People Care, Inc.

PEOPLE CARE 875 People Care, Incorporated and Local 32B-32J-144, Service Employees International Union, AFL- CIO. Case 2-CA-23291 September 27, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND OVIATT On April 25, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Steven Davis issued the attached decision The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief The Charging Party and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and supporting briefs The Re- spondent filed an answering brief to the cross-ex- ceptions of the Charging Party and the General Counsel 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, cross-exceptions, and briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified On September 15, 1988, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative designating the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the Respondent's home health care workers On September 26, 1988, the Union re- quested the scheduling of collective-bargaining meetings, and additionally requested that the Re- spondent provide it with a list of the names and ad- dresses of bargaining unit employees The Re- spondent replied that it would hold the Union's bargaining request "in abeyance" pending the Board's disposition of its request for review of the Regional Director's certification of representative 1 The Respondent further replied that its employee list was a confidential trade secret and would only be provided pursuant to a Federal district court protective order ensuring that the Union would not reveal the list to the Respondent's competitors or direct employees to those competitors for employ- ment Several letters ensued in which the parties' coun- sel unsuccessfully sought to resolve the information request The Respondent indicated that it was ame- nable to the Union's proposal to employ a private mailing service The Respondent continued to insist on a Federal court protective order, however, which the Union opposed 'We agree with the Judge, for the reasons set forth by him, that the Respondent thereby refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Sec 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to pro- vide the Union with the list of names and addresses of unit employees The judge found that the Re- spondent did not meet its burden of proving the confidentiality of the requested information Never- theless, the judge found that some accommodation of the Respondent's confidentiality concerns was appropriate Accordingly, the judge, noting the Union's settlement proposal, ordered the Respond- ent to retain a private mailing service to mail to unit employees all communications from the Union, without any monitoring, censoring, or inspection of that mail by the Respondent Under the terms of the judge's remedy, the Union would not receive the list of the names and addresses of unit employ- ees, and the Respondent would not receive a Fed- eral court protective order We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refus- ing to provide the Union with a list of the names and addresses of unit employees We do not adopt the judge's recommended remedy, however It is well settled that the names and addresses of unit employees are presumptively relevant to a union's role as bargaining agent Georgetown Hoh- day Inn, 235 NLRB 485, 486 (1978) Consequently, an employer bears the burden of proving confiden- tiality as a defense to providing that information Howard University, 290 NLRB 1006 (1988) We agree with the judge that the Respondent has not met its burden in this regard The record indicates that the Respondent's confidentiality m- terest in its employee list is far from absolute As the judge noted, approximately 25 percent of the Respondent's employees also work for its competi- tors One-quarter of the Respondent's work force is thus already known to the Respondent's competi- tors Additionally, several of the Respondent's su- pervisors are privy to the entire list, while other supervisors have regular access to portions of the list The Respondent's president testified that super- visors are not required to guarantee the confiden- tiality of the list when leavmg the Respondent's employ and securing employment at similar firms, as about 10 have done smce 1977 Further, the Respondent's president testified that he had no evidence that the Umon would turn over the list to the Respondent's competitors 2 In the absence of any evidence that the Union would disclose the list to the Respondent's competitors, or any assertion by the Respondent that the Union has a Indeed, the Union stated in Its letter to the Respondent dated March 29, 1989, that It had no intention of disclosing the names and addresses to Respondent's competitors, and noted the Respondent's continued refusal to accept the Union's assurances in this regard 299 NLRB No 127 876 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been in the past unreliable in abiding by its assur- ance not to do so, we find the mailing service ac- commodation recommended by the judge not to be warranted Pertec Computer Corp, 284 NLRB 810, 811 (1987) We shall therefore order the Respond- ent to furnish the Union with the names and ad- dresses of unit employees Although the Respondent's confidentiality con- cerns are far from absolute, the Respondent has demonstrated an interest in ensuring that the list is not divulged to its competitors We recognize that the Respondent does take certain measures to pro- tect the list locking it in a safe at night, and termi- nating several employees caught attempting to copy the list Thus, we shall direct that on receipt of the list of names and addresses from the Re- spondent, the Union refrain from disclosing any of that information to Respondent's competitors or any other unnecessary persons Howard University, supra ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, People Care, Incorporated, New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragragh 2(a) "(a) Recognize and, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the above-described unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement" 2 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b) "(b) Bargain m good faith with the Union by fur- nishing it with the names and addresses of all bar- gaining unit employees, provided that on receipt of this information the Union, its officers, agents, members, and attorneys shall not divulge the infor- mation to the Respondent's competitors or any other unnecessary persons" 3 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED AND MAILED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and mail and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of our employees in the following appropriate unit All full-time and regular part-time home health care workers, including home health aides, junior home health aides, nurses aides, homemakers, personal care workers, and housekeepers employed by us out of our facili- ty at 300 Park Avenue South, New York, New York, excluding all other employees, in- cluding registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, office clerical and professional employ- ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union by refusing to meet and bargain with the Union until the Board ruled on our Re- quest for Review of the Certification of Represent- ative WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union by refusing to furnish the Union with the information it requested in its letter of September 26, 1988 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the above-descnbed unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understandmg m a signed agreement WE WILL bargain in good faith with the Union by furnishing it with the names and addresses of all bargaining unit employees, provided that upon re- ceipt of this information the Union, its officers, agents, members, and attorneys shall not divulge the information to the Respondent's competitors or any other unnecessary persons PEOPLE CARE, INCORPORATED Polly Chill, Esq , for the General Counsel David Lew, Esq (Goetz Fitzpatrick & Flynn, Esqs ), of New York, New York, for the Respondent Ira A Sturm, Esq (Manning, Raab, Dealy & Sturm, Esqs ), of New York, New York, for the Charging Party PEOPLE CARE 877 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge Pursuant to a charge filed by Local 32B-32J-144, Service Employ- ees International Umon, AFL-CIO (Union) on January 26, 1989, a complaint was issued by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 2 on February 8, 1989, alleging that People Care, Incorporated (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act The complaint alleged that following certification by the Board the Union requested that the Respondent (a) bargain with it and (b) furnish it with the names and addresses of all its unit employees, and that the Respondent failed and refused such requests Respondent filed an answer to the complaint in which it denied the material allegations thereof, and a hearing was held before me in New York City on May 10, 1989 On the entire record, including my observation of the sole witness, and after considering the briefs filed by all parties, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent, a New York corporation, having its prin- cipal place of business at 300 Park Avenue South, New York, New York, is engaged in the busmess of providing housekeeping services to yanous disabled and elderly in- dividuals Annually, m its business operations, Respond- ent derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and pur- chases and receives at its facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $25,000 directly from points outside New York State Respondent 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 Re- spondent also admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Facts On September 15, 1988, the Union was certified by the Board as the bargaining representative of Respondent's employees The Union requested from Respondent the names and addresses of its employees Respondent concedes that the Union is entitled, for the purposes of collective bargaining, to a list of the names and addresses of its employees Nevertheless, Respondent admits that it has not supplied it with such a list It as- serts that it is willing to turn over the list, but requires certain protection against disclosure of the list to its competitors, and assurances that the workers will not be encouraged to work for such competing firms Respondent is a firm which provides certified home health care workers, home health aides, personal care workers, and housekeepers to sick persons in the five boroughs of New York City It employs some 800 to 900 workers, who regularly work for it It also maintains a roster of 1000 other people who are either awaiting as- signment or are working for other similar employers The people served by these workers have just been discharged from hospitals or other institutions to recu- perate at home Requests for the services of a health care worker are made to Respondent by hospitals, medical centers, and nursing associations Those organizations have contracts with Respondent for it to furnish such workers as needed Those institutions also have contracts with other, similar home health care agencies Jerry Lewkowitz, Respondent's president, stated that there are a couple of hundred other health care agencies in the New York City area, and the institutions he has con- tracts with may have agreements with 4 to 6 or up to 16 other agencies to provide home health care workers They use several agencies because generally one is not sufficient to fill the need for such workers When an order is received for a health care worker, Respondent attempts to locate an aide who has the skills necessary for such a patient, is geographically close to the patient, and available The worker is phoned and the assignment made The great majority of Respondent's employees come to its Manhattan offices only twice per year, at which time they receive mandatory m-service training They may come more frequently, for example, to receive their checks, or to attend additional in-service training, but such additional training is voluntary 1 When Respondent wishes to communicate with its employees on a mass basis, it does so by mail On June 29, 1987, the Union filed a petition in Case 2- RC-20393, in which it sought to represent certain em- ployees of the Respondent Following a hearing, a Deci- sion and Direction of Election was issued on April 27, 1988 On May 31, 1988, the Respondent filed a request for review with the Board, which raised the same confiden- tiality issue, with respect to the Excelsior list, as made here The General Counsel asserts that the Board denied the request for review on July 1, 1988 However, the record does not contain such a document The Respondent provided an Excelsior list of employee names and addresses to the Regional Director on the condition that the list not be provided to the Union The Union agreed to proceed to an election without the eligi- bility list, but reserved its right to file election objections based on its nonreceipt of the list The Regional Director proceeded with the election, but noted that m approving those arrangements, he did not imply that the Respond- ent's conduct was legitimate, nonobjectionable, or of pre- cedennal value Following the election, the Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa- tive on September 15, 1988, in which he held that the Umon was the certified, exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees of the Respondent in the following unit All full-time and regular part-time home health care workers, including home health aides, junior home health aides, nurses aides, homemakers, personal 'About 100 to 150 employees come weekly to Respondent's New York City office to receive their paychecks 878 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD care workers and housekeepers employed by the Employer out of its facility at 300 Park Avenue South, New York, New York, excluding all other employees, including registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, office clerical and professional em- ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act Respondent's answer denied that the above unit was appropriate I find no merit to this denial Following the issuance of the Certification of Repre- sentative, Ira Sturm, the Union's attorney, wrote to Re- spondent on September 26, 1988, requesting that it con- tact him to "arrange for the scheduling of meetings for the purpose of collective bargaining" The letter further stated that "in order that the Union may service the unit employees, it is requested that the Union be provided with a current list containing all names and addresses of employees currently employed in the unit as certified" On September 29, 1988, David Lew, the Respondent's attorney, wrote to Sturm, advising that Respondent in- tended to file a request for review of the supplemental decision, and "m view of the outstanding Request for Review, we must hold your letter of September 26, 1988 in abeyance until such time as the National Labor Rela- tions Board will have issued its decision" Respondent filed a request for review, which was not included in the record in the instant case, and on January 18, 1989, the Board denied the request for review On January 23, 1989, Strum wrote to Respondent, re- newing his request of September 26, 1988 Subsequent to the issuance of the complaint in this matter, Respondent's attorney, by letter of March 24, 1989, stated that the list of the names and addresses of Respondent's employees constituted a "confidential trade secret" in that it represents its sole asset, which if re- vealed to its competitors, would mean that Respondent would be forced out of business Lew stated that Re- spondent would be willing to provide the Union with such a list "for the sole purpose of the Union's utilizing that information during collective bargaining negotia- tions" However, Lew wrote that "this can only be done if [Respondent] is provided with a protective order from the Federal District Court insuring that the Union would not reveal the contents of that list to any of our competitors and/or utilize that list for the purpose of di- recting our employees to such competitors to seek em- ployment with them" In its reply, Union Attorney Sturn stated that it was not the Union's intent to disclose the names and address- es of the employees to competitors, adding, however, that advising employees of better paying jobs elsewhere was the Union's right Sturm stated that the Union would not agree to the issuance of a protective order Sturm proposed that the Union prepare mailings, which would be sent to all unit employees by a private mailing service retained by Respondent The contents of the mailings would not be monitored by Respondent Lew's letter of April 4 stated that the Union's sugges- tion of a private mailing service was acceptable to Re- spondent, but added that a protective order in conjunc- tion with that offer was still necessary A bargaining session was held on April 17, 1989, and another meeting was scheduled for May Respondent's president, Jerry Lewkowitz, testified that the thrust of its business is its ability to provide aides to its customers If its employees were directed to its com- petitors and leave Respondent's employ, Respondent would be out of business Lewkowitz also testified that Respondent constantly recruits employees—by newspaper advertisements, job fairs, and by "pirating" employees from other employ- ment agencies He stated that such stealing of workers is common in this industry Lewkowitz stated that Respondent maintains two copies of a roster of all its employees The entire list is available to the three or four coordinators or supervisors employed by Respondent However, other supervisors are provided with only that part of the list which per- tains to the geographical area they are working on For example, if a supervisor seeks an aide to work in Brook- lyn, he will use the Brooklyn list He further stated that he did not believe that Respondent requires its supervi- sors or office workers to sign a statement that they will not release the names of the workers on the list Since 1977, about 10 supervisors have transferred to other companies None of the supervisors or coordinators are permitted to take the list, which is kept m a safe at night, out of the office, or copy it Lewkowitz stated that on three or four occasions, employees were caught attempt- ing to steal the list, and they were discharged Lewkowitz stated that he had no evidence that the Union would turn over the list to Respondent's competi- tors B Analysts and Conclusions 1 The refusal to meet and bargain The complaint alleges that by letter dated September 29, 1988, Respondent failed and refused to meet and bar- gain with the Union As set forth above, following an election, the Union was certified, on September 15, 1988, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employee in an appropriate unit Thereafter, the Union requested, on September 26, that Respondent contact it to arrange collective-bargaining sessions Respondent's attorney wrote on September 29 advising that he intended to seek review of the Certifica- tion of Representative and stated that he would hold the Union's request for bargaining "in abeyance" until the Board issued its decision The General Counsel argues that Respondent's re- sponse constitutes a refusal to bargain Respondent argues that inasmuch as collective-bar- gaining sessions have commenced, any violation which has occurred is only "technical" in nature, and need not be remedied As the Board has stated in Beloit Corp, 285 NLRB No 12 fn 4 (July 30, 1987) (not reported in Board vol- umes) An employer is obligated to bargain with a umon upon request once a Regional Director has issued a PEOPLE CARE 879 certification of representative, even though there has been no final action by the Board on review Madison Detective Bureau, 250 NLRB 398 (1980), Allstate Insurance Co, 234 NLRB 193 (1978) Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent's statement following the certification of the Union, that it would hold the Union's request for bargaining in abey- ance pending the Board's decision on its request for review, constituted a refusal to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 2 The refusal to supply information Respondent argues that the names and addresses of its employees are confidential information, constituting a "trade secret" which can only be disclosed to the Union with a protective order The General Counsel and the Union contend that Re- spondent may not raise the issue of the confidentiality of the names and addresses of its employees by virtue of its argument to the Board, in its request for review, that the Excelsior rule be modified in order to preserve its "trade secret" The Board denied the request for review, and it is argued that that denial precludes Respondent from raising in this unfair labor practices case the defense that the list is confidential The General Counsel and the Union argue that Re- spondent, having raised the issue of confidentiality in the representation case, may not now rehtigate this issue here They rely upon Section 102 67(0 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which states in relevant part Denial of a request for review shall constitute an af- firmance of the Regional Director's action which shall also preclude rehtigatmg any such issues in any related subsequent unfair labor practice pro- ceeding Here, the Regional Director, in effect, took no action on Respondent's confidentiality argument Rather, the Union agreed to proceed to an election without an Ex- celsior list The list was provided to the Regional Office only, which mailed ballots to the voters In fact, in his Decision and Direction of Election, the Regional Direc- tor noted that his approval of such an arrangement did not imply that Respondent's conduct was legitimate, nonobjectionable, or of precedential value It also cannot be said that the issue of the alleged confidentiality of the requested information was fully litigated in the represen- tation proceeding Accordingly, I find that Respondent is not precluded from raising this issue here The complaint alleges that the information requested, the names and addresses of Respondent's employees, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union's performance of its function as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep- resentative of the unit employees The Board has consist- ently held that information such as the names and ad- dresses of unit employees "is presumptively necessary and relevant to the Union in its role as a collective-bar- gaining representative" American Commercial Lines, 291 NLRB 1066 (1988), such information is necessary either during contract negotiations or during the term of an agreement, and no showing of particularized need is nec- essary Laminates Unlimited, 292 NLRB 595 (1989) Accordingly, I find that the information requested is clearly relevant and necessary to the Union's function as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit em- ployees Although the requested information may be rele- vant, an employer may not be required to produce it if such production violates confidentiality and pnvilege The Respondent's claim of confidentiality must be balanced against the Union's need for rele- vant information in pursuit of its role as a represent- ative of the employees [Howard University, 290 NLRB 1006, 1007 (1988) ] The party asserting confidentiality has the burden of proving the confidential nature of the information re- quested Howard University, supra, Island Creek Coal Co, 289 NLRB 851 (1988) Respondent asserts that the names and addresses of its employees are confidential because they constitute the heart of its business Its ability to provide its employees to the health care agencies is the essence of its enterprise It argues that if this list was disseminated to its competi- tors it would be out of business It thus reasons that by providing the list to its competitors its employees would thereby cease employment with it and become employed by its competitors There is no evidence that this would, in fact, occur assuming that the list was disseminated Al- though Respondent keeps the list in a safe at night, sev- eral supervisors and coordinators have access to it during the day Through the years, people as those positions have left Respondent's employ and have become em- ployed with its competitors There was no evidence that they were required to maintain the confidentiality of the list upon their leaving Respondent's employ, and indeed they could have taken parts of it at vanous times In ad- dition, the evidence established that about 25 percent of its employees work for other agencies, Respondent's competitors, at the same tune, or at varying intervals This appears logical since a health care worker might be ending her employ with one agency, and not having an- other job with that agency might seek employment with a different agency Accordingly, Respondent's competi- tors already have a list of the names and addresses of 25 percent of Respondent's employees In addition, the insti- tution which requests the home health care aide has the name of the employee and the address of the patient at which the aide is working Given the above facts, it does not appear that Re- spondent's list of names and addresses has been treated as confidential, because of the access to the list of its super- visors and coordinators who are not required to sign any statement of confidentiality with respect to it, the fre- quent movement of its employees between its employ and the employ of its competitors, and the access of its customers to the names of the aides, and the address at which they are working I accordingly find that Respondent has not proven that its list of the names and addresses of its employees is confidential and a trade secret Even assuming that the 880 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD information requested was confidential, it is still "viola- tive of the Act for an employer to refuse to make the information available where there is no evidence which would show that its confidentiality would, in some way, be abused" Island Creek Coal Go, 289 NLRB 851 (1988) Indeed, Respondent's president testified that he had no evidence that the Union would turn over such a list to Respondent's competitors Here, any assurance given by the Union that the information would be kept confidential would be insufficient to satisfy Respondent, which at all times has insisted that the Union submit to a protective order issued by a U S distnct court Although I do not find that Respondent's claim of confidentiality of its employee list has merit, I believe that some accommodation is necessary, as suggested by the Union In dealing with union requests for relevant but as- sertedly confidential information, we are required to balance a union's need for such information against any "legitimate and substantial" confidentiality in- terests established by the employer, accommodating the parties' respective interests insofar as feasible in determining the employer's duty to supply the in- formation The accommodation appropriate in each individual case would necessarily depend upon its particular circumstances [Minnesota Mining di Mfg Co , 261 NLRB 27, 30 (1982)] In engaging in such a balancing effort, the Respond- ent's interests in keeping its list of names and addresses confidential must be weighed against the Union's need to communicate with the employees it represents This need is especially important here where the Union was recent- ly certified by the Board after lengthy proceedings, and collective-bargaining negotiations have begun It is im- perative for the Union, in such circumstances, to be able to communicate with its constituency in order to learn the employees' desires concerning demands to be made to Respondent, their responses to counteroffers, and their views on the collective-bargaining process generally Notwithstanding that the Union has been certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees, and negotiations have begun, it has not yet been able to be in contact with the employees it represents Alternative means of direct communication with the employees do not exist The evidence establishes that employees are given their assignments by phone by Re- spondent, and then travel directly from their homes to the patient's home Only about 15 percent of the employ- ees visit Respondent's New York City office weekly for their paychecks, and the employees are required to report to that office only twice per year for in-service education Accordingly, it is not feasible for the Union to contact the employees at Respondent's office The only available means to contact the approximately 800 to 900 employees is by mail The union, as the statutory exclusive bargaining agent for all the employees in the unit, was obliged by the Act to fairly represent the interests of all the employees in the unit and to perform this statutory duty adequately, it was necessary that the Union be able to communicate with those whom it represent- ed It seems manifest beyond dispute that the Union cannot discharge its obligation unless it is able to communicate with those in whose behalf it acts Thus, a union must be able to inform the em- ployees of its negotiations with the employer and obtain their views as to bargaining priorities in order that its position may reflect their wishes [Pearl Bookbinding, 213 NLRB 532, 534 (1974)1 Accordingly, under a balancing test, the Union's need to communicate with the employee it represents must outweigh the allegedly confidential nature of the infor- mation requested The Union, during bargaining, has offered to prepare mailings, which would be mailed by a private mailing service retained by Respondent, to the unit employees Such mailings would be made without any monitoring or censuring by Respondent Respondent has accepted such an offer, however, with the condition that a protective order be agreed to by the Union The Union has refused to agree to the issuance of a prtective order I believe that the Union's offer constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances The Union has made this suggestion during bargaining, and the Re- spondent has accepted the concept This solution will preserve the confidentiality of the list of names and ad- dresses, while at the same time permit the Union unlimit- ed communication the employees it represents I will issue and appropriate order CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Respondent, People Care, Incorporated, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 Local 32B-32J-144, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The following employees of the Respondent consti- tute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All full-time and regular part-time home health care workers, including home health aides, junior home health aides, nurses housekeepers employed by Re- spondent out of its 300 Park Ave, South, New York, New York facility, excluding all other em- ployees, practical nurses, office clerical and profes- sional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act 4 Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act on September 29, 1989, by failing and refusing to meet and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of its employees in the unit described above, by asserting that it would not meet and bargain until the Board ruled on its request for review 5 Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, on and after September 29, 1989, by refusing, on re- quest, to provide the Union with information relevant and necessary to the performance of its obligation as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative in the ap- PEOPLE CARE 881 propnate unit, by refusing to provide a list of names and addresses of its unit employees to the Union 6 The unfair labor practices set forth above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, it shall be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act It shall be recommended that Respondent be ordered to bargain on request with the Union and, if and under- standing is reached, to embody the understanding in a signed agreement I shall also recommend that the Re- spondent be ordered to retain a private mailing service and direct that service to mail to all the employees in the above appropriate bargaining unit, all pieces of mail given to the mailing service by the Union, without any monitoring or censuring or inspection of such mail by Respondent Inasmuch as employees generally do not visit Re- spondent's office, I shall recommend that a copy of the notice be mailed to each of the unit employees, as well as posted at Respondent's premises On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I make the following recommend- ed2 ORDER The Respondent, People Care, Incorporated, New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of employees in the following appropriate unit All full-time and regular part-time home health care workers, including home health aides, junior home health aides, nurses aides, homemakers, personal care workers, and housekeepers employed by Re- spondent out of its 300 Park Ave South, New York, New York facility, excluding all other em- 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 ployees, including registered nurses, licensed practi- cal nurses, office clerical and professional employ- ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act (b) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union by refusmg to meet and bargain with the Union until the Board ruled on its request for review of the certification of representative (c) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union by refusing to furnish the Union with the information it requested in its letter of September 26, 1988, in the manner described below (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, co- ercing, or restraining 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) Recognize and, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit described above (b) Bargain in good faith with the Union, by retaining a private mailing service, and mstructmg it to mail to all employees in the appropnate unit described above, all pieces of mail given to the mailing service by the Union None of the contents of the mailings provided by the Union to the mailing service shall be inspected, moni- tored, or censured by Respondent (c) Post at its New York, New York premises copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other matenal In addition, copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be sent by Respondent to all employees who are or have been employed by Respondent in the appropriate bargaining unit set forth above during the period September 29, 1988, to the present (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply 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"