Asociacion Hospital Del Maestro, Inc.

ASOCIACION HOSPITAL DEL MAESTRO 853 Asociacion Hospital del Maestro, Inc. and Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 24-CA-4642 19 October 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 24 March 1983 Administrative Law Judge Bruce C. Nasdor issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, 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 as modified. We agree with the judge's finding that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with discharge or cessation of the die- tary department operations, if they did not discon- tinue their support for the Teamsters and with his failure to find certain other alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1). We also agree with his finding that the Respondent subcontracted its dietary oper- ations for economic reasons and did not violate Section 8(a)(3). We disagree with his finding that the Respondent did not unlawfully interrogate em- ployee Feliciano Roman Melendez. Roman visited head dietician Herrero's office where Diaz, another dietician and admitted super- visor, also worked. Diaz said, "Hey, Mr. Feliciano, I did not know that you belonged to the Tronquis- tas' [Teamsters] union." The General Counsel con- tends that this comment was an unlawful interroga- tion and created the impression of surveillance of employees' union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The judge found the comment too nebulous to constitute an unlawful interrogation and further ' The General Counsel has excepted to some of the Judge's credibility findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra- tive 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 (3d Cm 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re- versing the findings 2 We agree with the Judge that the Respondent did not violate Sec 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by subcontracting its dietary department oper- ations We find that, although the General Counsel made a prima facie showing of discrimination, the Respondent proved that, absent any un- lawful motive, It would have subcontracted the dietary department for economic reasons Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd 662 F 2d 899 (1st Car 1981) found that, because the Teamsters campaign and the employees' support of it were well known to the Respondent, the comment did not create the impression of surveillance. We agree that Diaz' comment did not create the impression of surveillance. We do find, however, that it was an unlawful interrogation. The remark, considered in context, was clearly an inquiry that called for (and obtained) a response. We note that Diaz made the remark in the office in which she and the head dietician worked. Thus, under all cir- cumstances, we find that Diaz' comment was an unlawful interrogation of Roman about his union activity and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984).3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Asociacion Hospital Del Maestro, Inc., Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(b) and re- letter the present paragraph 1(b). "(b) Interrogating our employees with respect to their support of the Teamsters." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. 3 Chairman Dotson agrees with the Judge that this conversation is not violative of the Act APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge or cessation of our dietary operations or of any other 272 NLRB No. 132 854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department if you continue your support for the Teamsters, or if you do not withdraw your support of the Teamsters WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your union support or activities 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 ASOCIACION HOSPITAL DEL MAESTRO, INC DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BRUCE C NASDOR Administrative Law Judge This case was tried at Hato Rey Puerto Rico on September 15 16 and 17 1982 The complaint alleges several in stances of independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by the subcontracting of Respondent s dietary department resulting in the dis charge of the employees who were employed in this de partment On the entire record including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs 1 I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION At all times material herein Respondent has main tamed its principal office and place of business at Aven ida Domenech Final Hato Rey in the city of San Juan and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico where it is and has been at all times material herein engaged as a health care institution in the operation of the hospital providing hospital medical and related health care services During the past year which period is representative of its annual operations generally Respondent in the course and conduct of its hospital operations derived gross revenues in excess of $250 000 and during the same period of time purchased and caused to be shipped and delivered to its place of business directly to points and places located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico materials and supplies valued in excess of $50 000 Respondent is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act and a health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act ' On December 6 1982 Respondent filed a reply brief On December 7 1982 the General Counsel filed a motion to strike Respondent s reply brief The General Counsel contends that Sec 102 42 of the Board s Rules and Regulations does not allow for the filing of reply briefs to the administrative law judge On December 10 1982 Respondent filed a motion in opposition to motion to strike Respondent s reply brief I have carefully reviewed the record in this case and therefore am aware of any inaccuracies in the initial briefs or statements therein not supported by the record Accordingly the General Counsel s motion is granted Ii THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Union de Tranquistas de Puerto Rico Local 901 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpeis of 'Amenca 2 (the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES For the past 20 years the incumbent Union (Confeder acion) has represented Respondent s employees in the di etary cleaning maintenance laundry and storeroom de partments The last collective bargaining agreement was to expire on March 2 1982 3 In November 1981 the Teamsters commenced an organizational campaign among Respondent s dietary employees For many years Respondent s other rank and file em ployees were represented by three other unions in seven units with seven separate collective bargaining agree ments The parties stipulated that Gladys Cintron de Herrero head dietitian and Carmen Diaz de Campos di etitian were supervisors of Respondent within the mean ing of the Act Moises Colon an assistant cook testified that in the beginning of January when he was in the dietary depart ment office checking menus Herrero told him Well don t continue on that because you are going to be fired from the job According to Colon s testimony Herrero did not say what that was On another occasion Colon testified that while he was checking menus Her rero told him they are bomb placers and nothing else was said Similarly on another occasion Herrero told Colon not to continue on that because due to their fault they were all going to be fired from the job Colon also testified that on six occasions in January in the dietary department Diaz told him those men from the Tronquistas4 are bomb placers and destructors Ac cording to Colon Diaz' went on to say for us to be careful for what we were doing that in due time things have a remedy Feliciano Roman Melendez testified that he visited Herrero s office to pick up menus when Diaz said Hey Mr Feliciano I did not know that you belonged to the Tronquistas union Roman allegedly answered that he did belong to the Tronquistas union because he had to be with his coworkers Earlier in his testimony Roman testified to which she [Diaz] responded that that was going to cost us our job Later when asked to quote eactly what was said by Diaz and himself this por tion was eliminated from his testimony Witnesses called by the General Counsel testified that around the end of January or the beginning of February Herrero called a meeting at approximately 12 30 p m of the diet department employees which was held in the kitchen area It was attended by Herrero Diaz and an other supervisor Lucy Marengo Approximately 12 to 15 employees were present at the meeting 2 The Union s name appears as amended by severance of cases 3 All dates are in 1982 unless otherwise indicated 4 Teamsters ASOCIACION HOSPITAL DEL MAESTRO 855 The following is a composite of the testimony by wit nesses in attendance at this what appears to be an ex temporaneous meeting Herrero commenced the meeting by stating that its purpose was to speak to the employees about problems in the dietary department She stated that the administration was not too happy with the dietary employees because they had been collecting signatures for the Tronguistas union and the administration did not want that union in the hospital According to the testi mony she stated additionally that the Tronguistas union was a bad union the union placed bombs burned down businesses and had closed down innumerable factories in Puerto Rico Employee Patnlla asked Herrero how was it that she could speak that way about the Union since she did not know that union Herrero replied that she had received the information Patnlla also stated that the employees wanted to change unions because they were discontented and wanted a new union Herrero stated that if the employees persisted in bring ing the Union into the hospital all the employees would lose their jobs because they would all be fired Herrero stated further that Respondent would accept any union the employees chose to have except the Tronguistas who would never enter Respondent s hospital Herrero told the employees to stop following the lead of two or three employees who were collecting cards that in doing so they looked like mummies Another employee Colon told Herrero that the em ployees were of legal age and knew what they were doing Herrero responded by stating to the employees that they had good benefits and they should not be col lecting signatures for the Union because the incumbent union was a good union Employee Parnlla replied that the employees had a right to choose another union That concluded the meeting No collective bargaining agreement had been reached between Respondent and the incumbent the Confedera cion on March 2 when the old agreement expired On that date Respondent and the confederation entered into a stipulation extending the agreement for approximately 30 days to expire at midnight on April 7 On March 4 the Tronquistas Union filed an RC peti ton in Case 24-RC-6708 On March 19 the Acting Regional Director dismissed the petition by concluding that the extension of the con tract constituted a contract bar On March 31 the appli cable Board law was changed by Crompton Co 260 NLRB 417 (1982) which held that an extension of a col lective bargaining agreement for less than 90 days would not bar a petition filed during the terms of the contract Therefore the Acting Regional Director issued an order revoking the order withdrawing the notice of hearing and notification of dismissal of petition and order reshe duling hearing On the following day April 1 Respond ent terminated its dietary department personnel consist mg of approximately 35 employees In early March Diaz entered the area of the kitchen near the dishwashers where several employees among them Robles and Baez were waiting to begin their shift They were discussing the Union with Ramos a kitchen employee who was working at the time According to the testimony of Robles Diaz saw them talking about the Union and she told them to stop talking about the Union that that union was a bomb placing union and that if we were to insist upon that we could lose our jobs Robles who furnished the Board with two sepa rate sworn affidavits placed these alleged remarks by Diaz to have occurred during November 1984 Both statements were consistent in this regard According to the testimony of Baez Diaz told the em ployees Desist from the Tronguistas union She stated further according to the testimony Those people placed bombs and kicked supervisors You are adults al ready don t let yourselves be led by two or three charla tan s that are around According to Baez Diaz then stated If you bring the Tronguistas union in here you are all going to be left without jobs 5 In early March dietary department employees West and Ruiz were eating lunch in the bathroom area Diaz approached them and allegedly stated that the employees were not thinking with their heads they were letting themselves be led by the others and they should think it over well West testified that a few days later Diaz approached them again while they were having lunch Diaz allegedly repeated that they were not thinking well That the ad ministration could lets say turn out the entire depart ment—displace the entire department that they were well organized they could replace the personnel The Subcontracting of the Dietary Department Jose Antonio Brull testified that during mid 1981 he became administrator at the hospital According to Brull s testimony his first task was to examine the eco nomic posture of the hospital Because of the difficult economic situation Brull established administrative con trols in order to reduce hospital costs Measures were taken in the personnel area which according to Brull contributes a big volume of the total hospital budget Re spondent s Exhibit 1 is a summary of the changes made by Brull in higher and middle management since June 1981 One of Brull s first measures was to recruit new ex ecutives at a lower salary than the individuals who they replaced consolidating positions and eliminating manag er s expense accounts These measures produced a monthly savings of approximately $1000 Brull advised Monserrate industrial relations director to freeze all va cancies and salaries Vacancies could only be filled after Brull s approval 6 In addition Brull canceled burden some medical plans For example the Blue Cross Medi cal plan was canceled because Blue Cross paid a cost per patient per day $13 50 lower than what was paid the hospital by a competitive plan Respondent introduced into evidence various docu ments representing Respondent s efforts to reduce ex penses Respondent s Exhibits 5 through 15 cover a mul titude of areas from using carbon paper to minimize 5 According to Robles second affidavit at no time during this conver saw:in did Diaz tell them that if the Tronginstas Union got in they were going to be fired In explaining this omission Robles stated that he was nervous because he had already given a sworn statement 6 See R Exhs 5 and 8 856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD using the photocopier to production measures energy conservation and chemical purchases Brull s unrefuted testimony is that Respondent lost money from 1974 up to about 1978 accumulating an overall loss of over $2 million During the years 1979 1980 and 1981 Respondent had a profit of $585 000 and therefore had a loss of over $1 500 000 for the years 1974 through 1981 Furthermore Respondent expected an ad ditional loss for the year 1981-1982 of close to $300 000 Respondent s Exhibit 18 is a summary from audited state ments prepared by a certified public accounting firm for the years 1974-1975 through 1980-1981 The purpose of this document was the submission to the assistant secre tary of Puerto Rico demonstrating the effect to Respond ent if the use of 60 beds in the elderly home next to the hospital were discontinued Brull testified that during February Respondent re ceived a 10 day notice that there was going to be a strike by registered nurses A strike did ensue In view of this Brull decided to make preparations to ensure that other hospital services remained uninterrupted Moreover there were rumors that the employees in the dietary de partment were going to support the work stoppage so he requested a firm Nutritional Food Services Inc to evaluate costs if they were to take over the dietary de partment After Brull received the proposal analysis and figures from Nutritional Food he became interested in the savings factors 7 The dietary department employees did not support the registered nurses stnke but continued through their union (the Confederacion) to negotiate a new contract On March 2 the day the contract was to expire Frank Ruiz president of the Confederacion held a meeting and made an offer to the employees based on what had been agreed to in other units Agreements had been recently executed by Respondent in units of office employees practical nurses and operating room technicians The di etary employees rejected the offer and Brull therefore instructed Respondent s negotiating committee to inform the Confederacion s committee that if an agreement was not reached the hospital would look for other alterna byes including subcontracting of the department These were Brull s instructions to Monserrate Later Monser rate informed Brull that his Brull s instructions had been carried out After Monserrate conveyed Brull s position to Ruiz and the negotiating committee Brull called ARA a food service organization and requested a proposal from them On March 10 11 and 15 ARA personnel came to Respondent s premises and evaluated the dietary depart ment including the hospital s kitchen during working hours After they made their evaluation Brull requested Luis Suarez who is also in the business of providing die tary services to make his evaluation and submit a pro posal General Counsel s Exhibits 10 and 11 reflect the proposals submitted by both organizations Brull then met with Gregorio Cotto Respondent s comptroller on March 22 to discuss costs of the meals served and what would be a reasonable sum per meal 7 G C Exh 9 IC the proposal from Nutritional Food to Respondent dated February 26 1982 The comptroller determined that $2 90 per meal served would be a cost favorable to Respondent 8 Brull then re quested Cotto to evaluate the proposals from the three food service organizations On March 26 Cotto sent Brull a memorandum 9 wherein he evaluated economical ly the three proposals It was determined that the pro posal of Suarez was the most economical ARA pro posed $8 77 per day or $2 925 per meal plus other costs Nutritional Food proposed a cost of $9 per day or $3 per meal and Suarez proposed $8 70 per day or $2 90 per meal Brull then met with the vice president of the board of directors and told him that it would be beneficial to accept Suarez proposal because it was the most econom ical The vice president of the board of directors told Brull it was his decision and he should proceed with it Thereafter Brull met with Suarez and they agreed on a contract for 3 years with a fixed cost per meal of $2 90 per meal served The agreement took effect beginnng the second day of April On April 1 the dietary department employees were notified that a contract was going to be entered into with Suarez and if they wanted to continue working for the subcontractor they should go to him and apply for employment During Respondent s comptroller s negotiations with Suarez the comptroller prepared a comparative analysis of cost in evidence as Respondent s Exhibit 20 which reflects the savings Respondent would enjoy based on a contract for meals served at a fixed rate of $2 90 Re spondent s Exhibit 21 is a medicare health report docu ment reflecting the cost per meal over a period of sever al years from 1978 through 1981 The document was pre pared and submitted for purposes of obtaining payment from the medicare program These documents reflect a consistent rise of costs for meals served During the last year the cost per meal served rose 40 cents Respond ent s Exhibit 19 is a statistical analysis reflecting the hos pital s utilization and a decrease in the occupancy rate at the hospital The figures reflected in these documents particularly the decrease in occupancy rate for patient days become pertinent because under the contract with Suarez Respondent will pay $2 90 per meal served for the next 3 years Brull testified that prior to subcontract ing overall costs were fixed and accordingly if the hos pital had a lower occupancy it would have to extend the same amount of money to maintain a dietary department resulting in a higher cost per meal served With the sub contractor operating the dietary department if the Re spondent s occupancy continues to decrease Respondent still only pays for the meals actually served Prior to the subcontract Respondent had to assume the same oper ational payroll and other various and sundry expenses al though the occupancy rate decreased An analysis of these documents reflects a savings to Respondent of over $17 000 for July and August 1982 compared to the same period in 1981 Moreover Brull testified that there were indirect eco nomic advantages resulting in the subcontracting agree 8 See G C Exh 12 9 See G C Exh 13 / ASOC1ACION HOSPITAL DEL MAESTRO 857 ment. For example, he testified Respondent no longer has to process food purchase orders, it does not have to wash uniforms of the employees or distribute them, and it does not have to assign employees to the care of the food or to process forms in the accounting department. Furthermore, Respondent is dealing with a single suppli- er, i.e., Suarez, rather than prior thereto, when there were close to 30 suppliers providing food to the dietary department. He also testified that warehouse personnel are being utilized for work in other departments because the volume of work in the dietary department has decreased and there is not sufficient full-time work for the ware- house employees in the dietary department. Respondent's Exhibit 4 reflects that at the time the contract which Suarez was entered into there was ware- house inventory amounting to almost $26,000, earmarked for the dietary department Pursuant to the contract be- tween Respondent and Suarez, Suarez bears the responsi- bility of furnishing all materials, edibles, and other types of supplies and materials. Therefore, he has his money tied up in inventory, rather than Respondent. This be- comes particularly important and relevant inasmuch as Respondent has a cash flow problem. The parties stipulated that Respondent and six other hospitals in Puerto Rico subcontract their dietary depart- ments They further stipulated that Respondent subcon- tracts the following services: cleaning, which is done by North Janitorial Services, Inc., Security, which is done by Property Services, Inc ;" the visitors cafeteria, which is done by Suarez, the subcontrator involved herein; anesthesia and respiratory therapy, which is done by Anesthesia Group; the laundry, which is done by Best Industrial Cleaner; the maintenance of air conditioner, which is done by Trane Western Hemisphere, and the maintenance of elevators, which is done by Deja Eleva- tors. The General Counsel called Suarez as a witness who corroborated Brull in all germane areas of Brull's testi- mony General Counsel's Exhibit 15, dated April 1, is a copy of a letter that was handed to each employee stating that they would cease to be employees of Respondent be- cause the hospital decided to subcontract the dietary de- partment The letter also states: "Mr. Humberto M. Monserrate, the Industrial Relations Director can give orientation concerning this matter to those persons desir- ing it Record testimony reflects that some employees of Re- spondent did fill out job applications at the office of the subcontractor and some of them were hired by the sub- contractor. Documents reflecting actual and projected costs" in- dicate that the cost per meal for the year 1982-1983 would, absent the subcontract, amount to $3.45; for 1983-1984, $3.65 and for 1984-1985, $3.86. This takes into consideration the salary increases negotiated and ac- cepted by other units at the hospital These same in- " The employees of North Janitorial Services are represented by the Teamsters " See R Exhs 24 and 25 creases were offered to, and rejected by, the dietary em- ployees. Therefore the fixed cost for 3 years of $2 90 per meal served saves Respondent 55 cents per meal for the first year, 75 cents per meal for the second year, and 96 cents per meal for the third year. Another alleged independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act occurred on April 1, after the employ- ees whose work shift ended at 1 p m had been terminat- ed. Herrero allegedly stated to employees "due to the fault of all of you after so many years I am left without a job." Thereafter Herrero was hired by the subcontractor apparently as a rank-and-file employee. Conclusion and Analysis I find that the remarks attributed to Herrero and Diaz by Moises Colon are vague, ambiguous, and not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. He appeared to testify in a vacuum. There was no nexus between the word "that" and any union activity. Furthermore, characterizing the Teamsters as "bomb placers and destructors," does not nse to the level of 8(a)(1) conduct Accordingly, I will recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. The testimony of Feliciano Roman Melendez was simi- larly nebulous. In my view it is neither unlawful interro- gation nor does it (Herrero's remark) create the impres- sion that Respondent was engaging in surveillance. Record evidence amply demonstrates that the Teamsters campaign and the employees' support of it were well known to Respondent. Accordingly, I will recommend that these allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Although Herrero was not called as a witness, and she may not have been conveying a message from Respond- ent's higher authorities, she was a supervisor and in my opinion she strayed beyond the bounds of legality at the meeting occurring at the end of January or the beginning of February. Notwithstanding the unrefuted evidence that Brull was the sole authority in making the determi- nation to subcontract, Herrero's statement that, if the employees persisted in bringing the Union" into the hospital they would lose their jobs because they would all be fired, is a classic threat of reprisal and as such vio- lates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Robles and Daez both testified without contradiction that Diaz' 3 threatened them with the loss of their jobs if the Teamsters got into the hospital. It is true that one of the affidavits furnished by Robles is inconsistent in this regard, but I am constrained, based on the testimony of Daez, West, and Ruiz, to find that Diaz threatened em- ployees with discharge if they continued to support the Teamsters. This is a clear violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Herrero's statement to employees, "due to the fault of all of you after so many years I am left without a job," was in response to Ruben Robles' statement to her that, "this will pass." The alternative of subcontracting became apparent only after Respondent's contract pro- " The Teamsters were the subject of discussion at this meeting " Diaz was not called as a witness 858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD posal was rejected The rejection did result in her loss of a job There is nothing in this statement to suggest retn bution by Respondent because of a continuing campaign by the Teamsters Such a conclusion would be conjec ture Rather Herrero may have been alluding to the em ployees act of rejecting Respondent s proposal commu mewed to them by the president of the incumbent union This offer was made after negotiations between the par ties There is no allegation that Respondent refused to bargain or bargained in bad faith Accordingly I do not find that Herrero s ambiguous and enigmatic statement was violative of the act The Subcontracting of the Dietary Department Record testimony and documentation reflect that sub contracting was considered prior to March 31 the date Respondent was notified that inter aim the representa ton hearing was rescheduled 14 On March 2 the Confe deracion was apprised of this prospect Suarez corroborated Brull that he Suarez was re quested to submit a proposal between March 15 and 22 Their testimony is unrefuted Moreover they both im pressed me as reliable unerring witnesses and worthy credence There is no 8(a)(5) allegation nor is there any evidence that the incumbent was precluded from negotiating the subcontracting prospect In fact the subcontracting was effectuated after Respondent and the Confederacion had bargained and the Confederacion rejected Respondent s wage offer Although in some few instances I have concluded that supervisors exceeded the bounds of legality I do not be heve they were adopting a future cause of action es poused by Respondent s higher authority I believe Brull was the sole authority who implemented the decision to subcontract It is also noted that Respondent was willing to stipu late to an election in a unit exluding those employees em ployed by the subcontractor 15 The record reflects that Respondent subcontracts many of its services As a matter of fact Suarez the sub contractor involved herein has operated Respondent s public cafeteria for several years provided television rental services and operated Respondent s parking lot I find that initially Respondent desired to avert an im pending strike speading from another unit Thereafter when the dietary employees who are in another unit re jected Respondent s wage offer the feasibility of subcon tracting became a reality I am convinced by the preponderance of the evidence both documentary and through testimony that Respond ent s sole basis for subcontracting was a legitimate eco nomic neccessity , Accordingly I will recommend that the 8(a)(3) allega lion in the complaint be dismissed 14 See G C Exh 6 15 See transcript of representation hearing dated April 20 1982 in evi dence as R Exh 3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act and a health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act 2 The Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico Local 901 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauf feurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By threatening employees with discharge or cessa tion of its dietary operations if they continued to support the Teamsters or if they did not withdraw their support Respondent has engaged in conduct in violation of Sec tion 8(a)(1) of the Act 4 The allegations of the complaint that Respondent is engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3) and other conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) independently of the Act have not been supported by substantial evidence 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative ac lions 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 ed" ORDER The Respondent Asociacion Hospital del Maestro Inc Hato Rey Puerto Rico its officers agents succes sors and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees with discharge or cessation of dietary operations or any other departments if they continue to support the Teamsters or if they do not withdraw their support from the Teamsters (b) In any like or related manner interfering with re straining or coercing an employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed him by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its premises at Hato Rey Puerto Rico copies of the notice in English and Spanish marked Ap pendix 17 Copies of said notice on forms provided by 16 In the event no exceptions are tiled as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes " 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 tonal Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board ASOCIACION HOSPITAL DEL MAESTRO 859 the Regional Director for Region 24, shall, after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing with 20 days from the date of this Order what steps have been taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis- missed insofar as It alleges violations of the Act not spe- cifically found herein.