Baptist Medical System

882 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Baptist Medical System and Southern Missouri-Ar- kansas District Council, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO. Case 26- CA-9538 May 10, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND CRACRAFT On July 15, 1983, Administrative Law Judge Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed ex- ceptions and supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed an answering 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 2 and to adopt the recommended Order. We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by ordering nonemployee union organizers Griffiths and Bolden to leave its public cafeteria. The Respondent operates the cafe- teria for use by the general public as well as by employees for their meals and breaks. At the time they were ejected, union organizers Griffiths and Bolden were using the cafeteria in a manner con- sistent with its purpose, meeting with off-duty em- ployees while eating in the restaurant. The Board and the courts have traditionally held that solicita- tion in restaurants cannot be prohibited when, as in this case, the conduct of the nonemployee union organizers is consistent with the conduct of other patrons of the restaurant. Dunes Hotel & Country 1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3c1 Cir. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. 2 In adopting the judge's conclusion that the Respondent, through Nursing Director Dunkerson, coercively interrogated nurse Hobbs m vio- lation of Sec. 8(a)(1), we note that this finding is consistent with the Board's standards in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), which de- cision issued after the judge's decision in this case Thus, notwithstanding Hobbs' active support for the Union within the hospital, we find that the lengthy and persistent probing by Dunkerson, the high-level director of nursing, into Hobbs' union sympathies against Hobbs' will and in the con- fines of her supervisor's office, went beyond the bounds of any permissi- ble questioning Members Babson and Cracraft agree with the judge's dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(1) by disparately enforc- ing its no-distribution rule based on the circumstances here involving the occasional distribution of antiunion literature in patient-care areas by its supervisors. In so doing, however, they fmd it unnecessary to pass on the judge's reading of NLRB v United Steelworkers (Nutone, Inc.), 357 U S. 357 (1958). Club, 284 NLRB 871 (1987); Harold's Club, 267 NLRB 1167 (1983), enfd. 758 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1985); Ameron Automotive, 265 NLRB 511(1982); Montgomery Ward & Co., 263 NLRB 233 (1982), enfd. as modified 728 F.2d 389 (6th Cir. 1984); Montgomery Ward & Co., 256 NLRB 800, enfd. 692 F.2d 1115 (7th Cir. 1982); Marshall Field & Co., 98 NLRB 88 (1952), enfd. as modified 200 F.2d 375 (7th Cir. 1952). To hold otherwise would license a property owner to prohibit a union organizer from utilizing its restaurant solely because the organizer was discussing organizational activities. Such a pro- hibition, which discriminates on the exclusive basis of the union's organizational activity, flies in the face of the Supreme Court's admonition against dis- crimination on this basis when determining the pro- priety of access restrictions. NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112 (1956). 3 The Re- spondent could not prevent Griffiths and Bolden from using its public restaurant in an orderly way, not disruptive of its business. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Baptist Medical System, Little Rock, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 3 We do not view the majority position in Fatrmont Hotel, 282 NLRB 139 (1986), as conflictmg with this analysis. William D. Levy, Esq., for the General Counsel. James W. Moore and Michael S. Moore, Esqs. (Friday, El- dredge & Clark), of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the Re- spondent. Jay Thomas Youngdahl and Kirsten J. Bey, Esqs. (Young- dahl & Larrison), of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the Union. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried at Little Rock, Arkansas, August 26-27, 1982./ The charge was filed by February 1, and the complaint was issued March 12. After the Union prom- ised in writing that its staff members would abide 133 the Company's rules prohibiting nonemployees from solicit- ing or distributing literature in the hospital's public cafe- teria, the Company and Union orally agreed on condi- tions for the nonemployee organizers to discuss union representation with off-duty employees in the cafeteria. Later the Company reneged on the agreement and All dates are from November 1981 until August 1982. 288 NLRB No. 97 BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEM 883 threatened to have two organizers arrested if they did not leave the cafeteria. The primary issues are whether the Company, the Re- spondent, unlawfully (a) prohibited nonemployee orga- nizers from discussing union representation with off-duty employees in the public cafeteria, (b) engaged in surveil- lance of the employees' union activities in the cafeteria, (c) enforced its no-solicitation, no-distribution rule selec- tively and disparately in patient care areas, and (d) en- gaged in coercive interrogation, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Company, and the Union, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT L JURISDICTION The Company, a corporation, operates a hospital at Little Rock, Arkansas, where it annually derives over $250,000 in gross revenue and receives goods valued over $50,000 directly from outside the State. The Com- pany 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 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. U ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Solicitation and Distribution Rules The Company operates an 11-floor hospital, with about 700 patient rooms and from 1800 to 2100 full-time employees. The ground-floor cafeteria seats 300 or more persons and is open to the public, including visitors of patients and employees, and people from surrounding businesses Employees receive a discount on the food purchased. On November 5, Union Organizers Scott Griffiths and Mary Bolden passed out literature in the payroll line in the hallway at the hospital and left on the request of Per- sonnel Director Tom McCamey. On November 19, the Company revised its rules on solicitation and distribu- tion. As amended in a settlement agreement at the trial, the rules permit employees to distribute literature and so- licit other employees in the dining area of the cafeteria, employee lounges and restrooms, and parking lots during breaktime, mealtime, and before and after work. The revised rules (G.C. Exh. 5), under the heading "NON-EMPLOYEES," provide that: Visitors, patients and other non-employees may not solicit or distribute literature on any hospital property for any purpose at any time. Solicitation and/or distribution of matter by non-employees is prohibited on hospital property including both the interior of the buildings and the exterior property including parking lots and driveways. The nonemployee organizers did not attempt to pass out union material on the parking lots or on the freeway ramp leading to the hospital property. B. Expulsion of Organizers from Cafeteria 1. Agreement on nonemployee organizers On December 2, Organizer Griffiths wrote Personnel Director McCarney a letter (G.C. Exh. 3): This is to inform you that from time to time, staff members of the Professional and Office Division of the I.L.G.W.U. will be engaged in verbal discus- sions with Baptist Medical Center employees in the hospital cafeteria which, as you know, is open to the public. We want you to know that we are aware of, and will abide by, your solicitation and Distribution policy revision, dated November 19, 1981. Distribution of union literature in the cafeteria will only be done by employees of the Medical Center. On December 4 about 8 a.m., Organizers Griffiths and Bolden went to the cafeteria with two of the Company's nurses. They sat at a six-person table, with some union literature on the table in front of them (Tr. 161, 184-185, 312). They talked to nurses who came to the table. After a short time, Personnel Director McCamey ap- proached the table. As Organizer Griffiths credibly testi- fied, he asked if McCamey had received the (December 2) letter, and McCamey acknowledged that he had. McCamey asked if Griffiths and Bolden were going to be distributing or soliciting, and Griffiths "said we were not, that only the nurses would be distributing literature but that we would be there to answer questions." McCa- mey responded "that if we did what we said we were going to do, that that would be all right and he left." (Tr. 161). According to McCarney, when they answered that they were not there to solicit and distribute union literature, he said, "That will be fine. Just see that you don't. It is not permitted as you know from several weeks ago when we had another encounter where you were distributing, and that is not okay, and if you are a patron of the cafeteria, that is fine; but you cannot dis- tribute. It is our hospital rule." (Tr. 222.) Two of the nurses went from table to table, distribut- ing union leaflets and talking to other nurses, as permit- ted by the revised rules. When nurses came by the orga- nizers' table and asked about the Union, the organizers "preceded what we would say by saying that we will not and cannot sign you up in the cafeteria . . . that is prohibited in the cafeteria, but we will answer your ques- tions here" (Tr. 162). After Organizers Griffiths and Bolden had talked to a number of employees, some supervisors sat at their table. Then, on request, Griffiths would leave the table and go to other tables to answer questions (Tr. 166). Sometime before lunch, Personnel Director McCamey returned and said there were several restrictions he would like to impose. As credibly testified by Griffiths (who impressed me most favorably as an honest, forth- right witness), McCamey first stated he would like for the organizers to notify him when they came into the cafeteria on future occasions, "and I told him that I didn't think that we would do that, that I thought that 884 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD we could come into the cafeteria like any other citizens" (Tr. 166-167). McCamey next requested that the organiz- ers "remain at one table in the cafeteria and not to go from table to table." Griffiths asked that if they would agree to remain at one table, "would he then institute something so that supervisors would not come over and sit at that table, and Mr. McCamey agreed that he would do that" (Tr. 167). McCarney "thanked us for not solicit- ing. . . and sticking by what he had said, and we con- cluded the conversation . . . with a handshake" (Tr. 167-168). Griffiths and Bolden continued to talk to nurses under these guidelines, had lunch, and left about 1 or 1:30 (after being there between 4-1/2 and 5-1/2 hours). McCamey acknowledged knowing that the orga- nizers had been there about 4 hours (Tr. 243) while em- ployees were distributing the union literature (Tr. 242), but he denied having the second conversation with Grif- fiths (Tr. 255), denied reaching an agreement on restric- tions applying to the nonemployees, denied having au- thority to reach such an agreement (Tr. 230), and denied there was any union literature on the table (Tr. 242). He impressed me, by his demeanor, as not being entirely candid. I discredit his denials. 2. Threat of arrest On December 10, at the request of some of the hospi- tal nurses (Tr. 136, 141), Union Organizers Griffiths and Bolden went to the hospital cafeteria with union litera- ture for the nurses to distribute. They arrived shortly before 11 a.m., intending to remain there during the lunchtime until 1 o'clock (Tr. 307) to talk with any em- ployees who came to their table. During the half hour or so they were there, Griffiths purchased two cups of coffee and Bolden had one (Tr. 298). Shirley Laster, one of the nurses who invited the orga- nizers to bring the union literature, had told them that she would meet them in the cafeteria for lunch. After going through the line and paying for her meal, she had difficulty finding their table (Tr. 130). They were in the first section of the cafeteria, but away from the aisle, and Griffiths had his back to the cashier (Tr. 195). Griffiths had brought a letter-size stationery box con- taining literature used in the hospital campaign (Tr. 313). When nurse Carolyn Hobbs arrived, she took some of one of the union leaflets from the bottom of the stack and placed the other leaflets to the side of the box, with some union authorization cards on top (Tr. 173, 305- 306). She and another employee were distributing the lit- erature in the cafeteria. When Personnel Director McCamey arrived about 11:20 a.m., nurse Laster was eating her meal (Tr. 120) and Griffiths' and Bolden's cups were on the table (Tr. 304). The union literature was between Laster and the nurse sitting next to Griffiths (Tr. 3001. As Griffiths credibly testified, McCamey announced that he was changing the rules. He said that in the future, the two union organizers could remain in the caf- eteria only 15 minutes while having a drink and only half an hour to eat a meal. Griffiths asked if that rule applied to other citizens and McCamey answered no, it applied to them. Griffiths asked what happened, and McCarney responded that he was just changing the rules, that he thought they were soliciting. Griffiths assured him that they were not. McCamey then said he thought they were distributing literature, but Griffiths assured him they were not, that only the nurses were doing so. (Tr. 172.) Griffiths said he did not intend to abide by the changes in the rules (Tr. 201) and, after further discus- sion McCamey said, "I want you out now." Griffiths asked, "This means we don't even get our 15 minutes to drink our coffee?" and McCamey answered, "No, I want you out now." (Tr. 172.) McCamey "said if we didn't get out of there that we were going to be arrested" (Tr. 173-174). McCamey left to alert the security police. After finishing his coffee (Tr. 304), Griffiths as well as Bolden prepared to leave. Thus, when threatened with arrest if they did not leave the public cafeteria, Organizers Griffiths and Bolden were complying with both the Union's written promises (that they would abide by the Company's re- vised rules and that only the employees would distribute union literature there) and their oral agreement with Per- sonnel Director McCamey that they would neither solic- it or distribute literature, but would remain at one table to merely answer questions. When McCamey returned to the table, Organizers Griffiths and Bolden had already gone. It is undisputed, as nurse Laster credibly testified (Tr. 121), that [McCamey] apologized to me for interrupting my lunch, and I said that that is okay but that I didn't feel that he had the right to ask Scott and Mary to leave because they were our guests and I thought we had the right to have our union material in the cafeteria. It is also undisputed, as nurse Laster credibly testified, that her daughter often comes and waits 2 hours or longer in the cafeteria to have lunch with Laster, that the daughter never purchases food but brings her college books and studies while waiting, and that nobody has at- tempted to take her books away from her or asked her to leave (Tr. 134-35). McCamey admitted that he had never informed any- body that the public could stay in the cafeteria only 15 minutes for a cup of coffee or 30 minutes for a meal (Tr. 242). He also admitted that he had never "thrown people out of the cafeteria before who were not creating a ruckus" (Tr. 257). I discredit McCamey's claim that he directed the orga- nizers to leave the cafeteria because he believed they were there to distribute the union literature (Tr. 256- 257). He admitted that he had not seen them handing out anything (Tr. 245, 256), that he did not see them ask any employee to sign a card (Tr. 239-240), and that he did not have any report that they were handing out litera- ture, signing up employees, or going from table to table talking to employees (Tr. 240, 245-246). I find instead that he reneged on his December 4 oral agreement with the organizers on conditions for their sitting at a cafete- ria table and answering employee questions, and ordered them to leave, to limit their access to hospital employees during the organizing drive. BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEM 885 3. Contentions of the parties The General Counsel contends that the peaceful ques- tion-and-answer sessions between employees and nonem- ployee organizers in the hospital's public cafeteria, for the purpose of communicating to employees the advan- tages of union representation, were a protected activity. He contends that the union organizers were utilizing the cafeteria in a manner consistent with its normal use, without interfering with patient care. "Indeed, on the or- ganizers' first visit to the hospital on December 4, [Per- sonnel Director] McCarney recognized that there was no danger of disruption by allowing the organizers to remain in the facility for a minimum of four hours. McCamey's 'change of heart' on December 11 can only be attributed to his desire to thwart the Union's organizing effort and can in no way be attributed to any belief that the orga- nizers' presence would be disruptive of any business or medical functions." The Union contends that "the hospital cannot prohibit union organizers from meeting by appointment with off- duty employees in the public cafeteria, even for union purposes, unless there is clear evidence that the nonem- ployees are using the facility in a manner inconsistent with its purpose." "Even if hospitals can enforce stricter regulations on union activity, because of the particular nature of their business—provision of health care—the employer presented no evidence that the activities of the union organizers interfered with health care delivery." It contends, "The employees of Baptist Medical System were engaged in protected activity when they invited union organizers to meet with them in a public cafete- ria." Asserting that the union organizers did not violate the hospital's rule against nonemployee solicitation and distribution, the Union argues that "To deny access to premises open to the public solely because of a disagree- ment over the message denies employees their statutory self-organizational rights." In its brief, the Company advanced a theory under which it could contend that Union Organizers Griffiths and Bolden were violating the rule against nonemployees soliciting and distributing literature in the cafeteria. Ig- noring the undisputed evidence that the organizers were invited by the employees and requested to bring the union literature, which the employees voluntarily distrib- uted (Tr. 136, 141), the Company goes outside the record and asserts that the organizers "had employee supporters circulate through the cafeteria and distribute literature to other employees"; Respondent contends that the union organizers by design 'set up shop' in the cafeteria in order to solicit and distribute through employee messen- gers." It then argues that this case should be analyzed under the law as set out in NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1956), in which "the Supreme Court held that an employer could validly prohibit nonem- ployee distribution of literature on the employer's prop- erty, so long as the Union still had reasonable means through 'which to take its message to employees"; and in Meier & Frank Co., 198 NLRB 491 (1972), in which "the Board recognized that an employer can prohibit nonem- ployee solicitation or distribution on its premises" under the Babcock & Wilcox rule, "even if such premises are open to the public." I disagree and find the two deci- sions, involving nonemployee solicitation and distribu- tion, are not controlling. 4. Concluding findings On December 2, the Union promised in writing that its staff members, when engaged in discussions with em- ployees in the hospital's public cafeteria, would abide by the Company's revised policy against nonemployee solic- itation and distribution, and that only employees would distribute union literature in the cafeteria. On December 4, when Union Organizers Griffiths and Bolden visited the cafeteria for about 5 hours and ate lunch before leav- ing, Personnel Director McCamey interpreted the Com- pany's own rules and reached an oral agreement with the two organizers that their presence in the public cafeteria was permitted if they would remain at one table while answering employee questions and if only employees dis- tributed the union literature. On December 10, at the request of some of the hospi- tal nurses, Griffiths and Bolden again took some union literature to the cafeteria for the nurses to distribute. They sat at a table, drinking coffee and talking to off- duty nurses who came to the table. Two of the nurses took some of the literature and were distributing it to others in the cafeteria. Griffiths and Bolden abided by their agreement not to solicit or distribute any literature. They remained at the one table and did not speak to caf- eteria employees or other employees who were on duty, did not solicit or distribute any literature to anyone, and did not do anything to attract attention or create a dis- turbance. After the two nonemployee organizers were there about 30 minutes, Personnel Director McCamey went to the table; advised them that they could remain only 15 minutes while having a drink and 30 minutes to eat a meal; stated that the changed rule applied only to them, not to other citizens; ordered them to leave the cafeteria; and threatened to have them arrested if they did not get out. After Griffiths finished his coffee, the two organiz- ers left. Recently in Montgomery Ward & Co., 263 NLRB 233 (1982), the Board found that the employer violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by causing the arrest and removal of nonemployee union representatives from its public snackbar. The representatives had purchased beverages, sat at a table, and spoken to employees who approached them or sat at their table. The Board found that "the union representatives were not attempting to use the public snackbar in a manner inconsistent with its pur- pose." In the present case, hospital nurses were engaging in self-organization when soliciting and distributing union literature in the hospital's public cafeteria during break- time and mealtime, as permitted by the Company's solici- tation and distribution rules. When expelled from the caf- eteria, Union Organizers Griffiths and Bolden were the nurses' lawfully invited guests, assisting the nurses in their organizational efforts by answering any employee questions regarding union representation. The organizers were not soliciting or distributing any literature and, while remaining seated at one table, were utilizing the 886 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cafeteria in a manner consistent with its normal use, without interfering with patient care. I find that the nurses were engaged in protected activity when they in- vited the union organizers and referred other employees to them for answers to any questions concerning union representation. Under these circumstances, I fmd that the Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, violating Section 8(a)(1) by ordering the union organizers to leave the public cafeteria on threat of arrest. C. Surveillance Both on December 4 and 10, when Union Organizers Griffiths and Bolden were sitting at a table in the cafete- ria and employees were going from table to table, distrib- uting union literature, the hospital's security guards were present in the cafeteria and observing the union activity. Also on December 4, some supervisors sat and ate at the table where the two organizers were seated, apparently not realizing that they were union representatives. When this was called to Personnel Director McCamey's atten- tion, he agreed to prevent a recurrence. I agree with the Company's contention that it had a legitimate right to have its security personnel present to ensure that nonemployees did not violate the no-solicita- tion, no-distribution rule. There is no showing that the presence of the security guards tended to inhibit employ- ee interest or participation in unionization, or that the su- pervisors on the one occasion intentionally sat at the or- ganizers' table to inhibit any union activity. I therefore find no violation of the employees' Section 7 rights and dismiss the allegation. D. Disparate Enforcement of Rule The Company's November 19 rule prohibits employees from distributing literature in working areas at any time. Although supervisors have been instructed not to dis- tribute the Company's antiunion literature in patient-care areas (Tr. 262), nurses Hobbs and Laster credibly testi- fied that supervisors have done so on occasion (Tr.58-62, 123-126). The complaint alleges that this is selective and disparate enforcement of the no-distribution rule. The Supreme Court has held, however, that no-solici- tation, no-distribution rules are not binding on employ- ers. As the Court held in NLRB v. Steelworkers (Nutone, Inc.), 357 U.S. 357, 362 (1958), an employer's right to engage in noncoercive, antiunion solicitation is "protect- ed by the. . . 'employer free speech' provision of § 8(c) of the Act." I therefore find that the allegation must be dismissed. E. Interrogation On December 14, nurse Hobbs was sent by Supervisor Ruthie Miller to Miller's office for Director of Nursing Ann Dunkerson to speak to her (Tr. 65). As Hobbs (who impressed me as being a careful, conscientious witness) credibly testified, Dunkerson began by stating, , "I under- stand that you are prounion and that you have passed out protmion material in the cafeteria" (Tr. 66). After Hobbs admitted this to be correct and Dunkerson stated that Hobbs was within her rights, but cautioned her about doing so only on her free time, Dunkerson "said that several nurses had complained to [Personnel Direc- tor] McCamey that I had infringed on their time in the cafeteria . . . and that the hospital has a right to protect the time of these nurses and their rights." Although Hobbs assured Dunkerson that she would not "force my views upon these nurses" and they could speak up if they did not want to listen, Dunkerson said she would report back to McCamey, that McCamey would be watching this, and that "the hospital would enforce its right to protect the nurses against prounion people who infringed on their time such as myself?' (Tr. 66.) Dun- kerson thus ignored Hobb's comment that nurses could speak up if they did not want to listen about the Union, and her promise not to force her views on the nurses. He did not explain what she meant by "protecting" nurses against Hobbs and other union supporters. Then Nursing Director Dunkerson began interrogating nurse Hobbs about her union support, first asking her why she was prounion. Hobbs indicated that she did not want to discuss it (Tr. 107) by stating that she would not debate the issue with her, but Dunkerson persisted, stat- ing that she did not want to debate, but "was interested in my views as a personal interest" (Tr. 67). After Hobbs answered, Dunkerson asked "why I had decided to go prounion," "what my dissatisfactions with the hospital were," "if I felt that my needs were heard whenever I expressed them to my supervisor and to her," "if I felt like the nurses had unity," "if I had any problems with her leadership or the leadership of my supervisor," and "what the union could do for me that the hospital could not do" (Tr. 67-68). After Hobbs gave frank, truthful an- swers, Dunkerson said "the hospital would enforce its rights to protect the nurses [again without stating how], that it was their responsibility, that I should watch my time. . . and be aware of my actions." This was the first time Dunkerson or any other supervisor had asked Hobbs to express her grievances or complaints. When asked on cross-examination if the Company had taken any disciplinary action against her for supporting the Union, Hobbs indicated her current concern about whether she would receive her customary raise, or lose from receiving it late, after a delay of 4 or 6 weeks in receiving her evaluation (Tr. 90-91, 93). Dunkerson gave a different version of the conversation and denied interrogating Hobbs (Tr. 287-291). Hobbs im- pressed me as being the more trustworthy witness; I credit her version and discredit Dunkerson's denials. (I also reject as hearsay C.P. Exh. 1, Hobb's notes of the conversation.) I find that the lengthy interrogation of this active union supporter—against her will in her supervisor's office, by the high-level director of nursing—tended to coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The interrogation was in the context of repeated ambiguous statements by Nursing Director Dunkerson that the Company would "protect" nurses against Hobbs and other prounion nurses—indicating the Company's strong displeasure with Hobbs' union activity, despite Hobbs' promise not to force her views on the nurses. Durtkerson persisted with the probing into her union sen- BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEM 887 timents after she indicated that she did not want to dis- cuss the matter, and gave her no assurances against com- pany reprisals, even after she admitted her strong proun- ion feelings. Dunkerson gave no valid reason for a person in her position conducting such a probe into Hobbs' union sympathies and reasons for supporting the Union. I therefore find that the interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By ordering the union organizers to leave the hospi- tal's public cafeteria on threat of arrest, interfering with, restraining„ and coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Company's security guards and supervisors did not engage in unlawful surveillance of the employees' union activities. 3. The Company did not unlawfully enforce its no-so- licitation, no-distribution rule selectively and disparately in the patient-care areas. 4. By engaging in coercive interrogation, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1). REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed2 ORDER The Respondent, Baptist Medical System, Little Rock, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Unlawfully ordering union organizers to leave the hospital's public cafeteria on threat of arrest. (b) Coercively interrogating any employee about union support or sympathy. 2 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. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its facility in Little Rock, Arkansas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, 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. (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 3 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 Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has Or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT unlawfully order union organizers to leave the hospital's public cafeteria upon threat of arrest. WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your union support or sympathies. 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 a the Act. BAPTIST MEDICAL SYSTEM