Glenoaks Convalescent Hospital

488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Glenoaks Convalescent Hospital and Hospital and Service Employees Union, Local 399, SEIU, AFL-CIO. Case 31-CA-13158 14 December 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND DENNIS On 4 September 1984 Administrative Law Judge George Christensen issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision' and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Glenoaks Convalescent Hospital, Glendale, California, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. charging employee Melody Miranda because of their union activities. The Hospital conceded it discharged Miranda, denied it changed Barker's workshift; denied that it committed the acts alleged above as independent violations of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act; and denied violating the Act. • The issues for determination are whether the Hospital committed the acts alleged as violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; if so, whether the Hospital thereby violated the Act; whether Barker's workshift was changed; if so, whether that change violated the Act; and whether Mir- anda's discharge violated the Act. The parties appeared by counsel at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue, and to file briefs. Both counsels argued orally and the Hospital filed a brief Based on my review of the entire record, observation of the witnesses, perusal of the oral arguments and the brief, plus research, I enter the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find at all pertinent times the Hospital was an employer engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce and the Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1 In his decision, the Judge refers to the Respondent's administrator as both Livingston and Hamilton The administrator testified that her name was Pamela Hamilton and the complaint alleged that Pamela Nance- Hamilton, administrator, was an agent of Respondent and a supervisor within Sec 2 of the Act Accordingly, It appears that the Respondent's administrator was inadvertently referred to as Pamela Livingston and the decision should be corrected to identify her as Pamela Hamilton DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Administrative Law Judge. On October 12, 1983, 1 I conducted a hearing at Los An- geles, California, to try issues raised by a complaint issued on July 29 based on a charge filed by Hospital and Service Employees Local 399 (the Union) on May 24 and amended on July 8. The complaint alleges that Glen- oaks Convalescent Hospital (the Hospital) violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) the National Labor Relations Act by interro- gating employees about their and other employees' union activities and sympathies, creating the impression the union activities of its employees were under surveillance, requesting employees to ascertain and report on the union activities of other employees, and telling employ- ees it was futile to seek union representation; and that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by changing employee Anna Barker's workshift and dis- Read 1983 after all further date references omitting the year A. Facts I. The Union's organizational campaign The union campaign to organize the Hospital's em- ployees began when employee Anna Barker contacted the Union in the spring. The Union supplied Barker with cards authorizing the Union to act as the collective-bar- gaining agent of the Hospital's nonsupervisory employees and asked her to solicit employees to sign those cards in sufficient number to support a petition for certification as their collective-bargaining representative. Barker recruit- ed other employees to assist her in circulating the cards among the employees and soliciting signatures thereto, including employee Melody Miranda. 2 Barker, Miranda, and others secured a substantial number of signed cards from the employees and turned them over to the Union, which utilized the cards as the basis for filing a petition with the Region for certification as their collective-bar- gaining representative. The Hospital received formal no- tification of the filing of the petition about the end of April 2 The native language of over one-half of the Hospital's nonsuperviso- ry employees (approximately 60) was Spanish Many of those employees had a very limited grasp of English Miranda was bilingual and was called by on the Hospital management to translate communications be- tween management and the employees 273 NLRB No. 76 GLENOAKS HOSPITAL 489 2. The alleged independent 8(a)(1) violations and the alleged workshift change' violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act Hospital management 3 became aware of the union campaign, the holding of a union meeting in a building adjacent to the Hospital, and Barker's leading role in the campaign sometime in late Apri1.4 Not long after the time he held his conference with Wright and Johnson and instructed them to keep watch over the employees' union activities, Powers conferred with Miranda. Powers informed Miranda that superviso- ry personnel were ineligible for union representation, stated the Hospital was opposed to union representation of its employees and would let the employees strike rather than deal with the Union; that a union attempted to organize another facility where he was employed and one of the employees there took him to court, to her regret; stated that while Miranda did not have to answer his questions, could she identify the employees behind the union campaign; and requested that she keep watch over the employees' union activities. Miranda replied she was unable to identify any union supporters and prom- ised to comply with Powers' request.3 In the course of the conference with Johnson wherein he advised Johnson that Barker initiated the union cam- paign, Powers instructed Johnson to change Barker's work shift (then 7 a m to 3:30 p m, Monday through Thursday) so management could keep an eye on her union activities. In accordance with those instructions, Johnson changed Barker's work.shift beginning the week of May 9 to 8 a.m.-2:30 p.m., Monday though Friday (management personnel normally worked a 5-day work- week, commencing at 8 a m.).6 About the same time, in the course of a discussion. be- tween Wright and Miranda concerning the union cam- paign, -Miranda told Wright that Johnson had informed Douglas Powers, general administrator, Altha Wright, dietary super- visor, and Marie Johnson, director of nurses The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that at all pertinent times Powers, Wright, and Johnston were supervisors and agents of the Hospital acting on its behalf within the meaning of Sec 2 of the Act 4 The signature solicitations, the pros and cons of union representation, and a union meeting held in late April in the apartment of employee Lois Patterson in a building adjacent to the Hospital were widely discussed among employees prior - to the petition filing in late April, in the course of a meeting between Powers, Wright, and Johnson about the time the petition was filed, Powers told Johnson and Wright a union campaign was in progress, a union meeting had been held near the Hospital, and Instructed Wnght and Johnson to keep close watch over the employees' union activities At a later meeting the same day between Powers and Johnson, Powers told Johnson that. Barker initiated the union campaign These findings are based on Johnson's testimony, which I credit, Johnson Impressed me as a sincere, honest witness 5 These findings are based on Miranda's testimony, which I credit Mi- randa was a direct and forthright witness, and very convincing Powers apparently thought Miranda was a supervisor, along with Johnson and Wright The Hospital did not advance this contention in its oral or writ- ten argument, nor in the course of the hearing, and Miranda testified without contradiction she did not hire, fire, discipline, or direct the work of any employees and thire was no evidence produced to establish the contrary, nor any independent evidence she performed supervisory func- tions I therefore find that at all pertinent times Miranda was not a super- visor and/or agent of the Hospital acting on its behalf within the mean- ing of Section 2 of the Act 6 These findings are based on Johnson's testimony, which I credit, and supporting statistical data her what transpired during the meeting between Powers, Johnson, and Wright; i.e., that Johnson informed her Powers told Johnson and Wright the Hospital was op- posed to union representation of its employees and asked Johnson and Wright to watch the employees' union ac- tivities. Wright asked Miranda her views concerning union representation and Miranda replied she was well paid and uninterested in union representation. Wright contacted Johnson and repeated Miranda's remarks to her. Angry over what she felt was a breach of confi- dence, Johnson contacted Miranda and instructed Miran- da to stay away from her unless official business required a contact. Miranda went, to Wright and expressed her concern over the disruption in her relationship with Johnson caused by Wright's repeating her comments. Wright brought the two together, said they all should try to get along, and reiterated Powers' request that all three watch the employees' union activities. - Miranda subsequently heard Wright interrupt a con- versation between Barker and Patterson to ask them what they were discussing, and heard Wright ask Barker and Patterson to identify the union ringleaders, com- menting one of them must speak Spanish. On other occa- sions when she was not able to overhear what was being said, Wright asked employees what they were discuss- ing. 7 3. The alleged discriminatory discharge Miranda was hired in October 1982 to handle and chart patient activities. In January 1983, Powers assigned her the additional duty of handling and recording the pa- tients' social services, granting her at that time an in- crease of 75 cents per hour, with the promise of an addi- tional 25 cents when she completed an academic course in social services work Approximately 3 months later (in April), Miranda told Powers she had not been able to find a social services course in which to enroll, that she had checked and found out the State did not require an academic creden- tial for the performance of the work in question, that she believed she was performing the work efficiently, and re- quested he waive the academic requirement and grant the promised 25-cent-per-hour increase. Powers acknowl- edged she was performing the work well and the aca- demic training was not required by regulatory authori- ties, but stated he nevertheless wanted Miranda to com- plete the academic work and stated he would not give her the 25-cent increase until she did. He promised to try to locate a course in which she could enroll. On May 9, Pamela Hamilton assumed the position of administrator at the Hospita1. 8 During the entire period The findings in this and the previous paragraph are based primarily on Miranda's testimony, which I credit, because she was a direct and forthright witness Her testimony to matters in the former paragraph was corroborated by Johnson and her testimony to matters in the latter para- graph was corroborated by Barker, while Wright was hesitant in her tes- timony and professed an inability to recall her statements 8 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that at all perti- nent times Hamilton was a supervisor and agent of the Hospital acting on its behalf within the meaning of Sec 2 of the Act 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Miranda's employment prior to May 9, she worked di- rectly under Powers, who conceded she was an excellent employee and that he had on several occasions compli- mented her on her work performance Hamilton was aware when she assumed her position at the Hospital that a union campaign to represent the Hos- pital's nonsupervisory employees was underway. On either May 10 or 11, Miranda approached Hamil- ton and renewed her request for a 25-cent increase, recit- ing the same argument she utilized in her approach to Powers the previous month Hamilton replied she was unfamiliar with the situation, but would look into it. She conferred with Powers; he remained firm in his position that Miranda should not receive the . increase until and unless she completed the academic work he established as the prerequisite for Miranda's receipt of the increase. When Miranda inquired about the increase on May 12, Hamilton recited Powers' position, expressed irritation over Miranda's persistence in what she characterized as a petty matter, stated she was familiar with and capable of performing the social service work, and stated she thought she might assume those functions and reduce Miranda's wages by 75 cents per hour, to the rate Miran- da received prior to her assumption of the social services functions. Miranda promptly withdrew her wage in- crease request, stating she liked the work in question and would abandon any effort to secure the promised 25- cent-per-hour increase rather than lose it. Hamilton or- dered Miranda to leave her office and to return in 15 or 20 minutes. On Miranda's return to her office, Hamilton informed Miranda she was discharged. 9 Miranda's subse- quent appeal to Powers for reinstatement was unsuccess- ful . io B. Analysis and Conclusions I. The alleged 8(a)(1) independent violations The complaint alleges that the Hospital violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by Powers' interrogating an em- ployee about her and other employees' union activities and sympathies, by his requesting employees to spy on the union activities and sympathies of other employees, by his creation of the impression he was spying on the employees' union activities and sympathies, by his in- forming an employee it was futile to seek union represen- tation, and by Wright's interrogating employees about their and other employees' union activities and sympa- thies. a. The alleged spying (Powers) Findings have been entered that Powers, in the course of his conferences with Miranda, Johnson, and Wright, 9 Hamilton testified that she conferred with Powers and related what occurred in the course of her conference with Miranda, that Powers so- licited her reaction, that she stated she was dissatisfied with .Miranda's at- titude, that Powers authorized her to discharge Miranda if she wished, and that she decided to discharge Miranda because of her "negative atti- tude," as evidenced by Miranda's frank comment that, while she accepted Powers' position, she felt she was not being treated fairly by the Hospi- tal '° The findings in this paragraph are based on the testimony of Miran- da, with partial corroboration by Hamilton and Powers solicited the former and instructed the latter two to spy upon the union activities of the Hospital's employees. Such a solicitation and instruction, whether to a rank- and-file employee or to a supervisory employee, is viola- tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." I therefore find that by such solicitation and instruction, the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. b The alleged interrogation, creation of the impression of surveillance, and futility statement (Powers) Findings have been entered that Powers, in the course of his conference with Miranda, asked her to 'identify employees supporting the union campaign, inferred that it was futile for the employees to seek union representa- tion by stating the Hospital would take a strike before it would deal with the Union, and conveyed the impression he was maintaining a surveillance of the employees' Union activities by asking Miranda to spy upon the em- ployees' union activities. All three of those actions (the interrogation, the con- veyance of the inference, and the conveyance of the im- pression) are violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act," and I therefore find that by those actions the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act . c. The alleged Wright interrogations Findings have been entered that Wright asked Miran- da's views concerning union representation after Miranda informed Wright that Johnson told her what transpired in an earlier conference between Powers, Wright, and Johnson and that Wright subsequently, within earshot of Miranda, asked Barker and Patterson . what they were discussing and who the union ringleaders were, com- menting that one of _them must speak Spanish. - Both these interrogations occurred after Wright re- ceived instructions from Powers to spy on the employ- ees' union activities. Findings have also been entered that Wright on other occasions asked employees what they were talking about. From the foregoing, I conclude that Wright ques- tioned Miranda, Barker, and Patterson as part of her " NLRB v St Vincent's Hospital, 729 F 2d 730 (11th Cir 1984), Howard Johnson Co v NLRB, 702 F 2d 1 (5th Or 1983), NLRB v Chem Fab Corp, 691 F 20 1252 (8th Or 1982), J P Stevens & Co v NLRB, 668 F 2d 767 (4th Ctr 1982), L'Eggs Products v NLRB, 619 F 2d 1337 (9th Or 1980), NLRB v National Garment Co, 614 F 2d 623 (8th Cir 1980), Belcher Towing Co v NLRB, 614 F 2d 88 (5th Or 1980), Gulf States Mfrs v NLRB, 579 F 2d 1298 (5th Cir . 1978), Russell Stover Can- dies v 'NLRB, 551 F 2d 204 (8th Cir 1977), Enterprise Products, 265 NLRB 544 (1982), United Sanitation Services, 262 NLRB 1369 (1982), Union Carbide Corp, 259 NLRB 974 (1982), St Mary's Infant Home, 258 NLRB 1024 (1981), St Francis Hospital, 249 NLRB 180 (1980), Interna- tional Medication Systems, 244 NLRB 861 (1979), Wex- Tex of Headland, 236 NLRB 1001 (1978), Harvey's Resort Hotel, 236 NLRB 1670 (1978) i2 See the cases cited in fn above plus McLane/Western v. NLRB, 723 F 2d 1454 (10th Or 1983), NLRB v Intermedics, Inc , 715 F 2d 1022 (5th Or 1983), Raley's Inc v NLRB, 703 F 2d 410 (9th Cir 1983), Ahrens Aircraft v NLRB, 703 F 2d 23 (1st Cir 1983), NLRB v Keystone Pretzel Bakery, 696 F 2d 257 (3d Cir 1982). NLRB v Garry Mfg Co, 630 F 2d 934 (3d Cir 1980), NLRB v Colonial Haven Nursing Home, 542 F 2d 691 (7th Cir 1976), Aero Tec Laboratories, 269 NLRB 705 (1984), L'Ermitage Hotel, 268 NLRB 744 (1984), Rikal West, Inc , 266 NLRB 551 (1983), Cardio Data Systems, 264 NLRB 67 (1982), Best Products, 259 NLRB 95 (1981), Brownsboro Hills Nursing Home, 244 NLRB 269 (1979) GLENOAKS HOSPITAL 491 effort to comply with Powers' surveillance instructions, thereby violating Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act 13 2. The alleged work shift change I have entered findings that, in late April Or early May, Powers informed Johnson that Barker was the prime mover in the union campaign and instructed John- son to change Barker's work shift so management could spy on her union activities; and that Johnson carried out Powers' instructions, changing Barker's work shift from a 4-day (Monday through Thursday), 8 hours per day .(7 a.m.-3:30 p.m.) work shift to a 5-day (Monday through Friday), 6 hours per day (8 a.m.-2:30 p.m.) work shift, thereby placing Barker on the premises only during hours management personnel was present. The change reduced Barker's work shifts by 2 hours per week and required her presence at the Hospital 5 days per *week rather than 4. The Board has held that changing an employee's work area in order to keep a watch on his of her union activi- ties and changing an employee's work duties because of his or her union activities are violative of the Act. 14 I find it reasonable to conclude that it is likewise violative of the Act to change an employee's work shift in order to spy on his or her union activities, and thus conclude that by changing Barker's work shift for that purpose, the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 3. The _alleged discriminatory discharge Findings have been entered that Miranda was an active and important supporter of the Union, active in that she signed a card authorizing the Union to represent her, attended the union meeting in late April at Patter- son's apartment, and solicited employees to sign cards authorizing the Union to represent them, important in that she regularly translated communications between the Hospital management and its predominantly Spanish- speaking work force and therefore was able to act as the Union's conduit in reaching those same Spanish-speaking employees for the' purpose of securing their support, in- cluding the signing of cards authorizing the Union to represent them. Prior to the time she was discharged, Powers rated Miranda an excellent and valued employee, and compli- mented her on her work. Yet the Hospital would have me believe she was summarily discharged for uttering a single comment, by a supervisor . unfamiliar with her work performance, without a review Of her previous performance and the complete absence of any warning, contending the absence of direct proof management was aware of her union role and the fact that two other known employee leaders of the Union (Barker and Pat- terson) were not discharged militates an acceptance of its " NLRB v Hasbro Industries, 672 F 2d 978 (1st Or 1982), Nueva En- gineering, 269 NLRB 999 (1984), Amason, Inc , 269 NLRB 750 (1984), Providence Hospital, 251 NLRB 1071 (1980), Industry Products, 251 NLRB 1380 (1980), Scott's Wood Products, 242 NLRB 1193 (1979), Wex-Tex of Headland 14 Champion Road Machinery Go, 264 NLRB 927 (1982), Stoughton Trailers, 234 NLRB 1203 (1978) position that her utterance of that comment was the sole motive of her discharge. The Board and the courts have long accepted the premise that employer .motivation may be established by inference drawn from facts and circumstances surround- ing a discharge." They also have rejected the defense that employer failure to discharge all the known activists in their employ supports the conclusion that the dis- charge of a lesser number is nondiscriminatory 16 Thu's on a number of occasions the Board has inferred employer. knowledge ' of an employee's union activities from facts and circumstances surrounding the dis- charge," and held the discharge of less than the total number of known union activists violative of the Act.18 ` The record establishes that prior to Miranda's dis- charge Hospital management ` 1. BeCame aware of its employees' union authorization card solicitations, attendance at a union meeting, and the identity of some' of the employees who were leading the _Union's campaign. 2. Eipressed its union animus and unlawfully sought to discourage its employees from seeking representation by the Union by implying their efforts would be futile. 3. Unlawfully questioned employees about their and other employees union activities and sympathies. 4. Unlawfully requested employees to keep a close watch on other employees' union activities. 5. Conducted an unlawful surveillance of its employ- ees' union activities., 6. Voiced the , suspicion that one of the employees leading the union campaign was fluent in the Spanish language. From the foregoing, I find and conclude that, some- time before Miranda's discharge, Hospital ,mangage- ment's surveillance of its employees' union activities pro- duced confirmation of Wright's suspicion—that one of the employee leaders of the union campaign was fluent in the Spanish language—identified Miranda as that person. Miranda not only spoke Spanish fluently, she was an authority figure among the Spanish-speaking employees (by virtue of her role as the translator of management's instructions, requests, etc.) Thus her discharge, at the height of the preelection 'campaign, necessarily discour- aged those employees, who signed union authorization cards and gave their support to the Union due to Miran- 15 NLRB v Link-Belt Co, 311 US 584 (1941), Universal Camera Corp v NLRB, 340 US 474 (1951), NLRB v Long Island Limo Service, 468 F 2d 292 (2d_ Cu. 1972), Famet, Inc v NLRB, 490 F 2d 293 (9th Cif 1973), Alumbaugh Coal Corp v NLRB, 635 F 2d 1380 (8th Or 1980), NLRB v Proler International Corp, 635 F 2d 351 (5th ar 1981), Golden Day Schools v NLRB, 644 F 2d 834 (9th Cir 1981), NLRB v Midland Ross, Inc , 653 F 2d 239 (6th Or 1981), Bill Johnson's Restaurant v NLRB, 103 S Ct 2161 (1983), Artra Group v NLRB, 130 F 2d 586 (10th Or 1984) 16 Rust Engineering Co v NLRB, 445 F 2d 172 (6th Cm 1971), NLRB v Puerto Rico Telephone, 357 F 2d 919 (1st Or 1968), Nachman Corp v NLRB, 337 F 2d 421 (7th Or 1964), NLRB v W C. Nabors, Go, 196 F 2d 272 (5th Cir 1952), Holding Co, 231 NLRB 383 (1977) 17 Syracuse Dy-Dee Diaper Service, 251 NLRB 963 (1980), Bacchus Wine Cooperative, 251 NLRB 1552 (1980), Coral Gables Convalescent Home, 234 NLRB 1198 (1978), and cases cited in fn 16 above 18 See cases cited in fns 15, 16, and 17, above - 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD da's solicitations and urging, from continuing their sup- port of the Union In view of the foregoing, the timing of Miranda's 'dis- charge and the weak justification advanced therefor, the Hospital's established union animus, and its proclivity to violate the Actin its campaign to avoid dealing with the Union, I find and conclude that the Hospital discharged Miranda to discourage its employees from supporting the Union, particularly those employees (the majority) who were fluent only in Spanish and looked to Miranda for leadership and guidance, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all pertinent times the Hospital was an employer engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce and the Union was a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2 of the Act. 2. At all pertinent times Powers, Johnson, Wright, and Hamilton were supervisors and agents of the Hospital acting on its- behalf within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. 3. The Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of. the Act by (a) Requesting employees to spy upon the union activi- ties of its employees' (b) Asking an employee to identify employees who support the Union. (c) Conveying the impression that it was 'futile for the employees to seek union representation. (d) Creating the impression the Hospital was keeping watch on union activities of its employees. (e) Interrogating employees concerning the identity of the employees leading the union campaign. (f) Maintaining a surveillance of its employees' union activities. 4. The Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by changing an employee's work shift in order to watch over her union activities 5. The Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging an employee to discourage her. and other employees' support of the Union. 6. The above unfair labor practices affected and affect interstate commerce as defined in Section 2 of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found _ that the Hospital committed various unfair labor practices, I shall recommend it be directed to cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Having found that the Hospital violated the Act by re- ducing Barker's workweek by 2 hours per week in order to spy on her union activities, I shall recommend the Hospital be ordered to make Barker whole for those losses by paying her for the hours lost for each week of such losses between the first week of her reduced work schedule and the week she resigned, with interest on the sums due computed in accordance with the formula set out in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977) and Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)." 19 Restoration of her former work shift is not being recommended, in- asmuch as Barker voluntarily resigned when the Union lost the election Having found that the Hospital violated the Act by discharging Miranda, I shall recommend the Hospital be directed to reinstate her to her former position with se- niority and other rights and privileges restored, and to make her whole for any seniority, wage, and benefit losses she suffered by virtue of the discrimination against her, with the amount due calculated in the manner set forth in F. W Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and interest thereon calculated in accordance with the formu- la set forth above On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed2° ORDER - The Respondent, Glenoaks Convalescent Hospital, Glendale, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Asking employees to identify those employees who support union representation. (c) Requesting employees to spy upon the union activi- ties of its employees. (d) Conveying the impression to employees that it is maintaining a surveillance of their union activities. (e) Maintaining a surveillance of its employees' union activities. (f) Creating the impression among its employees it was futile for them to seek union representation (g) Changing its employees' hours or shifts in order to spy on their union activities. (h) Discharging employees in order to discourage them and other employees from seeking union represen- tation. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act. (a) Make Anna Barker whole for her wage losses re- sulting from the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this decision. (b) Offer Melody Miranda reinstatement to her former position with all seniority and other rights and privileges restored, and make her whole for any seniority, wage, and benefit losses she may have suffered by virtue of the discrimination against her, in the manner set out in "The Remedy" section of this decision. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order: (d) Post at its premises in Glendale, California, copies of the attached notice. marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of 20 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended 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 pur- poses 21 If 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment Continued GLENOAKS HOSPITAL 493 the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, • defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board 'S APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States, Government After a trial before the above Agency, the Agency issued a decision finding we committed unfair labor prac- tices and directed that we post this "notice advising you what we will do and what we will refrain from doing to remedy those unfair labor practices, to wit. WE WILL NOT ask you to identify your fellow employ- ees who support or supported Hospital and Service Em- ployees Union, Local 399, SEIU, AFL-CIO or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT interrogate you concerning the identity of our employees who support or lead a campaign by Local 399, or any other labor organization, to secure the right to represent you for collective-bargaining purposes. WE WILL NOT solicit or request that you spy on the activities of any of our employees on behalf of Local 399, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT convey to you the impression we are maintaining a surveillance of your activities on behalf of Local 399, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT maintain a surveillance of your activi- ties on behalf of Local 399, or any other labor organiza- tion. WE WILL NOT give you the impression it is futile for you to seek representation by Local 399, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT change your work shifts or hours so we can spy on your activities on behalf of Local 399, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discharge you to discourage your and other employees' support of Local 399, or any other labor organization. WE WILL make Anna Barker whole for her wage losses resulting from our changing her work shift so we could spy on her activities on behalf of Local 399. WE WILL reinstate Melody Miranda to her former po- sition and make her whole for any wage or other losses she suffered by virtue of our discharging her to discour- age her and other employees' support of Local 399. GLENOAKS CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL