SEIU Healthcare of Michigan (Maple-Drake Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield)

372 NLRB No. 43 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. SEIU Healthcare Michigan and Maple-Drake Real Es- tate, LLC d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield; Khristina Hurst and SEIU Healthcare Michigan. Cases 07–CG–284431 and 07–RD–282049 January 20, 2023 DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS WILCOX AND PROUTY On June 17, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued the attached decision. The General Coun- sel filed an exception and a supporting brief, and SEIU Healthcare Michigan filed a responding 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 exception and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the judge's recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below,2 and to issue a Certification of Representa- tive.3 1 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge's finding that the Respondent Union violated Sec. 8(g) by picketing at Maple Drake’s (the Employer’s) facility without providing 10 days’ written notice to the Em- ployer and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. We also adopt, in the absence of exceptions, the judge’s recommendation to over- rule the Employer’s election objections. 2 We shall modify the judge's recommended Order to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language and in accordance with our decision in Paragon Systems, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 104 (2022). We shall substi- tute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. 3 Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election, a mail ballot elec- tion was conducted. The tally of ballots showed 12 votes for the Union, 9 against, 4 void ballots, and 3 challenged ballots, a sufficient number to affect the results. The Employer timely filed objections to the election. On February 2, 2022, the Regional Director issued a Decision on Chal- lenged Ballot, Revised Tally of Ballots, Report on Objections, Order Consolidating Cases and Further Consolidating Cases, and Notice of Consolidated Hearing in which she sustained 1 of the challenges, leaving only 2 nondeterminative challenged ballots. On June 7, 2022, the Board denied the Employer’s request for review of the Regional Director’s De- cision on Challenged Ballot. Having recommended that the objections be overruled, the judge fur- ther recommended that the decertification petition be dismissed. How- ever, Sec. 9(c) of the Act provides that, following a representation elec- tion, the Board “shall certify the results thereof.” Where, as here, the union has received a majority of the valid votes cast, it is entitled to a ORDER The Respondent, SEIU Healthcare Michigan, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from engaging in any strike, pick- eting, or other concerted refusal to work at the premises of Maple-Drake Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield, or any other health care institution, without notifying in writing that institution and the Federal Medi- ation and Conciliation Service, not less than 10 days prior to such action, of that intention. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its union office in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 7, after being signed by the Union’s authorized rep- resentative, shall be posted by the Union and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and members are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of pa- per 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 custom- arily communicates with its employees and members by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re- spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, deliver to the Regional Director for Region 7 signed copies of the notice in sufficient number for posting by Maple-Drake certification of representative. Accordingly, we do not adopt the judge’s recommendation to dismiss the representation case, but instead, shall is- sue a certification of representative. See Talmadge Park, Inc., 351 NLRB 1241, 1241 & fn. 4 (2007). 4 If the Respondent’s office is open to members and employees, the notices must be posted by the Respondent and delivered to the Regional Director for posting by Maple-Drake Real Estate LLC d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield, if it wishes, within 14 days after service by the Re- gion. If the office involved in these proceedings is closed due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the notices must be posted and delivered within 14 days after the office reopens and a sub- stantial complement of members and employees have returned to access- ing the office. Any delay in the physical posting of paper notices also applies to the electronic distribution of the notice if the Respondent communicates with its members by electronic means. If, while closed, the Respondent is communicating with its employees and members by electronic means, the notice must also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electronically more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously [sent or posted] electronically on [date].” 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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 Real Estate, LLC d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield at its West Bloomfield facility, if it wishes, in all places where notices to employees and members are customarily posted. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsi- ble official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in Case 07–RD–282049, the Employer’s objections to the election are overruled. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots have been cast for SEIU Healthcare Michigan, and that it is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time CNA employees, housekeeping employees, laundry employees, dietary aide employees, restorative aide employees, culinary aide employees, dietary cook employees, activities aide employees, medical records employees, guest services employees and ward clerk employees employed by the Employer at its facility located at 6535 Drake Road, West Bloomfield Township, Michigan; but excluding all business officers, managers, dining room managers, managerial employees, confidential employees, tech- nical employees, professional employees, office person- nel employees, LPNs, RNs, executive chefs, registered dieticians, receptionists, casual employees, drivers, so- cial service employees, payroll employees, account management staff employees, central supply employ- ees, scheduler employees, maintenance employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Dated, Washington, D.C. January 20, 2023 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman _______________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS 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 vio- lated 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 be- half Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi- ties. WE WILL NOT engage in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at the premises of Maple-Drake Real Estate, LLC, d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield or any other health care institution, without notifying, in writing, such health care institution and the Federal Medi- ation and Conciliation Service, not less than 10 days prior to such action, of that intention. SEIU HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CG-284481 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940. Matthew Ritzman, Kelly Temple, Eric Cockrell, for the General Counsel. Richard Mack, Esq. (Miller Cohen, PLC), of Detroit, Michigan, for the Respondent. Grant Pecor, Esq. (Barnes & Thornburg, LLP), of Grand Rap- ids, Michigan, for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. These cases were tried virtually via Zoom technology on April 12 and 13, SEIU HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN 3 2022.1 The complaint in Case 07–CG–284431 and petition in Case 07–RD–282049 allege that the Respondent, SEIU Healthcare Michigan (the Union), simultaneously violated Sec- tion 8(g) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)2 and en- gaged in objectionable conduct tainting an election on October 11, 2021,3 by picketing at the facility of Maple-Drake Real Es- tate LLC d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield (Maple-Drake) without providing a 10-day written notice to Maple Drake and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of its intention to engage in such conduct. The Union denies that the events of October 11 amounted to picketing activity and, in any event, was held in response to Maple-Drake’s unfair labor practices. The General Counsel’s Motion to Reopen Record for Receipt of Subpoenaed Documents pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(8) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, dated May 27, 2022, is de- nied. Although relevant to the Union’s contention that its Octo- ber 11 activities were motivated by Maple-Drake’s unfair labor practices, its vague explanation for seeking to introduce evidence regarding a publicly-accessible Union website posting is legally insufficient: “After the close of hearing, Counsel for the General Counsel became aware that Respondent had previously posted an announcement on its website, dated October 5, 2021, of the demonstration at issue.” Considering that the evidence existed and was easily accessible on the Union’s website long before the hearing and would not produce a different result from the find- ings herein, there is no justification for reopening the record. On the entire record, including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Maple-Drake, and the Union, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Maple-Drake, a limited liability corporation, operates a nurs- ing home providing inpatient and outpatient medical care at its facility in West Bloomfield, Michigan, where it annually derives revenue in excess of $100,000, and purchased and received goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the state of Michigan. The Union admits, and I find, that it is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and that Maple Drake 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) and 8(g) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Maple Drake’s Operations Maple-Drake is a licensed skilled nursing facility with 118 beds and a total staff of approximately 88 employees.4 Its em- ployees provide short-term and long-term nursing and 1 At the outset of the hearing, Case 07–CA–282548, having settled, was severed from the other two cases and referred back to the Regional Director. 2 29 U.S.C. § 158(g). 3 All dates are in 2021 unless otherwise stated. 4 Emp. Exh. 3 at 2. rehabilitative care to residents ranging in age between 65 and 90. The residents require assistance with daily tasks like getting out of bed, getting dressed, and having their medications brought to them Some residents have medical conditions, including demen- tia, that require a quiet environment, limited disruptions and in- creased structure. Visitation hours are Monday through Friday, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., and 4 to 7 p.m. In the case of events that may cause disruptions, such as the administration of COVID vac- cines, Vaira Aljajawi, the facility administrator, increases staff- ing in order to maintain the necessary level of care.5 Maple-Drake’s materials and written notices for employees are all issued to or posted in English, including work schedules, COVID information, Michigan labor law postings, job safety, and nursing information. As of October, Maple-Drake’s work- force included several employees whose primary language was not English. The primary language of three employees was Ar- abic and one employee’s primary language was Greek. When necessary, the facility seeks “translators in the building.” In fact, if employees who primarily speak Arabic need something trans- lated, they “seek [Aljajawi] out” and she “[tries] to help the best way [she] can.” If not, Aljajawi has “an iPad is dedicated for translation services in our building for everyone.” Lastly, Ma- ple-Drake uses Global Interpreting Services that’s available to all.”6 Sienna Healthcare provides management services to Maple- Drake. Steven Miller, associate general counsel for Sienna Healthcare, provides the facility with human resource and legal advice. B. The Union Maple-Drake and the Union are parties to a collective-bar- gaining agreement, with effective dates from August 24, 2018, to August 23, 2021. Approximately 44 employees are in the fol- lowing bargaining unit: All full-time and regular part-time CNA employees, house- keeping employees, laundry employees, dietary aide employ- ees, restorative aide employees, culinary aide employees, die- tary cook employees, activities aide employees, medical rec- ords employees, guest services employees and ward clerk em- ployees employed by the Employer at its facility located at 6535 Drake Road, West Bloomfield Township, Michigan; but excluding all business officers, managers, dining room manag- ers, managerial employees, confidential employees, technical employees, professional employees, office personnel employ- ees, LPNs, RNs, executive chefs, registered dieticians, recep- tionists, casual employees, drivers, social service employees, payroll employees, account management staff employees, cen- tral supply employees, scheduler employees, maintenance em- ployees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5 I base the findings relating to the medical and mental health condi- tions and needs of Maple-Drake’s patients on Aljajawi’s credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 33–34, 39, 76–83.) 6 It is undisputed that Maple-Drake only issues or posts employee- related materials in English. (U. Exh. 7–10; Tr. 421–425, 441–446.) DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 C. Genesis of Efforts to Decertify Union On several occasions in July and August, Calvin Bowen, Ma- ple-Drake’s facility maintenance supervisor, told various bar- gaining unit employees that they would not get raises or shift pickup bonuses7 because the Union “ was in the building” or “blocking” them. Daniels, the bargaining unit’s shop steward, saw this occur on two occasions in July and one in August. In one instance, Kristina Hurst, the charging party, was present when Bowen made the statements to Daniels and several newly hired employees.8 On August 26, Hurst filed a petition to decer- tify the Union in Case 07–RD–282049 pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act. D. Maple-Drake Hires Security On or about September 22, Maple-Drake contracted with Metro Protective Service to provide “[o]ne unarmed security of- ficer to patrol clients parking lot either by foot or vehicle and to make sure no unauthorized personnel are on the premises.”9 The contract service was to last until three days after the election, on October 31, with daily coverage from 2:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.10 On September 25, Union representatives Jonathan Mettle- Nunno and Christian Gary went to the facility “to reach out to the members and let them know that Sienna was giving them false information about the Union.” Questioned by a security officer, they explained who they were and that they were passing out literature. Both Union officials stayed on the public sidewalk and tried to speak to employees as they passed by. However, the security officer, who was driving a large white sport utility vehi- cle (SUV) with flashing lights, impeded their ability to com- municate with employees. The security guard used the vehicle as a buffer or block between the employees exiting their vehicles and the Union members. The security officer “would drive very fast to that vehicle, wait for the member to exit their car and then slowly drive them to the building.” The Union officials were forced to talk to employees over the roof of the large SUV. The guard interfered with many of the conversations that Mettle- Nunno and Gary attempted to have with employees, and the un- ion officials were only able to talk to a few people. With respect to the employees they were able to speak with, the discussions were observed by the security officer.11 7 Shift pickup, also referred to as working bonuses, are paid to em- ployees when they come to work on their days off. (Tr. 263.) Hero’s pay is a bonus for picking up an extra shift. (Tr. 373.) 8 I credited the detailed testimony of Daniels and Lingham that Bowen, a statutory supervisor, made the statements. The fact that Dan- iels and Lingham, both laundry room aides, did not know the names of newly hired employees to whom Bowen made the statements is insignif- icant, as there is no evidence that Daniels, Lingham or other employees were likely to know the names of other individuals employed throughout the facility. (Tr. 228–233, 262–264, 446–459.) Bowen and Hurst, on the other hand, provided only terse denials in response to leading questions. In addition, Bowen’s attempt to portray himself as entirely ignorant of employee’s union activities contrasted with earlier testimony. (Tr. 42, 227–231, 358–361, 370, 464–474.) Maple-Drake’s contention—that it would be illogical for a manager to tell employees that they were being denied bonuses and raises after management implemented Hero pick-up E. The Decision and Direction of Election On September 20, a hearing was conducted before a Region 7 hearing officer on the issue of whether, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Region should conduct the decertifi- cation election by manual or mail ballot. Prior to the hearing, on September 10 and 14, Maple-Drake’s counsel, Grant Pecor, in- formed the hearing officer “that the Employer has concerns that employees will be able to read English. As such, we are request- ing election related correspondence be provided in Arabic and Greek, as well as English.” After the hearing officer asked for “the number of workers that speak each of those languages,” Pe- cor replied: “Sounds like they have three employees who speak Arabic and one who speaks Greek. However, the concern is that no one will be available to help them with the written instructions given the likelihood that this will be a mail ballot. At the hearing, the hearing officer asked whether there was “a need for lan- guages other than English for the election materials.” Pecor re- iterated his “request that ballots be provided in both Greek and Arabic due to employees in the facility who - - for whom English is not their first language.” After the hearing officer asked for the “total count of those individuals,” Pecor replied that there were “three Arabic and one Greek.”12 On October 8, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election ordering a mail-ballot election due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (the pandemic). In pertinent part, the “Election Details” instructed as follows: The mail ballots will be mailed to employees employed in the appropriate collective- bargaining unit by personnel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, Region 7, on October 25, 2021, at 4:15 p.m. (ET). Voters must sign the outside of the envelope in which the ballot is returned. Any ballot received in an enve- lope that is not signed will be automatically void. Those employees who believe that they are eligible to vote by mail and do not receive a ballot in the mail by November 3, 2021, should communicate immediately with the National La- bor Relations Board by calling Board Agent Matthew Ritzman at (313) 335-8069, Elections Specialist Callie Clyburn at (313) 335-8049, the Region 7 Office at (313) 226-3200, or our na- tional toll-free line at 1-844-762-NLRB (1-844-762-6572). Voters should return their mail ballots so that they will be re- ceived in the National Labor Relations Board, Region 7 bonuses and raises – lacks merit, since it was not established that those awards were satisfactory to unit employees. In fact, Hurst confirmed that she was present when Daniels “put up a yellow billboard” and discussed bonuses and wages with several other employees. (Tr. 351–352, 372– 377, 451–452). 9 CP Exh. 7. 10 Aljajawi testified that she hired security officers because, although Union officials contacted her on prior occasions that they were coming to the facility, they would not go to the agreed upon spot outside the facility. The Union contends that Aljajawi retained security in order to interfere with and diminish Union engagement, (Tr. 379–382). 11 Regarding the events of September 25 only, the testimony of Gary and Mettle-Nunno was credible, consistent, and undisputed. (Tr. 296– 300, 326–327.) 12 GC Exh. 16 at 1–2; E. Exh. 1–2. SEIU HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN 5 Regional Office by the close of business, 4:45 p.m. (ET) on November 22, 2021. All ballots will be commingled and counted at 2:00 p.m. (ET) on November 29, 2021. In order to be valid and counted, the returned ballots must be received in the Regional Office prior to the counting of the ballots. The method for the count will be determined by the Acting Re- gional Director/Regional Director and will require video par- ticipation. The notice of election, instructions, and ballots issued by Re- gion 7 to bargaining unit employees were provided only in Eng- lish.13 F. October 11 On October 11, between 2 and 2:30 p.m., Union representa- tives set up tables, drinks, food, and a device to play music on the sidewalk outside the facility, directly in front of resident rooms and the resident care area. Neither Maple-Drake nor the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service received any prior written notice that this event would take place. The group set up a speaker system and played music loud enough to be heard in- side the facility. Several union officials, including Mettle-Nuno, Gary, and shop steward Daniels coordinated, attended, set-up and participated in the group’s activities.14 Approximately 27 individuals, spread out in a line across the sidewalk near the facility’s driveway entrance. With loud music playing, they held signs displaying messages promoting support for the Union in the upcoming election: SEIU Stronger To- gether; Jobs. Care. Justice; Care Jobs Should Be Union Jobs; My VOTE is Essential; CARE BEFORE PROFIT; Respect us. Protect us. Pay us; MY VOTE IS ESSENTIAL. With an individ- ual leading with a bullhorn, the group chanted “SEIU! SEIU! SEIU, everywhere we go, people want to know who we are, so we tell them, we are the union, the mighty, mighty, union, the rough, tough, union, the mighty mighty Union!” Individuals could also be heard yelling, “respect us, protect us.” At one point, someone yelled, “let’s get a line going” while others walked on the grass, as well as on or near Drake Road, in front of the facility. The chanting and music could be heard inside the facility. After hearing the noise from her office, Aljajawi went outside and observed the activities. She noticed that Daniels and Lingham were standing with the group. Miller also went outside to observe.15 During the 2:30 p.m. shift change, several group members moved to the center of the facility’s only driveway, between the crosswalk and the island area, near the drain. They disrupted the 13 GC Exh. 15. 14 The testimony of Gary, Mettle-Nunno, and Daniels regarding the October 11 was entirely unreliable. Their versions of the event were vastly at odds with the hard evidence of the group’s activities depicted in the photographs and videos. In addition, they contradicted themselves and each other on every aspect of the event: the duration; the amount of time each one was present; and whether individuals remained on the side- walk the entire time, walked back and forth, chanted, used a bullhorn, and held signs. (GC Exh. 3–12 Tr. 42, 227–231.) Moreover, although I credited Daniels’ testimony that a goal of the gathering was to refute Bowen’s comments about the Union’s impact on bonuses and raises, her efforts to downplay the seriousness of this organized event—“to have fun and to celebrate on different stuff with the Union,” was hardly flow of traffic into the facility by blocking at least two vehicles from turning into the facility’s only entrance, causing one vehi- cle to stop completely. One group member was in the driveway for about four minutes and did not move from the area until Alja- jawi or Miller asked the security officer to instruct the individual to move away from the middle of the driveway. This disruption took place during the employee shift change, as employees ar- rived at or left the facility. During the event, Union steward Andre Boykins approached Aljajawi, who was standing outside the facility. Boykins briefly engaged Aljajawi in conversation – they knew each other – but Aljajawi cut it off, and Boykins returned to the Union activities. At some point prior to 2:45 p.m., Aljajawi returned to her of- fice. A few minutes later, she was informed that unit employee Kevin Statfield, whose eight-hour shift had just started two hours earlier, had gone outside while on duty. Aljajawi immediately went outside to have Statfield return to work. However, as she existed the building, Statfield was coming back in with food and drink provided by the Union.16 The demonstration lasted until about 4 p.m. G. The Election A mail ballot election was then conducted from October 25 to November 29. On November 29, a Board agent certified the tally of ballots cast as follows: In favor of the Union—12; against the Union—9. As three ballots were challenged, the Board agent determined that the results of the election were inconclusive. In addition, Maple-Drake filed two objections on December 6 on the following grounds: Objection No.1 1. See evidence submitted in support of Charge against SEIU Healthcare Michigan in Case No. 07–CG–284431, which in- cludes video and photographic evidence regarding the Union’s unlawful picket of the Employer’s healthcare facility on or about October 11, 2021; 2. If provided the opportunity to testify, Steve Miller and other agents and employees of the Employer can provide first- hand accounts of the Union’s picket of the Employer’s facility, as well as confirm that it occurred without the notices required under the Act, the manner in which it related to the Union’s ef- forts to oppose the decertification effort, and their effort to co- erce and restrain employees. convincing. The photographs and video establish that the gathering was a serious and orchestrated event, not only to refute Bowen’s comments, but also kick off the Union’s campaign against decertification. (Tr.227– 228.) 15 Where the testimony diverged, I based these findings on the credible testimony of Aljajawi and Miller, much of which was corroborated by the photographs and video, over the largely discredited testimony of Daniels, Mettle-Nunno, and Gary. (Tr. 36–74, 114–115, 153–156, 160– 182, 240–250, 289–296, 314; GC Exh. 8–12.) 16 I credited the testimony of Aljajawi over Daniels, who I already determined to be not credible, that Statfield’s eight-hour shift began at 1 p.m. and he customarily took his break from his dishwashing duties at 4 p.m. (Tr. 43–49, 84–88, 236–240; GC Exh. 14.) DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 Objection No. 2 1. The ballots, instructions and notices provided regarding the current election; 2. The transcript of the parties September 20, 2021 hearing confirms the Employer notified the Region of the need for election related materials to be provided in Greek and Arabic; 3. E-mail notice regarding the need to provide materials in Greek and Arabic was also provided to Board Agent Barb Ku- bik by the Employer’s counsel on September 14, 2021; 4. At least one ballot cast against the Union was voided and ballot voided as a result of the failure to understand the English only instructions and the individual involved signing their ballot; 5. If allowed to testify, employees can confirm that they were not provided the information necessary to cast an informed vote; 6. Given the extremely close nature of current tally of ballots, a single employee being denied the information necessary to cor- rectly cast their ballot likely impacted the result of the election. On February 2, 2022, the Regional Director ruled on the chal- lenged ballots and the objections, and revised the tally of ballots. The Regional Director sustained the challenge to one of the three challenged ballots and revised the tally to reflect that the major- ity of votes cast favored the Union. The Regional Director also concluded that Maple-Drake’s offer of proof in support of Ob- jections 1 and 2 raised substantial and material issues which, if proven, could be grounds for setting aside the election if estab- lished at hearing: (1) the Region’s failure to provide Arabic and Greek election documents;17 and (2) the Union’s activities out- side the facility on October 11, which occurred during the critical period and without notice required under the Act. Since the ob- jection relating to the Union’s activities on October 11 were closely related to the unfair labor practices filed over the same event, the matters was ordered consolidated with the representa- tion case for hearing before an administrative law judge. LEGAL ANALYSIS I. THE 8(G) ALLEGATIONS A. The Union Engaged in Picketing on October 11 The complaint alleges that the Union’s activities in front of Maple-Drake on October 11 constituted illegal picketing in vio- lation of Section 8(g). The Union denies that its activities con- stituted a picket and, alternatively, it was excused from the 10- written notice requirement of Section 8(g) because the activities were in response to alleged unfair labor practices by Maple- Drake. Section 8(g) states: A labor organization before engaging in any strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at any health care institution shall, not less than ten days prior to such action, notify the institution in writing and the Federal Me- diation and Conciliation Service of that intention, except 17 Maple-Drake contends that an employee identified as MDR-346 needed assistance with English translations, did not get it and, as a result, MDR-346’s vote was voided. According to the notation on the ballot tracking key, the reason for the voided ballot was that that MDR-34’s ballot was “Not Signed Dup Sent.” (Emp. Exhs. 4 at 5, and 5 at 5; Tr. that in the case of bargaining for an initial agreement fol- lowing certification or recognition the notice required by this subsection shall not be given until the expiration of the period specified in clause (B) of the last sentence of section 8(d) of this Act [subsection (d) of this section]. The notice shall state the date and time that such action will commence. The notice, once given, may be extended by the written agreement of both parties. The purpose of Section 8(g) is to “give health care institutions an opportunity to prevent the disruption of patient care which can be foreseen by such picketing.” Service Employees Local 84 (Baptist Memorial Hospital), 266 NLRB 335, 340 (1983), enfd. 725 F.2d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The Board has held that the “leg- islative history and policy considerations which prompted the enactment of Section 8(g) mandate a finding that irrespective of its character, objectives, or the type of economic pressure it gen- erates, any strike, work stoppage, or picketing, including sympa- thy picketing, at a health care institution violates Section 8(g) if the 10-day notice requirements of that section have not been ful- filled.” Service Employees Local 200 (Eden Park), 263 NLRB 400, 401 (1982). Picketing generally involves a combination of patrolling back and forth at the entrance to a targeted business and carrying picket signs, creating a “symbolic confrontation” between pick- eters and those entering the worksite. Compare Service Employ- ees Local 87 (Trinity Maintenance), 312 NLRB 715 (1993) (pa- trolling and engaging in “confrontational conduct” at the en- trance constituted picketing) with Carpenters Local 1506 (Eli- ason & Knuth of Arizona), 355 NLRB 797, 802 (2010) (station- ary banners without patrolling movements or confrontation was not picketing). While patrolling is a common feature of picket- ing, it is not a necessary element; rather, “the ‘important’ or es- sential feature of picketing is the posting of individuals at en- trances to a place of work.” Trinity Maintenance, supra at 743. Picketing must also include an element of confrontation. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (New Star General Contractors), 356 NLRB 613 (2011) (main element of picketing is confrontational conduct); Sheet Metal Workers' Local 15 v. NLRB, 491 F.3d 429, 438 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“mock funeral” pro- cession outside a hospital did not constitute picketing, because the participants did not “physically or verbally interfere with or confront Hospital patrons” or create a “symbolic barrier”). In Painters District Council 9 (We’re Associates), 329 NLRB 140, 142 (1999), the Board held that employees “confronted automo- biles who were entering the facility” when they approached cars to give out handbills. Other “confrontational conduct” can in- clude blocking the entrance doors, attempting to enter the build- ing, and excessive amounts of noise in front of the entrance. Ser- vice Employees Local 87 (Trinity Maintenance), supra at 746. One employee leaving the facility briefly on an unauthorized break to get food from the Union can hardly be considered a walk-out. Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence 422–425.) (Aljajawi’s undisputed testimony was provided confirming that MDR-34 was amongst those needing assistance with English trans- lation). SEIU HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN 7 established that the Union engaged in picketing activities on Oc- tober 11 without giving Maple-Drake and the FMCS the requi- site 10-day notice. The group lined up on the sidewalk near the facility’s only driveway entrance and displayed signs facing the facility. Cf. Carpenters Local 1506 (Marriott Warner Center Woodland Hills), 355 NLRB 1330 (2010) (bannering activity did not constitute picketing because individuals were not posted at the facility’s entrance and faced the message side of its banners toward passing motorists, away from the employer’s facility). They chanted and walked back and forth on the sidewalk near the entrance. One individual even yelled, “let’s get a line going” while others walked on the grass in front of the facility. See We’re Associates, supra (“milling around” near entrance with signs during handbilling was picketing); Baptist Memorial Hos- pital, supra (marching back and forth near entrance of health care facility was picketing). Several demonstrators disrupted the flow of traffic and con- fronted incoming cars by moving to the center of the facility’s only driveway. They impeded at least two cars from turning into the entrance and played loud music which could be heard from inside the facility. These actions clearly created a confronta- tional atmosphere. Compare We’re Association, supra at 142 (approaching cars during handbilling was confrontational) and Trinity Maintenance, supra at 746 (excessive noise outside the entrance was confrontational) with Electrical Workers Local 98 (Fairfield Inn), 371 NLRB No. 19, slip op. at 6 (2021) (one em- ployee walking back and forth in front of hotel entrance while handbilling near inflatable rat did not interfere with passing pe- destrians and, thus, was not confrontational). Further, this con- duct took place directly in front of resident rooms and the resi- dent care area, heightening both the level of confrontation and the potential for the kind of disruption of patient care that Section 8(g) was designed to prevent. Baptist Memorial Hospital, supra at 340. B. Maple-Drake’s Conduct Did Not Excuse the Union From Giving Prior Notice The Union alleges that the comments by Bowen in July and August that employees would not get raises or shift pickup bo- nuses because the Union “was in the building,” and the actions of the security officer on September 25, amounted to unfair labor practices. The Union previously brought unfair labor practice charges against Maple-Drake in Case 07–CA–282548, and the parties ultimately reached a settlement in which Maple-Drake did not admit to any unfair labor practices. The Union now al- leges that the activities on October 11 were in response to those alleged unfair labor practices, excusing the requirement of 10- day notice under Section 8(g). In accordance with Board prece- dent expressing unwillingness to use the settlement of unproven unfair labor practices as evidence in other proceedings, the set- tlement of 07–CA–282548 cannot be considered as evidence es- tablishing the legitimacy of the Union’s previous claims against Maple-Drake. Truserv Corp., 349 NLRB 227 (2007) (“absent a finding of a violation of the Act, or an admission by the employer of such a violation, there is no basis for dismissing a petition based on a settlement of alleged but unproven unfair labor prac- tices”); Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC, 368 NLRB No. 97, slip op. at 2 (2019) (same). Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for an employer to “interfere, restrain, or coerce” employees who exercise their statutory right to form, join, or assist labor organizations. Wil- liamhouse of California, 317 NLRB 699, 712 (1959). An em- ployer cannot make express or implied promises of benefits in exchange for voting against the Union. Etna Equipment & Sup- ply Co., 243 NLRB 596 (1979). In cases involving verbal ex- changes between employees and management, the expression of “views, argument, or opinion ... shall not constitute or be evi- dence of an unfair labor practice . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” William- house of California, supra at 712. The test under Section 8(a)(1) does not “turn on the employer's motive or whether the coercion succeeded or failed [but instead on] whether the employer en- gaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to in- terfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.” Id. at 713 (citing American Freightways Co., 124 NLRB 146, 147 (1959). It is also well established that an employer may observe open and public union or protected activity without violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, unless such officials engage in behavior that is “out of the ordinary” and thereby coercive. Aladdin Gaming, LLC, 345 NLRB 585, 585–586 (2005); PartyLite Worldwide, Inc., 344 NLRB 1342 (2005); Arrow Automotive Industries, 258 NLRB 860 (1981), enfd. 679 F.2d 875 (4th Cir. 1982). Sands Hotel & Casino, San Juan, 306 NLRB 172 (1992) (posting a se- curity guard with binoculars to watch union activities on public property constituted more than ordinary or casual observation of public union activity). In determining whether an employer's surveillance is unlawful, the Board considers evidence of coer- civeness, “which include the duration of the observation, the em- ployer's distance from its employees while observing them, and whether the employer engaged in other coercive behavior during its observation.” Boars Head Provisions Co., 370 NLRB No. 124, slip op. at 1 (2021) (citing Aladdin Gaming, supra at 586) (unusual presence and behavior by security guards in the em- ployer’s parking lot on four occasions gave the impression of il- legal surveillance). Bowen’s comments did not amount to an unfair labor practice. While Bowen’s comments that the Union was “blocking” raises and shift pickup bonuses were a clear attempt to disparage the Union, the comments lack any specificity that could allow the employees to reasonably infer that they would receive raises and bonuses if they voted against the Union. Etna Equipment & Sup- ply Co., supra at 596–597 (individually tailored comparison charts between union and non-union benefits were provided to employees, allowing employees to infer that the promised non- union benefits were “more than a mere possibility”). Further, Bowen’s comments occurred prior to the filing of the decertifi- cation petition, putting it outside of the “critical period” during which the Board will consider conduct as objectionable between the filing of the petition through the date of the election. Ideal Electric & Mfg. Co., 134 NLRB 1275 (1961). The conduct of the security guard on September 25, on the other hand, reasonably constitutes behavior that is “out of the ordinary” and coercive. The guard engaged in coercive behavior by using security vehicles to physically block interaction be- tween union representatives and employees in close proximity DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 and directly observing those conversations. Boars Head Provi- sions, supra at 1 (prolonged observance of union handbilling in close proximity and encouraging employees to “keep moving” constituted coercive behavior which gave the impression of un- lawful surveillance.) This conduct was obviously related to the decertification process, as the security contract was set to end three days after the election. As such, employees could reason- ably assume that their interactions with the union were being un- lawfully surveilled. Frontier Telephone of Rochester, Inc., 344 NLRB 1270, 1276 (2005) (“[E]ssential focus has always been on the reasonableness of the employee's assumption that the em- ployer was monitoring their union or protected activities.”). Even so, the Union can only be excused from complying with the 10-day notice requirement in response to “serious” or “fla- grant” unfair labor practices. See Council’s Center for Problems of Living, 289 NLRB 1122 (1988), enf. Denied 897 F.2d 1238, 1247-48 (2d Cir. 1990) citing Masto Plastics Corp., supra at 285- 289 (employer discharged employees for attending a union meet- ing and engaging in an alleged work stoppage); Cedarcrest Inc., 246 NLRB 870, 876 (1979) (employer unilaterally withheld em- ployees’ vacation pay). The Board has interpreted the exception to apply only when the employer’s unfair labor practices provoke employees and leave them with little choice but to act in re- sponse. See Cedarcrest, Inc., supra; see also Park Inn, 293 NLRB 1082, 1088 (1989) (employer’s ultimatum to employees that they would be fired if they did not accept employer’s pro- posal provoked a strike). Here, the allegations against Maple-Drake do not rise to the seriousness of unlawful discharge or discipline. Rather than be- ing provoked by either Bowen’s statements or the security of- ficer’s conduct on September 25, the October 11 picket, con–of the Union to foster support and enthusiasm in advance of the election. The signs and chants touted general support for the Un- ion and the importance of voting: “My VOTE is essential”; “SEIU Stronger Together.” However, there was no direct refer- ence to any of the above-mentioned statements or conduct. Fur- ther, it was not a spontaneous event, giving the Union plenty of time between the alleged unfair labor practices and the gathering to file the requisite 10-day notice. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the Union had no legitimate excuse for failing to give Maple-Drake and the FMCS prior notice. West Lawrence Care Center, 308 NLRB 1011 (employer’s refusal to allow union rep- resentatives on the premises and removal of union literature from a bulletin board was not serious or flagrant enough to excuse the Union’s failure to comply with Section 8(g)). II. MAPLE-DRAKE’S OBJECTIONS TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION Maple-Drake asserts that the election certified in November should be invalidated on the basis of (1) the Union’s conduct on October 11 and (2) the Region’s failure to provide Arabic and Greek election documents. Since the Union’s activities on Oc- tober 11 constituted picketing in violation of Section 8(g), the question becomes whether or not the Section 8(g) violation and provision of English-only election documents warrant setting aside the election. Under the Board’s general standard, conduct warrants setting aside the election if it “reasonably tends to interfere with the em- ployees' free and uncoerced choice in the election.” Baja's Place, 268 NLRB 868 (1984). The Board has also long held that elec- tions should only be overturned in the incident of unfair labor practices which present a threat of “restraint and coercion of em- ployees.” Regent Assisted Living, Inc. v. NLRB, 180 Fed. App’x 165, 167 (DC Cir. 2006) (citing ARA Living Centers, 300 NLRB 888, 888 (1990) (quoting Holt Bros., 146 NLRB 383, 384 (1964)). An election is not overturned where the statutory vio- lation is “so de minimis that it is virtually impossible to conclude that [the violation] could have affected the results of the elec- tion” after accounting for the number of violations, their severity, the extent of dissemination, the size of the unit, and other rele- vant factors. Airstream, Inc., 304 NLRB 151, 152 (1991); Metz Metallurgical Corp., 270 NLRB 889 (1984) (one unlawful con- versation between a low-level supervisor and employee weeks prior to the election was de minimis because it was “virtually impossible” to conclude that it affected the results of the elec- tion). A. Objection No. 1—The Illegal Picket Objection No. 1, based on the Union’s unlawful picket of Oc- tober 11, is overruled. The Board has held that some unfair labor practices interfere with elections. See Airstream, Inc., supra at 152 (“A violation of Section 8(a)(1) found to have occurred dur- ing the critical election period is, a fortiori, conduct which inter- feres with the results of the election unless it is . . . de minimis.”). However, “the Board has also made it clear that, unlike § 8(a)(1) violations, 8(g) violations ‘ha[ve] no significant connection with the restraint and coercion of employees.’” Regent Assisted Liv- ing, supra at 167 (citing ARA Living Centers, supra at 888). In Covenant Care of Ohio, Inc. v. NLRB, 180 Fed. App’x 576, 583 (6th Cir. 2006), the Union conducted a rally on the sidewalk in front of a health care facility on the morning of an election, held signs, and approached vehicles to distribute flyers. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Board’s assertion that violations of Section 8(g) are not per se grounds for setting aside a representa- tive election. Ibid. It also rejected the Employer’s assertion that the violation was not de minimis because the violation of the NLRA was not the picketing activity, but “the failure to give no- tice of that activity.” Id. at fn. 4. Thus, the Board held that be- cause none of the employees were aware of the failure to give notice it could not have interfered with the election. Ibid. Here, there is no evidence that the unlawful picket coerced unit employees or interfered with the results of the election in any way. The weight of the credible evidence established that the picket, with loud music and chanting that could be heard in- side the facility, surprised Maple-Drake management. As a re- sult Maple-Drake was precluded from taking preparatory action to mitigate disruption to operations and resident care. However, there was no evidence that unit employees were impacted by the picket in a way that would interfere with the election outcome. As a result, the Union’s unfair labor practices on October 11 had, at most, a de minimis impact on the election. See Airstream, Inc., supra at 151–152. Accordingly, Objection No. 1 is denied. B. Objection No. 2—The Absence of Foreign Language Elec- tion Materials Objection No. 2 is also overruled. The Board may set aside English-only elections when the demonstrated need for SEIU HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN 9 translations is sufficient to hinder the “effective and informed expression by all employees of their true desire.” Fibre Leather Manufacturing Corp., 167 NLRB 393 (1967) (15–20 employees in a 86 member unit could not read English and were not pro- vided Portuguese translations). Maple-Drake’s counsel re- quested election materials in Arabic and Greek for three em- ployees for whom English is not their primary language. All of Maple-Drake’s written communications with its 44 bargaining unit employees is solely in English. There is no evidence, how- ever, establishing that any of those employees did not have the ability to complete a ballot in English. In Bally's Park Place, Inc., 352 NLRB 316 (2008), the em- ployer objected to an election with English-only ballots after the Regional Director rejected its request for translation into nine languages. English was the second language of over 470 employ- ees, the majority of whom could not read English, and supervi- sors and fellow employees were used “on an ad hoc basis” to translate instructions and some written communications. Id at 319. The Board overturned the objection on the basis of insuffi- cient evidence to establish the need for translations due to the lack of Board precedent requiring that election materials be translated, as well as the lack of specific evidence establishing that the employer routinely issued written communications in any of the foreign languages or that voters would in fact be una- ble to understand the Notice of Election or the ballot in English. Id at 319-320. Here, Maple-Drake has not established the need for translated ballots. Similarly, Maple-Drake’s reference to employee MDR- 346’s need for English assistance is not sufficient to establish that the employee was incapable of completing the ballot in Eng- lish. Ibid. In fact, it appears that employee MDR-346’s ballot was voided only because it was returned without a signature, like one other ballot. Further, only three out of 44 employees were possibly affected by the lack of translations, and there was no evidence presented that any of them were incapable of making an informed expression of their true desires using a ballot of the same language as all of their other communications with their employer. Foxwoods Resort Casino, 352 NLRB 771 (2008) (lan- guage objection overruled because employer “failed to establish that any significant number of Chinese-born unit employees had such difficulty reading and understanding English that the failure to make the requested translations could have affected the elec- tion”). C. Insufficient Evidence to Overturn the Election It is well settled Board precedent that “[r]epresentation elec- tions are not lightly set aside.” NLRB v. Hood Furniture Mfg. Co., 941 F.2d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing NLRB v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., 470 F.2d 1329, 1333 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 412 U.S. 928 (1973)). Accordingly, “the burden of proof on parties seeking to have a Board-supervised election set aside is a ‘heavy one.”’ Kux Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 890 F.2d 804, 808 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Harlan #4 Coal Co. v. NLRB, 490 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 416 U.S. 986 (1974). The objecting party must show that objectionable conduct affected employees 18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended in the voting unit. Avante at Boca Raton, Inc., 323 NLRB 555, 560 (1997) (overruling employer's objection where no evidence unit employees knew of alleged coercive incident). Even if one or both of Maple-Drake’s objections were sus- tained, they are insufficient to warrant overturning the election. The Board has held that Section 8(g) violations are not per se violations and not intrinsically linked the restraint and coercion of employees in election activities. See Covenant Care, supra at fn. 4; Regent Assisted Living, supra at 167. There is also no Board precedent requiring that election materials be translated because some employees speak English as a second language. Bally's Park Place, Inc., supra at 319 (objection to English-only ballots overruled). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Maple-Drake has been at all relevant times, an employer engaged in commerce within meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and a health care institution within the meaning of Sections 2(14) and 8(g) of the Act. 2. The Union has been at all relevant times a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing at Maple-Drake’s West Bloomfield on Octo- ber 11, 2021 without providing 10-day written notice to Maple- Drake and the FMCS of its intention to engage in this conduct, the Union violated Section 8(g) of the Act. 4. The unfair labor practices of the Union described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Objection No. 1, based on the unfair labor practice de- scribed above, is overruled. 6. Objection No. 2, based on the Region’s failure to make available foreign language election materials, is overruled. REMEDY Having found that the Union engaged in certain unfair 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 Union violated Sec- tion 8(g) by picketing at Maple-Drake’s facility on October 11, 2021 without providing Maple-Drake and the FMCS 10-day written notice of its intention to engage in such conduct, the Un- ion shall be ordered to post an appropriate remedial notice to members. As Maple-Drake’s objections to the conduct and results of the election have been overruled, it is recommended that the petition in Case 07–RD–282049 be dismissed. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended18 ORDER The Respondent, SEIU Healthcare Michigan, Detroit, Michi- gan, its officers, agents, and representatives (the Union), shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Picketing, striking, or engaging in any other concerted re- fusal to work at the premisesof Maple-Drake Real Estate LLC 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 purposes. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10 d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloomfield (Maple Drake), West Bloomfield, Michigan, or any other health care institution, with- out first giving not less than 10 days’ written notice to them and to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. (a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its un- ion office in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”19 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Union’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Union and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the no- tices 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 mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since October 11, 2021. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, deliver to the Regional Director for Region 7 signed copies of the notice in sufficient number for posting by Maple-Drake at its West Bloomfield facility, if it wishes, in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Union has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. June 17, 2022 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 19 If the Respondent’s office is open to members and employees, the notices must be posted by the Respondent and delivered to the Regional Director for posting by Maple-Drake, if they wish, within 14 days after service by the Region. If the office involved in these proceedings is closed due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the notices must be posted and delivered within 14 days after the office reopens and a substantial complement of members and employees have returned to accessing the office. Any delay in the physical posting of Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be- half Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi- ties. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the above rights. WE WILL NOT engage in any picketing at the premises of Ma- ple-Drake Real Estate, LLC, d/b/a Notting Hill of West Bloom- field (Maple-Drake) or any other health care institution, without notifying Notting Hill and the Federal Mediation and Concilia- tion Service of our intention to do so in writing at least 10 days before such picketing. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. SEIU HEALTHCARE MICHIGAN The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CG-284431 or by using the QR code be- low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940. paper notices also applies to the electronic distribution of the notice if the Respondent communicates with its members by electronic means. If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of ap- peals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National 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.”