Service Employees Local 84

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 84 Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 84 and Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems. Cases 23-CG-13 and 23- CG-14 March 7, 1983 DECISION AND ORDER On December 4, 1981, Administrative Law Judge James M. Kennedy issued the attached Decision in this proceeding and he issued an Erratum to that Decision on December 11, 1981. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respondent Unions filed exceptions and supporting briefs; Service Employees International Union filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, and an attached amicus brief; and the Charging Party filed a statement in opposition and motion to strike the amicus brief. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions, briefs, and the amicus brief and opposition thereto,¹ and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions² of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that both Respondent Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 84 (SEIU), and Respondent American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME), violated Section 8(g) of the Act by failing to give the required 10-day notice of picketing to the Charging Party Hospital or the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). Our dissenting colleague argues that, because the picketing by the Unions did not change the character of the dispute or picketing, the Unions were not required to give Section 8(g) notice of their picketing. In so doing, he once again³ misconstrues the meaning of Section 8(g) and distorts and dilutes the intent of the notice provisions of the 1974 health care amendments.⁴ The facts of this case are simply stated, yet they are more involved than the dissent cares to admit. 1 In our discretion, we have accepted the amicus brief. 2 In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent Unions violated Sec. 8(g) of the Act by their picketing on March 25, 1981, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Administrative Law Judge's findings and conclusions with respect to the March 23, 1981, picketing. Any finding with respect to the March 23 picketing would be merely cumulative and would not affect the Order in this case. 3 See Local Union No. 200, General Service Employees' Union, S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO (Eden Park Management, Inc. d/b/a Eden Park Nursing Home and Health Related Facility, Poughkeepsie, New York), 263 NLRB 400 (1982) (Members Fanning and Zimmerman, dissenting). 4 Public Law 93-360, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., S. 3203. Although our concern here is only with the picketing conducted on March 25, 1981, a more detailed description of the surrounding circumstances properly sets the case. As found by the Administrative Law Judge, in October 1980 SEIU began an organizing drive at Baptist Memorial's Northeast and Southeast facilities. On October 5, 1980, identical letters on SEIU letterhead were sent to the two facilities indicating that certain employees of each were the "core union organizing members" at their respective location. In November 1980, SEIU petitioned to represent units at the Northeast facility only. However, the Regional Director for Region 23 ruled that only units encompassing all three of the Hospital's facilities were appropriate. On April 21, 1981,6 the Board denied SEIU's request for review of the Regional Director's decision. Also, complaints issued in December 1980, January, and February, alleging Baptist Memorial had violated Section 8(a)(1) in several respects. In May, the Hospital signed an informal settlement agreement which SEIU refused to join. No representation elections were held at the Hospital. On March 23, between 12 to 14 off-duty and former employees appeared at Northeast. Two persons carried signs,⁷ and the group marched around Northeast from 8:30 to 11 a.m. The picketing was organized by Barnett, a member of the core organizing committee. Hill, another member of the committee, obtained a parade permit for the demonstration. During the morning of March 23, Hill called Ben Aguirre, SEIU business representative, and told him of the demonstration. Aguirre drove to Northeast, stayed for about 15 minutes, and then left the premises. At the conclusion of this demonstration, the employees decided to hold another demonstration at Southeast. Schaller, also a core organizing committee member, organized that demonstration for March 25. She informed Aguirre of the demonstration. Aguirre then called Linda Ramirez, AFSCME's executive director, and asked her to aid the demonstrators. Ramirez agreed to do so, and solicited volunteers. Thus it was that, on March 25, Aguirre and two AFSCME members demonstrated with Baptist Memorial employees and former employees at Southeast. The signs carried by the AFSCME members had AFSCME bumper stickers on them. Aguirre and other demonstrators also carried signs. Aguirre's sign stated: 5 In addition to these two facilities, located in the section of San Antonio, Texas, indicated by their names, the Hospital has a large facility downtown. 6 All dates hereinafter are in 1981 unless otherwise indicated. 266 NLRB No. 64 7 The placards stated: "UNITED WE STAND Against HARASS- MENT," and "HARASSMENT by Administration Interferes with High Quality Patient Care." DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "Hospital employees need a pat on the back not a kick in the rear, go Union." (Emphasis supplied.) Neither the employees, SEIU, nor AFSCME notified the Hospital or FMCS of the demonstrations. No employee ceased working to join the picketing and no cars or deliveries were stopped. Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that SEIU and AFSCME violated Section 8(g) with respect to the March 25 picketing. The Administrative Law Judge found that Aguirre had adopted the picketing tactic, as demonstrated by his eliciting aid from AFSCME and by his picketing with a sign at the demonstration. AFSCME also joined in the picketing by virtue of its volunteers' carrying signs at the behest of AFSCME's executive director. Further, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that the picketing on March 25 was traditional organizational or recognitional picketing and, therefore, SEIU and AFSCME violated Section 8(g) by failing to give appropriate notice of the picketing. We agree. In Eden Park Nursing Home, we recently reaffirmed our interpretation that Section 8(g) requires that a union must comply with the 10-day notice provision in advance of "any strike, picketing or other concerted refusal to work at any health care institution "9 In Eden Park, three agents of the union engaged in sympathy picketing with another union which represented employees at the health care facility and which was engaged in a strike there. Although the latter union had given notice under Section 8(g) of its picketing, the union engaged in sympathy picketing had not. We held there that a union which fails to give the required notice that it would engage in sympathy picketing violated the notice provisions of Section 8(g). As in Eden Park, here a small number of agents of the Unions engaged in sympathy picketing. And, in contrast to Eden Park, there was never any notice to the health care institution of any planned picketing by a union. In Parkway Pavilion, the Board elaborated upon its concerns under Section 8(g) in explaining why unions which engaged in sympathy strikes and picketing were required to abide by that section's notice provisions: In order to assess the extent to which normal operations are likely to be disrupted, the health card institution is entitled under Section 8(g) to receive at least 10 days' notice from any labor organization which plans to begin picketing, engage in a strike, or work stoppage at a specific future time. It may very well be that suppliers, nonstriking employees, and strike replacements, who may be willing to cross one union's picket line, will refuse to do so if another labor organization begins picketing. If one union decides to join another union's picket line in sympathy and does not give the 10-day notice required by Section 8(g), health care institutions may suddenly find themselves with an unexpected disruption in services because of the picketing by two different unions instead of one. [222 NLRB at 213. Accord: Eden Park, supra.] Further, in Eden Park we noted that the fact that a labor organization does not represent employees at a subject facility does not negate the reasons that labor organization must comply with Section 8(g). 10 These legal principles and considerations are readily applicable to the facts of this case. Here, the Unions added their presence to otherwise unorganized picketing. No notice of picketing by a union was ever given or received by the Hospital. Instead, SEIU's business representative, Aguirre, and two representatives of AFSCME who picketed at the request of their executive director and who walked with picket signs with AFSCME's identification thereon joined from its inception picketing at Southeast on March 25 by employees and former employees of the Hospital. The Administrative Law Judge aptly analyzed the consequences of the Unions' actions: The purpose of Section 8(g) is to give health care institutions an opportunity to prevent the disruption of patient care which can be foreseen by such picketing. The fact that Respondents may have attempted to avoid the disruption of patient care does not change the fact that the risk was still present. It is the very act of putting patients at risk which is prohibited by Section 8(g). These real concerns, however, are lost on our dissenting colleague. 11 As the above facts demon- 8 As found by the Administrative Law Judge, the signs at Southeast were primarily organizational in nature, e.g.: "Join the Union "AFSCME supports hospital workers right to organize and "AFSCME supports hospital workers 9 Eden Park Nursing Home and Health Related Facility, 263 NLRB 400. Accord: District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Healthcare Employees. RWDSU (First Healthcare Corporation d/b/a Parkway Pavilion Healthcare), 222 NLRB 212 (1976), enforcement denied 556 F.2d 558 (2d Cir. 1976). Continued 10 Eden Park, 263 NLRB 400. 11 For some inexplicable reason, Member Zimmerman appears to attach some importance to the fact that no employees withheld services from the Hospital and that no deliveries were stopped because of the picketing. Yet the legislative history of the 1974 health care amendments SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 84 strate, SEIU was neither a mere observer of, nor a minimal participant in, the concerted activity at the Hospital. Our colleague is deluding himself if he believes that the addition of pickets from labor organizations, who identify themselves or are identifiable as such, to a demonstration by unorganized employees does not have the foreseeable likelihood of affecting the continuity of health care. His interpretation largely ignores the history and purpose of the 1974 health care amendments and would, in large part, negate the intent of Congress. We are not disposed to follow such a course and accordingly we affirm the Administrative Law Judge's finding of a violation in this proceeding. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondents, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 84, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. MEMBER ZIMMERMAN, dissenting: This case illustrates the folly of the Board's interpretation of the special notice requirements of Section 8(g) of the Act. The Administrative Law Judge found, and my colleagues in the majority agree, that the picketing of the Hospital was organized and executed by a group of unrepresented employees. Since the notice provisions of Section 8(g) apply only to labor organizations, those employees were free to engage in such picketing without notice. Nonetheless, the majority finds that Respondent Unions violated Section 8(g) because they briefly participated in the second of the two picketing episodes staged against the Hospital by its unorganized employees. I cannot join in that finding. I find that this brief participation by a single representative of the SEIU and a few AFSCME members did nothing to change the character of the leaves no room for argument that the actual effect of picketing has any bearing on whether notice is required. As Senator Javits stated, concerning the critical community need for continuity of health care and the procedures designed by Congress to avoid disruption of health care delivery, " 10 days notice of any strike or picketing must be given to a health care institution." 120 Cong. Rec. S. 6935 (1974). And during Senate debates before passage of the health care amendments, Senator Taft made it clear that Sec. 8(g) applies not only to bargaining strikes or pickets, but also, as stated in the statute, to 'any picket or strike.' As examples, this section would apply to recognition strikes, area standards strikes, secondary strikes, jurisdictional strikes, and the like." 120 Cong. Rec. S. 6941 (1974). It is the action of the union which was of concern to Congress when it passed Sec. 8(g). basic dispute. No hospital employees withheld their services from their employer during either of the demonstrations and no deliveries were stopped. For the reasons stated by former Member Fanning in his dissent in District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Healthcare Employees, RWDSU, AFL- CIO (First Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a Parkway Pavilion Healthcare), 222 NLRB 212, 224 (1976), enforcement denied 556 F.2d 558 (2d Cir. 1976), and his and my dissent in Local Union No. 200, General Service Employees' Union, S.E.I.U., AFL- CIO (Eden Park Management, Inc.), 263 NLRB 400 (1982), I would dismiss the complaint here. As we said in Eden Park at 403: Nothing in the record before us suggests that the isolated and occasional participation by representatives of a Union that represented no employees of the Employer in any way altered the character of the strike, generated any new or expanded pressure on the Employer, or posed additional or expanded threats to the Employer's ability to provide for the care and well-being of its patients. Thus, none of the legislative objectives that provided the basis for enacting Section 8(g) will be served by finding a violation here. The same statements apply with equal force to this case. The picketing activity here was beyond the scope of the 8(g) requirements. The Administrative Law Judge rejected contentions of the General Counsel and the Hospital that the SEIU could be found to have orchestrated the conduct. On that basis, I would dismiss the complaint. Since my colleagues persist in adhering to a mechanistic and purposeless application of Section 8(g), I dissent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES M. KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me at San Antonio, Texas, on August 25, 1981,1 pursuant to a consolidated complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 23 of the National Labor Relations Board on April 9, and which is based on charges filed by Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems (herein called the Hospital) on March 25. The complaint alleges that Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 84 (herein called Respondent SEIU) and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent AFSCME), have engaged in certain violations of Section 8(g) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). 1 All dates herein refer to 1981, unless otherwise indicated. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Issues Whether Respondent Unions were in any way legally responsible for certain demonstrations which took place on the grounds of the Hospital and, if so, whether those demonstrations violated Section 8(g) of the Act as Respondents failed to give 10 days written notice to the Hospital before participating in them. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of all parties. Upon the entire record of the case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS Both Respondents admit the Hospital is a nonprofit Texas corporation operating three medical centers in San Antonio, and further admit the Hospital's annual gross volume of business exceeds $250,000 and that during the same period it purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which originated from sources outside Texas. Accordingly, Respondents admit, and I find, the Hospital to be a health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Both Respondents admit, and I find them, to be labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE FACTS The Hospital, the Charging Party herein, actually consists of three separate medical centers located in San Antonio. The largest is Baptist Memorial Hospital. Not involved in this litigation, it is located in downtown San Antonio and has approximately 680 beds. The other two facilities, Northeast Baptist Hospital (Northeast) and Southeast Baptist Hospital (Southeast) are located in those areas of the city designated by their names. They are of equal size having approximately 190 beds each. The three hospitals together employ approximately 3,500 employees. Each provides general hospital services to the public. In October 1980 Respondent SEIU commenced organizing drives at Northeast and Southeast. Pursuant to those efforts it obtained the cooperation of several employees at each facility and on October 5, 1980, those employees sent identical letters to the administrators of those two medical centers. The letters, on Respondent SEIU letterhead, were signed by seven or eight employees who announced, "We are the core union organizing committee members at [Northeast/Southeast] Baptist Hospital." They went on to recite that the committees' organizing activities were protected by the National Labor Relations Act. On November 26, 1980, Respondent SEIU filed two petitions for representation elections at Northeast. One petition sought a professional employee unit and the second sought a nonprofessional unit. On January 16, the Board's Regional Director issued a consolidated Decision and Direction of Elections in two systemwide bargaining units, rejecting Respondent SEIU's contention that two units limited to Northeast were appropriate. As Respondent SEIU did not have a sufficient showing of interest in the systemwide unit, the Regional Director gave Respondent SEIU 10 days to present an adequate. showing of interest in the systemwide units. Respondent SEIU sought Board review of the Regional Director's decision; the request for review was denied on April 21. On April 23, Respondent SEIU not having made a showing of interest in either of the larger units, the Regional Director dismissed both petitions. Earlier, beginning in September 1980 the Hospital had engaged in conduct allegedly in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. This conduct induced Respondent SEIU to file unfair labor practice charges against the Hospital. Typically, the accusations against the Hospital involved such things as creating the impression of surveillance of union activities, freezing wages pending negotiations, interrogating employees regarding their union activities, improperly restricting union activity on the hospital's premises and the discriminatory promulgation of a no-solicitation/no-distribution policy. Complaints were issued on those matters on December 3, 1980, January 2 and February 2, 1981. A hearing was scheduled for May 12. A postponement occurred and on May 22, the Hospital signed an informal settlement agreement containing a non-admission clause. Respondent SEIU refused to join that agreement. At the time of the hearing herein, the settlement agreement was in the process of being approved on an unilateral basis by the Regional Director, subject to instructions from the General Counsel's office. Thus, on March 23 and 25, when the two demonstrations. being scrutinized here occurred, there were three complaints outstanding against the Hospital which were at that time unremedied. Furthermore, the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Elections was pending before the Board on Respondent SEIU's request for review asserting that the Regional Director had erred in expanding the one-facility units to systemwide units. In the early morning of March 23, a group of employees and former employees appeared at the Northeast premises with a large two-sided placard. The first side stated, "UNITED WE STAND against HARASS- MENT." The second side stated, "Harassment by Administration Interferes with High Quality-Patient Care." The sign was simultaneously carried by two persons who were accompanied by 10 or 12 other individuals. Employee Adele Barnett, a registered nurse, testified the employees had perceived that they were being "harassed" by the Hospital's administration beginning in August or September 1980 which intensified as the SEIU organizing campaign became more publicized. She said by March 1981 the harassment was "quite heated" against those individuals who had spoken out against the perceived harassment and intimidation. She also said that SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 84 the employees had attempted to go through "channels," i.e., filing NLRB charges and speaking to sympathetic physicians, but "no one seemed to be listening, so we felt we should notify the public." As a result she and some other employees, Bennie Hill, Jimalee Jansen, and some others discussed demonstrating at Northeast. Barnett acknowledged that she was the leader in the decision to demonstrate and says she purchased placard materials and painted the sign herself. She said Hill even obtained a parade permit from the police department. At 8:30 a.m. on March 23 Barnett had gathered a group of off-duty employees and former employees who began marching with the above-described sign. The group marched down public sidewalks, through the parking lot, past the main entrance and some secondary entrances, and continued in a repetitive pattern outside Northeast until approximately 11 a.m., when they stopped. At some point during the early morning, one of the demonstrators, probably Hill, telephoned Respondent SEIU's office and informed business representative Ben Aguirre of the demonstration. Aguirre testified that he arrived at the site and stayed for approximately 15 minutes and then left. He engaged in no marching or patroling that day. Aguirre asserts that he was in no way involved in planning the demonstration. Several of the demonstrators were employees who had announced themselves to be members of the "core union organizing committee" the previous October. These were Barnett, Hill, Korbey Wright, Carole Schaller, and Sharon McIntire. As the demonstration ended on March 23, according to testimony of Barnett and Schaller, the employees thought it would be a good idea to have a second demonstration on March 25 at Southeast. Schaller took it upon herself to organize that demonstration and says she purchased sign-making material and lettered some signs herself. She also told Aguirre about the demonstration. Aguirre, in turn, called Linda Ramirez, Respondent AFSCME's executive director, and asked her to provide additional employees to join the demonstration. Ramirez agreed to do so and solicited several volunteers. Both Aguirre and Ramirez said they had nothing to do with the wording on the signs and had no idea what the signs were to say. On March 25, at 8 a.m., a group of employees, former employees, and AFSCME members assembled at Southeast. The AFSCME members pasted AFSCME bumper stickers on some of the placards and lettered them. As before, the group included core union organizing committee members, Barnett, Hill, Schaller, and, later, Shirley Freelon. This time, Respondent SEIU's business representative Aguirre appeared and carried a picket sign. His sign stated: "Hospital employees need a pat on the back (illustration) not a kick in the rear, go Union." One sign said, "Arise and be Heard-Shine the Light-Spread the Word-Unity is our Greatest Weapon." Another stated, "Join the Union-why continue to be caught by decisions of administration. Get representation. Let your voice be heard in running your Hospital: Are you an individual or a puppet?" Yet another said: "Administration doesn't play fair! We demand our rights to organize!" There were other signs of similar import. The two AFSCME signs stated: (1) "AFSCME supports hospital workers' right to organize," and (2) "AFSCME supports hospital workers." The acronym "AFSCME" in each case was the bumper sticker. On neither occasion, March 23 or 25, did any employee cease work to join the demonstration and there is no evidence that the normal procedures of either center were in any way disrupted. Deliveries were not stopped and there was no interference with individuals entering or exiting the centers. IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS The first question which must be decided is whether Respondent Unions were in any way responsible for the demonstrations of March 23 and 25. I conclude that insofar as the first demonstration is concerned they are not. The burden of proof rests with the General Counsel to show that the individuals who demonstrated were authorized to engage in that conduct. The General Counsel has failed to adduce persuasive proof that Respondent SEIU authorized the March 23 demonstration. All the evidence is to the contrary. Indeed, nurse Barnett testified without contradiction that the demonstration was her idea and that she purchased the picket sign material with her own money. Furthermore, Aguirre did not know of the demonstration until it was underway. The General Counsel's principal argument is that Barnett and four others were members of Respondent SEIU's core organizing committees and that at some point during the demonstration Respondent SEIU's business representative, Aguirre, came to Northeast to observe. Thus, the General Counsel says the demonstrators were Respondent SEIU's agents. The General Counsel observes that the Board is bound to follow the ordinary principles of agency law² but he does not further refine his argument, ignoring the fact that the Board has consistently held that members of a union's "in-house organizing committee," i.e., employee organizers, are not solely by virtue of their membership in such committees agents of the union.³ That being the case, and further noting that the organizing committees had not met for several months prior to the demonstration and no evidence is adduced regarding the committees' actual authority, requires me to conclude that the demonstrators' membership in the core organizing committees is a nonprobative fact insofar as this issue is concerned. Furthermore, the evidence shows that business representative Aguirre learned of the March 23 demonstration by telephone after it was well under way. His momentary appearance at the demonstration later that morning 2 Citing International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, CIO, Local 6, et al. (Sunset Line & Twine Company). 79 NLRB 1487 at 1507 (1948). 3 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation. 179 NLRB 219 (1969), 181 NLRB 575 (1970), enfd. 435 F.2d 960 (4th Cir. 1970); International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (Georgetown Dress Corporation), 214 NLRB 706 at 707-708, enforcement denied 537 F.2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1976); Mike Yurosek & Sons. 225 NLRB 148 (1976); Firestone Steel Products Company, a Division of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. 235 NLRB 548 (1978); and Beaird-Poulan Division, Emerson Electric Company, 247 NLRB 1365, 1380 (1980). DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD did not change its extra-union character. Accordingly, I conclude that the March 23 demonstration was not a union-sponsored or condoned activity. Therefore, the demonstration that day cannot be a violation of Section 8(g). See Long Beach Youth Center, Inc., a/k/a Long Beach Youth Home formerly Trailback, Inc., 230 NLRB 648 (1977), affd. 591 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1979). However, the demonstration of March 25 is a different matter. The evidence uncontrovertedly shows that, shortly after the March 23 demonstration was over, a demonstrator notified Aguirre that they intended to repeat the performance at Southeast on March 25. At that point Aguirre privately adopted the tactic and requested assistance from Respondent AFSCME whose executive director, Ramirez, was only too happy to lend a hand. Furthermore, Aguirre actually engaged in the March 25 demonstration, picketing and patroling with a sign announcing an organizing purpose. Moreover, a large percentage of the signs displayed that day had an organizational message. They contained such statements as "Go Union," referred to the right to organize and contained slogans of similar import. It may be true, as Aguirre says, that Respondent SEIU did not draft the language contained in the signs, but by picking one up and patroling with it, he publically adopted that purpose. And, of course, Respondent AFSCME joined in. Its volunteers also carried signs referring to the hospital workers' right to organize and its pickets utilized the AFSCME emblem. Clearly, their participation in the demonstration was authorized by Respondent AFSCME's executive director and was an official activity of that labor organization. The next question which must be resolved is whether the conduct required notice to the Hospital as set forth in Section 8(g). I have no difficulty in concluding that such notice was required. Section 8(g) states, in pertinent part: A labor organization before engaging in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at any health care institution shall, not less than ten days prior to such action, notify the institution in writing and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of that intention Neither Respondent gave any written notice to the Hospital of the March 25 demonstration. Furthermore, the picketing which occurred on that day was traditional organizational or recognitional picketing and can be viewed in no other way. It was not simply an exercise of free speech for it consisted of traditional patroling of the premises and entrances. It was, therefore, "picketing" as defined in Section 8(g). In that circumstance it is immaterial that Respondent Unions did not induce employees to leave work and did not block ingress or egress or prevent deliveries. The purpose of Section 8(g) is to give health care institutions an opportunity to prevent the disruption of patient care which can be foreseen by such picketing. The fact that Respondents may have attempted to avoid the disruption of patient care does not change the fact that the risk was still present. It is the very act of putting patients at risk which is prohibited by Section 8(g). Accordingly, I find that Respondents SEIU and AFSCME both violated Section 8(g) on March 25 by picketing the Hospital's Southeast facility. Respondent SEIU additionally argues that even if it is chargeable with the demonstration, it was nevertheless privileged to engage in it as it could lawfully protest the Hospital's unremedied unfair labor practices. I am persuaded. There is no evidence that the demonstrations had that object. None of the signs accused the Hospital of unfair labor practices and none of the pickets testified that was their purpose. There was only a contention that the Hospital was, in some unspecified way, "harassing" employees. One might surmise that the claimed harassment was the unfair labor practices charged, but if that was the case the signs could easily have said so and the witnesses could have so testified. They did not. Accordingly, I find that the picketing was not intended to protest any unfair labor practice which may have been committed by the Hospital. More likely, it was recognitional/organizational in purpose; certainly the Northeast employees can be seen as frustrated over the fact that they had been denied an election in their sought-for units. Likewise, the Southeast pickets used only recognitional/organizational. language. Thus, Respondents' defense fails for lack of proof. It is therefore unnecessary to determine if the defense would have been sufficient in law when juxtaposed against the policies of Section 8(g). IV. REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(g) of the Act, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and is a health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. 2. Respondents SEIU and AFSCME are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing Southeast Baptist Hospital, a division of Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems, on March 25, 1981, without first giving a 10-day written notice to the Hospital and to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, each Respondent has violated Section 8(g) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 84 ORDER4 A. The Respondent, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 84, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems, or any other health care institution, without first notifying that institution and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, not less than 10 days prior to such action, of that intention. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by Respondent SEIU's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent SEIU immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 23 sufficient signed copies of the notice for posting by Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems, if willing, in places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent SEIU has taken to comply herewith. B. The Respondent, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems, or any other health care institution, without first notifying that institution and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, not less than 10 days prior to such action, of that intention. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by Respondent AFSCME's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent AFSCME immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 23 sufficient signed copies of the notice for posting by Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems, if willing, in places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent AFSCME has taken to comply herewith. 5 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 Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 4 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. 6 Fn. 5, supra. APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems, or any other health care institution, without notifying, in writing, any such health care institution, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, not less than 10 days prior to such action, of that intention. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 84 APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at Baptist Memorial Hospital Systems, or any other health care institution, without notifying, in writing, any such health care institution, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, not less than 10 days prior to such action, of that intention. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO