible than Barber’s as to where she saw Barber distributing literature. 8 I find Barber’s testimony that he received an anonymous phone call at 4 a.m. on December 27, informing him that his services at Grand Valley would end that day to be very implausible and I do not credit it. Klump spoke with Wyngarden before the meeting. I assume that Wyngarden told Klump that Barber was distributing union cards and that this was the reason that Barber’s resignation was accelerated. Grand Valley failed to offer any convincing alternative explanation. It claims that Barber was intimidating the nurses he talked to but failed to offer these nurses as witnesses. I find that the record shows only that Barber solicited on-duty nurses to sign authorization cards in patient care areas and that this is the only reason why Barber’s resignation was accelerated. GRAND VALLEY HEALTH CENTER 281 sions, he found oil and broken light bulbs on his cart and on one occasion he found some amount of water in his boots. While Barber experienced some annoying and unpleasant situa- tions at work prior to his resignation, his working conditions were not sufficiently difficult or unpleasant to force him to resign. Secondly, as the General Counsel recognizes, there is no evidence that Respondent created any of these conditions. He argues, however, that by failing to take any action in response to the antiunion harassment that Barber experienced, Respon- dent constructively discharged Barber. An initial problem with this argument is that there is no substantial evidence that the harassing phone calls, debris on Barber’s cart, or water in his boots had anything to do with his union activities. Indeed, there is an indication that some or all of this harassment was the result of a personal dispute with Larry Palmer, which had no relationship to union activities. If Respondent, due to antiunion animus, failed to take rea- sonable steps to stop the harassment and the harassment be- came unbearable, such inaction could constitute constructive discharge. However, this record does not support such a con- clusion. Barber never told Klump or any other management official that he suspected that Palmer was harassing him. There was little evidence on which Klump should have concluded that any employee was harassing Barber or that there was anything he could do to make the harassment cease. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s inac- tion was motivated by antiunion animus. Although Klump exhibited antiunion animus in his conversation with Barber on December 2, there was little reason for him to retaliate against Barber since so far as he knew, Barber’s union activities had ceased as of December 3. In conclusion, I find that Charles Barber resigned on December 20, and was not constructively discharged. Respondent did not Violate the Act in Accelerating Charles Barber’s Resignation on December 27, 1999 Respondent decided to terminate Barber’s employment on December 27, and pay him through January 3, 2000, the effec- tive date of his resignation. It did so due to his attempt to ob- tain signed union authorization cards at the health center on December 26. However, the General Counsel has not estab- lished that he was soliciting for the Union in areas in which he was allowed to do so.9 It is the General Counsel’s burden to establish that Respondent accepted his resignation early in re- taliation for activities protected by the Act. Since distribution of authorization cards in patient care areas is not protected, I 9 Rules which prohibit employee solicitation and distribution in im- mediate patient care areas, such as patient rooms, places where patients receive treatment and adjacent corridors, and waiting rooms have been found presumptively lawful, Doctors’ Hospital of Staten Island, 325 NLRB 730, 735 (1998). Although not mentioned by Respondent as justification for accepting Barber’s resignation early, Grand Valley’s “Employee Relations Policy on Solicitation” appears on its face to be lawful. That Policy ERP 116 (contained in R. Exh. 4), prohibits solici- tation and distribution of literature to employees during the working time of either the person soliciting/distributing, or the person being solicited/distributed to, or in any working area at any time. find that Respondent did not violate the Act in accelerating his resignation.10 Respondent, by Ron Klump, Violated Section 8(a)(1) on De- cember 1, 2, and 3, 1999 The General Counsel has alleged numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) arising out of Charles Barber’s meetings with Ron Klump on December 1 and 2, and with Klump and B. J. Hockenberry on December 3. Respondent argues these allega- tions should be dismissed because they were not raised in the charge. However, such allegations are properly considered if they are closely related to the allegations or subject matter set forth in the charge, Nickles Bakery of Indiana, 296 NLRB 927 (1989). I find that the 8(a)(1) allegations are sufficiently related to the discharge, or constructive discharge, alleged in the charge to be considered. These allegations arise out of the same union activities that allegedly resulted in Barber’s termination. They are also closely related in that the evidence adduced to prove these allegations are the basis for the General Counsel’s asser- tions that Respondent knew of Barber’s union activity and bore animus towards that activity. I conclude that the General Counsel has established a viola- tion of the Act as alleged in complaint paragraphs 7(a), (b), (c), (d), and (f). On December 1, Klump both coercively interro- gated Barber and engaged in surveillance of employees’ union activities by seeking information from Barber about the union activities of other employees. Klump’s followup meeting with Barber and inquiry on December 2, was also inherently coer- cive, particularly when Barber’s answer was followed by a threat of discharge. When Charles Barber informed Klump of his union activity, Klump responded, “I ought to fire you.” This is a threat that violates Section 8(a)(1). Not every question asked or comment made by a manage- ment official about union activity violates Section 8(a)(1). One must determine whether under all the circumstances of the in- terrogation or comment, it reasonably tends to restrain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act, Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. sub nom. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d. 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). Some of the factors to be considered with regard to interroga- tions are: (1) the background of the questioning; (2) the nature of the information being sought; (3) the identity of the ques- tioner; and (4) the place and method of the interrogation. I conclude that given all the circumstances of Klump’s inquiries to Barber about union activities, the General Counsel has estab- lished an 8(a)(1) violation. In Advance Waste Systems, 306 NLRB 1020 (1992), a one- time interrogation by a company vice president, inside a mov- ing truck, was found to be violative, in conjunction with other expressions of hostility and disapproval of union activity. In the instant case, the circumstances of Klump’s questioning on both December 1 and 2, are coercive. On December 1, Klump, Barber’s direct supervisor, called Barber into his office to ask about the Union at a time when the organizing drive had not 10 I also note that assuming Respondent violated the Act, Barber would not be entitled to reinstatement and he suffered no loss of wages or other benefits. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 282 been disclosed to Respondent and Barber had not let Respon- dent know that he was engaging in any union activities. The December 2 inquiry is deemed coercive by virtue of Klump’s suggestion of a private meeting and his immediate expression of hostility to Barber’s activities. Klump also created the impression that he was engaging in surveillance of Barber’s union activities. Given his inquiry of December 1 to Barber, Klump’s statement on December 2, that he had heard that Barber was involved in a union organizing effort, could only suggest to Barber that Klump had actively sought information as to employees’ union activities in the interim. Klump’s statement to Barber that unionization would or might jeopardize certain benefits also violated the Act. Such predictions violate Section 8(a)(1) unless they were based on objective fact and contained no implication that Respondent would take action on its own initiative or otherwise retaliate against employees for selecting the Union as their representa- tive, Gravure Packaging, 321 NLRB 1296, 1299 (1996), enfd. mem. 116 F.3d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1997); NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618–619 (1969). On the other hand, I conclude that the evidence I have cred- ited is insufficient to establish the allegations in complaint paragraphs 7(e), (g), (h), (i), and 8. The allegations in para- graph 8 with regard to threats, interrogation, and promises by B. J. Hockenberry rest on testimony by Charles Barber that I have not credited. The General Counsel did not adduce any evidence to support paragraph 7(e) regarding enunciation of an overly broad no solicitation rule by Klump on December 2. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended11 ORDER The Respondent, Grand Valley Health Center, a subsidiary of Spectrum Health, Continuing Care Group, Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees that they may lose their job be- cause of their union activities. (b) Coercively interrogating employees regarding union ac- tivities. (c) Engaging in surveillance of employees’ union activities, or creating the impression that such activities are under surveil- lance. (d) Threatening or predicting a change in employees’ wages and benefits because of their union activities. 11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom- mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. (a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Grand Rapids, Michigan facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed- ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since December 1, 1999. (b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protection To choose not to engage in any of these protected con- certed activities. WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your job, wages, or benefits for supporting the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 547A,B,C,E,H, AFL–CIO or any other union. WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your union support or activities. 12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the 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.” GRAND VALLEY HEALTH CENTER 283 WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of your union activi- ties or create the impression that your union activities are under our surveillance. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. GRAND VALLEY HEALTH CENTER, A SUBSIDIARY OF SPECTRUM HEALTH, CONTINUING CARE GROUP