Hills and Dales General Hospital

HILLS & DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL 611 360 NLRB No. 70 Hills and Dales General Hospital and Danielle Corlis. Case 07–CA–053556 April 1, 2014 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS JOHNSON AND SCHIFFER On February 17, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued the attached decision. The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel and the Respondent each filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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 briefs1 and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this decision, and to adopt the recommended Order as modi- fied and set forth in full below.2 This case presents a challenge to the facial validity of three paragraphs in the Respondent’s Values and Stand- ards of Behavior Policy. In relevant part, paragraph 11 states that employees will not make “negative comments about our fellow team members,” including coworkers and managers; paragraph 16 states that employees will “represent [the Respondent] in the community in a posi- tive and professional manner in every opportunity;” and paragraph 21 states that employees “will not engage in or listen to negativity or gossip.” Applying the Board’s standard for analyzing work- place rules set forth in Lutheran Heritage Village- Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, at 646–647 (2004), the judge found that paragraphs 11 and 21 violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because employees would reasonably construe them to prohibit protected Section 7 activity. With re- spect to paragraph 16, however, he found no violation, relying in principal part on the Board’s analysis of a work rule in Tradesmen International, 338 NLRB 460, 461–462 (2002). Lutheran Heritage states that if a work rule does not explicitly restrict Section 7 activity, it will still be found unlawful if: (1) employees would reasonably construe 1 By unpublished Order issued on March 21, 2013, the Board grant- ed the General Counsel’s motion to strike the Respondent’s untimely filed amended exceptions. 2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to reflect the ad- ditional 8(a)(1) violation found here and, as explained in the amended remedy section, to include the standard remedial language for the viola- tions found. We shall also substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights. For each of the three paragraphs at issue here, the only question before the Board is whether they violate Section 8(a)(1) under prong (1) of this test. As explained below, we adopt the judge’s findings concerning paragraphs 11 and 21, and we reverse his finding concerning paragraph 16. 1. We agree with the judge that the prohibitions of “negative comments” and “negativity” in paragraphs 11 and 21, respectively, are unlawful.3 We find no merit in the Respondent’s argument that the judge erred by find- ing these prohibitions overbroad and ambiguous by their own terms. To the extent that the Respondent argues that these work rules cannot be found facially unlawful in the absence of evidence of surrounding circumstances sug- gesting a linkage between the rules’ restrictions and pro- tected concerted activity, the judge correctly cited and relied on controlling Board precedent to the contrary. E.g., Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB 832, 832 (2005) (rule prohibiting negative conversations about associates or managers unlawful on its face), 2 Sisters Food Group, 357 NLRB 1816, 1817 (2011) (rule unlaw- ful that subjected employees to discipline for the “inabil- ity or unwillingness to work harmoniously with other employees”). Thus, Claremont Resort and 2 Sisters make clear that extrinsic evidence is not required to find that a work rule is unlawfully overbroad and ambiguous by its terms.4 We also reject the Respondent’s argument that the evi- dence of employee involvement in developing the rules removes any impermissible ambiguity as to the meaning and purpose of these paragraphs (or to par. 16 discussed below). As a general matter, such employee involvement is no guarantee that work rules will not infringe on Sec- tion 7 rights; employees might well endorse an unlawful rule, knowingly or not, but their consent or acquiescence cannot validate the rule. Here, in any case, the record is unclear as to the extent of employee involvement. There is no evidence that any employees who may have been involved in creating the subject work rules were assured 3 The General Counsel did not allege that the prohibition of gossip in par. 21 was unlawful. Citing the majority opinion in Hyundai Amer- ica Shipping Agency, 357 NLRB 860, 861 (2011), the judge observed that this paragraph “would arguably be on solid ground” if limited to this prohibition. For the reasons set forth in his dissent in Hyundai, slip op. at 2 fn. 4, Chairman Pearce disagrees with the judge’s observation. 4 We thus do not rely on any contrary implication in the judge’s ob- servation that the Board has “usually” found work rules prohibiting employee negativity to be unlawful where the record includes evidence of surrounding circumstances indicating that the employer has by word or deed linked the challenged rule to protected activity. 612 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or reasonably believed that the final adopted versions would not interfere with the exercise of protected Section 7 rights. Nor would the prior involvement of some em- ployees have determined how other employees reasona- bly construed the rules, even if they were fully informed of the rules’ origins. 2. Contrary to the judge, we find that paragraph 16 al- so violates Section 8(a)(1). The requirement that em- ployees “represent [the Respondent] in the community in a positive and professional manner” is just as overbroad and ambiguous as the proscription of “negative com- ments” and “negativity” in paragraphs 11 and 21. Par- ticularly when considered in context with these other unlawful paragraphs, employees would reasonably view the language in paragraph 16 as proscribing them from engaging in any public activity or making any public statements (i.e., “in the community”) that are not per- ceived as “positive” towards the Respondent on work- related matters. This would, for example, discourage employees from engaging in protected public protests of unfair labor practices, or from making statements to third parties protesting their terms and conditions of employ- ment—activity that may not be “positive” towards the Respondent but is clearly protected by Section 7. See generally Claremont Resort & Spa, supra; Costco Whole- sale Corp., 358 NLRB 1100, 1101 (2012) (rule stating that any communication posted electronically that dam- aged the Company, defamed any individual, or damaged any person’s reputation could result in discipline, includ- ing termination, found unlawful). We also reject the judge’s reliance on Tradesmen In- ternational, supra, in which a “conflicts of interest” work rule that required employees “to represent the company in a positive and ethical manner” was found lawful. We find the rule in Tradesmen distinguishable from para- graph 16.5 The context of the provision in Tradesmen— in contrast to paragraph 16 here—did not include closely related unlawful provisions.6 Rather, it was part of a rule 5 Chairman Pearce and Member Schiffer did not participate in Tradesmen and express no view as to whether it was correctly decided. 6 For the reasons stated above, we disagree with our colleague’s view that par. 16 is analogous to the rule found lawful in Tradesmen. Nor are we persuaded to analogize par. 16 to the “appropriate business decorum” rule found lawful in Costco Wholesale Corp., 358 NLRB 1100, 1100. That rule appeared in the context of an “Electronic Com- munications and Technology Policy” and expressly focused on elec- tronic communications “for business use,” thus making clear that the rule concerned how employees communicated with others while carry- ing out their duties for the employer. By contrast, par. 16 broadly applies to employees’ activities in the community at large, which clear- ly could encompass protected activities engaged in on employees’ own time. Member Johnson would adopt the judge’s finding that par. 16 was lawful, essentially for the reasons stated by the judge. He disagrees that addressing a subject, “conflicts of interest,” unlikely to suggest to employees that Section 7 activity might be implicated. Reasonably understood in context, the phrase “positive and ethical manner” in Tradesman would likely be construed quite differently that the phrase “positive and professional manner” at issue here. Coupled with the word “ethical” in a rule addressing conflicts of interests, the term “positive” has a signifi- cantly narrower scope of meaning than the same term coupled with the word “professional,” a broad and flexi- ble concept as applied to employee behavior. Accordingly, we find that paragraph 16’s requirement that employees represent the Respondent “in the com- munity in a positive and professional manner in every opportunity” violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as al- leged. AMENDED REMEDY The Order requires the Respondent to revise or rescind paragraphs 11, 16, and 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy. This is the standard reme- dy to assure that employees may engage in protected activity without fear of being subjected to an unlawful rule. See Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809, 812 (2005), enfd. in relevant part 475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007). As stated there, the respondent may comply with our order of rescission by reprinting the Values and Standards of Behavior Policy without the unlawful lan- guage or, in order to save the expense of reprinting the whole policy, it may supply its employees with hand- book inserts stating that the unlawful rules have been rescinded or with lawfully worded rules on adhesive backing that will correct or cover the unlawfully broad rules, until it republishes the policy without the unlawful provisions. Any copies of the policy that include the unlawful rules must include the inserts before being dis- tributed to employees. Id. at 812 fn. 8. See also Bettie Page Clothing, 359 NLRB 777, 778–779 (2013). We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order and substi- tute a new notice with language more specifically ad- dressing this remedy. there is a meaningful distinction between a rule requiring “positive and ethical” public behavior and one requiring “positive and professional” behavior. Ethical behavior is behavior that is in accordance with the standards for correct conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession. The term “professional conduct” refers to conduct appro- priate to a profession. Clearly then the two terms may address the same concept. Here, in a hospital setting, the term “professional conduct” was used appropriately. Further, the rule at issue here is more akin to the rule found lawful in Costco Wholesale Corp., supra requiring “ap- propriate business decorum” in communicating with others, than to the rule found unlawful in the same case and relied on by his colleagues. HILLS & DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL 613 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Hills and Dales General Hospital, Cass City, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Maintaining a work rule that prohibits negative comments about fellow team members. (b) Maintaining a work rule that prohibits employees from engaging in or listening to negativity. (c) Maintaining a work rule requiring that employees represent the employer in the community in a positive and professional manner in every opportunity. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, coercing and 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) Within 14 days of the Board’s Order, revise or re- scind the rules stated in paragraphs 11, 16, and 21 of its Values and Standards of Behavior Policy. (b) Furnish all current employees with inserts for the current Values and Standards of Behavior Policy that (1) advise that the unlawful rules have been rescinded, or (2) provide the language of a lawful rule; or publish and dis- tribute a revised Values and Standards of Behavior Poli- cy that (1) does not contain the unlawful rules, or (2) provides the language of lawful rules. (c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Cass City, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and 7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United State court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing and Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur- rent employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since September 16, 2010 (6 months before the original charge in this proceeding was filed). (d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re- sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at- testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. 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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. WE WILL NOT maintain the following rule stated in paragraph 11 of our Values and Standards of Behavior Policy: “We will not make negative comments about our fellow team members and we will take every opportunity to speak well of each other.” WE WILL NOT maintain the following rule stated in paragraph 21 of our Values and Standards of Behavior Policy: “We will not engage in or listen to negativity or gossip. We will recognize that listening without acting to stop it is the same as participating.” WE WILL NOT maintain the following rule stated in paragraph 16 of our Values and Standards of Behavior Policy: “We will represent Hills & Dales in the commu- nity in a positive and professional manner in every op- portunity.” WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, revise or rescind paragraphs 11, 16 and 21 of our Values and Standards of Behavior Policy, and WE WILL advise em- ployees in writing that we have done so and that the un- lawful rules will no longer be enforced. 614 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL furnish you with inserts for the current Val- ues and Standards of Behavior Policy MBEA that (1) advise that the unlawful paragraphs in the rules have been rescinded, or (2) provide the language of lawful rules; or WE WILL publish and distribute a revised Values and Standards of Behavior Policy that (1) does not con- tain the unlawful paragraphs, or (2) provides the lan- guage of lawful rules. HILLS AND DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL Jennifer Brazeal, Esq., for the Acting General Counsel. Timothy Ryan, Esq., for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEOFFREY CARTER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Saginaw, Michigan, on January 9, 2012. Daniel Corlis filed the original charge in this case on March 16, 2011, and filed an amended charge on April 14, 2011.1 The Acting General Counsel issued the complaint on November 15, 2011. The complaint alleges that Hills and Dales General Hospital (the Respondent or the Hospital) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by maintaining a Values and Standards of Behavior Policy that includes overbroad pro- visions that restrict employee rights under Section 7 of the Act. (General Counsel (GC) Exh. 1(e), pars. 6–7.) On the entire record,2 including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the Acting General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent, a corporation, provides acute hospital care at its facility in Cass City, Michigan, where it annually derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and purchases and re- ceives at its Michigan facilities goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State of Michigan. The 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. (GC Exhs. 1(e), pars. 3–4; 1(f), pars. 3–4.) II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Hospital’s Culture in 2005 In 2005, the Hospital was struggling with a poor work envi- ronment. Among other problems, hospital departments were not cooperating with each other, and employee relationships 1 All dates are in 2011, unless otherwise indicated. 2 The Acting General Counsel’s motion to strike a seven-page tran- script that was inadvertently included in GC Exh. 1 is hereby denied as moot. (See GC Br. at 1 fn. 2 (noting that the transcript in question is from an immigration proceeding that is unrelated to this case).) The materials that the Acting General Counsel identified were not included in my copy of the trial exhibits, nor were they included in the electronic copy of the trial exhibits that is stored in the electronic files for this case. were suffering due to “back-biting and back stabbing.” As a result, employee satisfaction was low, employees were looking for other job opportunities (outside of the Hospital), and pa- tients were seeking health care in other hospitals. (Transcript (Tr.) 26.) B. The Hospital Develops and Adopts its Values and Standards of Behavior Policy In 2006, the Hospital decided to begin working on changing its culture, and to that end began implementing measures that had been used successfully by another hospital that had faced similar problems. (Tr. 26–27, 31.) Among other measures, the Hospital set up employee teams to address issues such as stand- ards and performance, employee recognition, continuous im- provement, communication, and service recovery. (Tr. 27, 31.) As its first project, the Hospital’s standards and performance team took on the task of developing a statement of values and standards. (Tr. 31.) Using the values and standards statement of another hospital as a template, the standards and perfor- mance team distributed a draft set of standards to all employees for review and comment. After editing the draft standards based on the first round of employee feedback, the standards and performance team circulated two additional drafts to em- ployees before settling on a final Values and Standards of Be- havior Policy for the Hospital. (Tr. 32–35; see also Jt. Exh. 5.) The Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy co- vers a wide range of topics, including customer service, respect, teamwork, attitude, continuous improvement, and fun. (Jt. Exh. 4.) In this case, the following paragraphs from the Respond- ent’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy are at issue: Teamwork . . . . 11. We will not make negative comments about our fellow team members3 and we will take every opportunity to speak well of each other. . . . . 16. We will represent Hills & Dales in the community in a positive and professional manner in every opportunity. Attitude . . . . 21. We will not engage in or listen to negativity or gossip. We will recognize that listening without acting to stop it is the same as participating. (Jt. Exh. 4 at pp. 2–3; see also GC Exh. 1(e), pars. 6–7.) The Hospital has never given employees specific examples of what conduct would be considered “negative” or “positive and pro- fessional.” (Tr. 41.) C. How the Hospital Uses its Values and Standards of Behavior Policy As a public declaration of its new culture, the Hospital asked 3 The term “team member” covers everyone who works at the Hos- pital, ranging from the CEO to employees in entry level positions. (Tr. 40.) HILLS & DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL 615 employees to sign (on a voluntary basis) poster-sized copies of the Values and Standards of Behavior Policy. The Hospital then framed the posters and placed them in the lobby (as well as other locations) to enable patients to see them. (Tr. 35–36.) The Hospital also asked employees to sign individual copies of the policy (which were then placed in the employees’ personnel files), and has included the policy in its human resources policy manual. (Tr. 36–37; Jt. Exh. 6 at pp. 6–8 (including a form that employees sign to acknowledge receipt of the human resources policy manual).) The Hospital has also used the Values and Standards of Be- havior Policy as a basis for employee discipline. For example, on March 4, 2011, the Hospital cited paragraph 16 of the policy when it issued Danielle Corlis a written warning for posting the following comment on Facebook: Holy shit rock on [S!]. Way to talk about the douchebags you used to work with. I LOVE IT!!! (Jt. Exh. 3; see also Tr. 15–16; Jt. Exh. 2 (Corlis was respond- ing to remarks by a former hospital employee who was dis- charged for, as the employee described it, “playfully throwing a yogurt cup at [her] boss”).)4 The Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy re- mains in effect. (Tr. 17–18, 29.) Since beginning its efforts to change its culture in 2006, the Hospital has noted improve- ments in employee and patient satisfaction, and the Hospital has improved its ability to attract and retain personnel. (Tr. 28– 29.) Discussion and Analysis A. Credibility Findings A credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors, including the context of the witness’ testimony, the witness’ demeanor, the weight of the respective evidence, established or admitted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record as a whole. Double D Con- struction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996)), enfd. 56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see also Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center, 348 NLRB 1016, 1022 (2006) (noting that an ALJ may draw an adverse inference from a party’s failure to call a witness who may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed to a party, and who could reasonably be expected to corroborate its ver- sion of events, particularly when the witness is the party’s agent). Credibility findings need not be all or nothing proposi- tions—indeed, nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some, but not all, of a witness’ testi- mony. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622. In this case, credibility is generally not at issue because all three witnesses provided unrebutted testimony and came across as poised and forthright in their testimony. The findings of fact 4 The complaint does not allege that the Hospital violated the Act by terminating the employee based on the yogurt cup incident or by disci- plining Corlis based on her Facebook posting. Only the Hospital’s maintenance of the work rules stated in pars. 11, 16, and 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy is at issue. (See GC Exh. 1(e).) are accordingly based on the testimony of all three witnesses who testified at trial. B. The Validity of Paragraphs 11, 16, and 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy 1. Applicable legal standards The Acting General Counsel alleges that by maintaining par- agraphs 11, 16, and 21 of its Values and Standards of Behavior Policy, the Hospital is violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act be- cause those paragraphs of the policy constitute overbroad re- strictions of employee rights protected under Section 7 of the Act. (GC Exh. 1(e), pars. 6–7.) Under Section 7 of the Act, employees have the right to en- gage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for an employer (via statements, conduct, or adverse employment action such as discipline or discharge) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7. See Brighton Retail, Inc., 354 NLRB 441, 447 (2009). The test for evaluating whether an employer’s conduct or statements violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act is whether the statements or conduct have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce union or protected activities. KenMor Electric Co., 355 NLRB 1024, 1027 (2010) (noting that the employer’s subjective motive for its action is irrelevant); Yo- shi’s Japanese Restaurant & Jazz House, 330 NLRB 1339, 1339 fn. 3 (2000) (same); see also Park N’ Fly, Inc., 349 NLRB 132, 140 (2007). The Board has articulated the following standard that specif- ically applies when it is alleged that an employer’s work rule violates Section 8(a)(1): If the rule explicitly restricts Section 7 activity, it is unlawful. If the rule does not explicitly restrict Section 7 activity, it is nonetheless unlawful if (1) employees would reasonably con- strue the language of the rule to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights. In applying these principles, the Board refrains from reading particular phrases in isolation, and it does not presume improper interference with employee rights. NLS Group, 352 NLRB 744, 745 (2008) (citing Lutheran Her- itage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646–647 (2004)), adopt- ed in 355 NLRB 1154 (2010), enfd. 645 F.3d 475 (1st Cir. 2011). As with all alleged 8(a)(1) violations, the judge’s task is to “determine how a reasonable employee would interpret the action or statement of her employer . . . , and such a determina- tion appropriately takes account of the surrounding circum- stances.” Roomstore, 357 NLRB 1690, 1690 fn. 3 (2011). The Board has issued two decisions that are instructive on how the Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia standard should apply to work rules such as the ones at issue in this case. In Claremont Resort & Spa, the Board was presented with a work rule that prohibited “negative conversations” about employees or managers and warned employees that such conversations were in violation of the employer’s standards of conduct and could result in disciplinary action. 344 NLRB 832, 832, 836 (2005). Applying the test set forth in Lutheran Heritage Vil- 616 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lage-Livonia, supra, the Board found that the rule was unlawful because its “prohibition of ‘negative conversations’ about man- agers would reasonably be construed by employees to bar them from discussing with their coworkers complaints about their managers that affect working conditions, thereby causing em- ployees to refrain from engaging in protected activities.” Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB at 832. In Hyundai America Shipping Agency, the Board was pre- sented with a number of work rules that the Acting General Counsel challenged as unlawful. 357 NLRB 860, 860 (2011). The Board agreed that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining work rules that threatened employees with discipline if they disclosed information from their person- nel files, or if they complained to their coworkers instead of voicing complaints directly to their supervisor or the human resources office. Id. However, the Board also held that it was lawful for the employer to threaten employees with discipline for “indulging in harmful gossip” and “exhibiting a negative attitude toward or losing interest in your work assignment.” Id. at 861. Regarding the “harmful gossip” rule, the Board held that employees could not reasonably construe the rule as pro- hibiting Section 7 activity because the rule did not prohibit discussions about managers, and was only directed at gossip, which was commonly defined as chatty talk or rumors or re- ports of an intimate nature. Id. (distinguishing the work rule at issue in Claremont, which referred to any negative conversa- tions about employees or managers, and thus implicitly extend- ed to protected activity). Similarly, in finding that the rule prohibiting a “negative attitude toward your work assignment” was lawful, the Board explained that the wording of the rule only applied to an employee’s attitude toward his or her work assignment and did not expressly prohibit employee conversa- tions, and thus was less likely to be construed as prohibiting protected concerted activities. Id. at 861–862. 2. Analysis The Acting General Counsel takes issue with paragraphs 11, 16, and 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy because they state work rules that either prohibit “nega- tive comments about our fellow team members” or “negativity or gossip” (pars. 11 and 21) or direct employees to be “positive and professional” (par. 16). In the Acting General Counsel’s view, those work rules are overbroad because a reasonable employee would conclude that the rules prohibit protected ac- tivity such as employee discussions about the terms and condi- tions of their employment. (Tr. 9–10; GC Br. at 5.) In its de- fense, the Respondent maintains that the work rules cannot be reasonably interpreted as restricting employee activities that are protected by Section 7 of the Act. (Tr. 11; R. Br. at 5.) In presenting its case, the Acting General Counsel essentially argued that the text of the work rules themselves establishes that the rules are unlawful. There is no evidence that the Hos- pital made statements or engaged in conduct that affirmatively linked its rules to protected activity,5 and thus the merits of the 5 Although the Acting General Counsel called Danielle Corlis to tes- tify about the warning that the Hospital issued to her on March 4, the Acting General Counsel only presented that testimony to show that the rules remain in effect and can be used to discipline employees. (Tr. Acting General Counsel’s challenges to the Hospital’s work rules turn solely on the language of the rules themselves. a. Values and Standards of Behavior Policy—paragraph 11 Paragraph 11 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Be- havior Policy states that “[w]e will not make negative com- ments about our fellow team members and we will take every opportunity to speak well of each other.” The term “team member” includes everyone who works at the Hospital, includ- ing managers and employees. (See Findings of Fact (FOF) sec. II(B).) I agree with the Acting General Counsel that paragraph 11 of the Hospital’s Policy is unlawful because employees would reasonably construe the language of the rule to prohibit Section 7 activity. Although the rule does not explicitly restrict Section 7 activity and the Acting General Counsel did not offer evi- dence that the Hospital made statements or engaged in conduct that linked the rule to such activity, paragraph 11 implicitly includes protected activities because it prohibits negative com- ments about managers. Indeed, the Board’s decision in Claremont Resort & Spa is directly on point, as the Board found that the respondent’s rule prohibiting “negative conversa- tions” about managers “would reasonably be construed by em- ployees to bar them from discussing with their coworkers com- plaints about their managers that affect working conditions, thereby causing employees to refrain from engaging in protect- ed activities.” Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB at 832; see also Hyundai America Shipping Agency, 357 NLRB 860, 861 (explaining that the work rule at issue in Claremont Resort & Spa implicitly included protected activity). The Hospital’s work rule prohibiting “negative comments” about fellow team members is virtually identical to the work rule that the Board found unlawful in Claremont Resort & Spa, and thus by its terms also would reasonably be construed by employees as implicitly prohibiting protected activity. Accordingly, I find that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining the work rule stated in paragraph 11 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy. b. Values and Standards of Behavior Policy—paragraph 16 Paragraph 16 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Be- havior Policy states that “[w]e will represent Hills & Dales in the community in a positive and professional manner in every opportunity.” (FOF sec. II(B).) The Acting General Counsel asserts that the work rule is unlawful because employees could conceivably violate the rule by engaging in protected activities that the Hospital would not view as “positive.” (See Tr. 10.) The Acting General Counsel’s challenge to the rule in para- graph 16 fails, as I do not find that an employee would reason- ably interpret the Hospital’s directive to represent the Hospital “in the community in a positive and professional manner” as a rule that prohibits Section 7 activities. Paragraph 16 does not explicitly or implicitly prohibit Section 7 activity. To the con- trary, the surrounding circumstances indicate that the Hospital adopted the rule for the more narrow (and lawful) purpose of 22.) There is no evidence (or argument by the Acting General Counsel) that the remarks that Corlis made on Facebook were protected by the Act. HILLS & DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL 617 encouraging employees to assist with improving the Hospital’s reputation in the community by maintaining a positive and professional attitude when interacting with the community. (FOF, secs. II(A)–(B) (noting that the Hospital developed the rule in par. 16 in connection with its efforts in 2006 to improve its culture).) The Board’s decision in Tradesmen International is applica- ble here, as in that case, the Board held that a work rule that stated that employees were “expected to represent the company in a positive and ethical manner” did not violate Section 8(a)(1). 338 NLRB 460, 461–462 (2002). The Board declined to read the word “positive” in isolation, and found that employ- ees would not reasonably believe that an expectation that they represent the company in a positive and ethical manner amounted to a work rule that prohibited Section 7 activities, given the context of the employer’s efforts to prohibit conflicts of interest and the lack of any actions by the employer that established a link between the rule and protected activities.6 Id. at 462. I find similar deficiencies in the Acting General Counsel’s challenge to the rule in paragraph 16 that employees represent the Hospital in the community in a positive and professional manner. Although the Acting General Counsel asserts that the word “positive” is ambiguous, like the Board in Tradesmen International I find that the term “positive” cannot be read in isolation. Rather, in the context of the Hospital’s efforts to improve its reputation in the community, paragraph 16’s call for employees to represent the hospital in a positive and profes- sional manner is a lawful call for employees to maintain a high standard of professionalism with potential (or actual) customers at every opportunity. Since the terms of paragraph 16 are clear and serve a lawful purpose, and since there is no evidence that the Hospital made statements or engaged in conduct that linked paragraph 16 to protected activity, the Acting General Counsel did not meet its burden of proving that the rule is unlawful. c. Values and Standards of Behavior Policy—paragraph 21 Finally, paragraph 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior Policy states that “[w]e will not engage in or listen to negativity or gossip. We will recognize that listening with- out acting to stop it is the same as participating.” (FOF sec. II(B).) The Acting General Counsel maintains that the work rule violates the Act because a reasonable employee would construe the term “negativity” as including protected activity. (Tr. 10.) Paragraph 21 would arguably be on solid ground if it was limited only to prohibiting gossip. Indeed, in Hyundai America Shipping Agency, the Board explained that because gossip is defined as “rumor or report of an intimate nature” or “chatty talk,” a work rule prohibiting gossip could not be reasonably construed as prohibiting Section 7 activity. 357 NLRB 860, 861; see also Southern Maryland Hospital, 293 NLRB 1209, 1221–1222 (1989) (explaining that an employer may lawfully maintain a work rule that prohibits “malicious gossip”), enfd. in 6 The Acting General Counsel argued that I should adopt the reason- ing set forth in the dissent in Tradesmen International (see GC Br. at 6 fn. 3), but I am bound to follow the majority opinion in that decision. pertinent part 916 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1990). What makes paragraph 21 problematic, however, is that it al- so prohibits employees from engaging in or listening to “nega- tivity.” The Board has found work rules that prohibit negativity to violate Section 8(a)(1) on multiple occasions, usually in cases where the record has included evidence that the employer made statements or engaged in conduct that linked the negativi- ty rule to protected activity. See, e.g., Roomstore, 357 NLRB 1690, 1690 fn. 3 (finding that an employer’s work rule prohibit- ing “any type of negative energy or attitudes” was unlawful because the evidentiary record showed that the employer made statements that linked the rule to protected activity); Salon/Spa at Boro, Inc., 356 NLRB 444, 458–459 (2010) (employer’s negativity policy was unlawful because the evidentiary record showed that the policy proscribed protected activity in the form of complaints about management’s conduct and other working conditions). That line of cases does not help the Acting Gen- eral Counsel’s cause here, because the Acting General Counsel did not present any evidence that the Hospital made remarks that linked paragraph 21 to protected activity, and the surround- ing circumstances show that the Hospital adopted paragraph 21 to address a work environment that by all accounts was marred with a history of back biting and back stabbing. However, the Board has also found fault with work rules that are overbroad and ambiguous by their terms. For example, in 2 Sisters Food Group, the Board found that it was unlawful for an employer to maintain a work rule that subjected employees to discipline for an “inability or unwillingness to work harmo- niously with other employees,” because the rule was patently ambiguous and so imprecise that employees would reasonably construe the rule as prohibiting discussions and disagreements between employees that related to protected Section 7 activi- ties. 357 NLRB 1816, 1817 (2011); see also Hyundai America Shipping Agency, 357 NLRB 860, 861 (explaining that the Board found that the work rule at issue in Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB 832, violated the Act because the rule prohibit- ed negative employee conversations generally). It is here that the Acting General Counsel’s challenge to paragraph 21 gains traction, because like the work rule that the Board found unlaw- ful in 2 Sisters Group, the Hospital’s prohibition of “negativi- ty” is so patently ambiguous, imprecise and overbroad that a reasonable employee would construe it as prohibiting protected discussions about working conditions and the terms and condi- tions of employment. I therefore find that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining the work rule stated in paragraph 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Be- havior Policy. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By maintaining a work rule (par. 11 of its Values and Standards of Behavior Policy) that proscribes making “negative comments about our fellow team members,” the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thus vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 618 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By maintaining a work rule (par. 21 of its Values and Standards of Behavior Policy) that proscribes engaging in or listening to negativity, the Respondent interfered with, re- strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. By committing the unfair labor practices stated in Con- clusions of Law 1–2 above, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. I recommend dismissing the allegation in the complaint that asserts that the Respondent violated the Act by maintaining the work rule stated in paragraph 16 of the Respondent’s Val- ues and Standards of Behavior Policy. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having found that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining a work rule that prohibits negative comments about fellow team members (defined as including employees and managers), and by maintaining a work rule that prohibits engaging in or listen- ing to negativity, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to revise or rescind those rules (pars. 11 and 21 of the Values and Standards of Behavior Policy). [Recommended Order omitted from publication]