Extract
Saint John's Health Center, (2011)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive 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.
Saint John2019s Health Center and California Nurses2019 Association National Nurses Organizing Committee. Cases 312013CA201329005 and 312013CA201329315December 30, 2011DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS BECKER AND HAYESOn June 16, 2010, Administrative Law Judge John J. McCarrick issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party and the Acting General Counsel filed answering briefs. The Charging Party and the Acting General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to adopt in part, as modified below, and reverse in part the judge2019s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.2Saint John2019s Health Center (the Respondent) is an acute care hospital located in Santa Monica, California. Since 2008, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (Charging Party or Union) has been engaged in an organizing campaign to represent the Respondent2019s registered nurses (RNs). I. BAN ON UNION RIBBONIn November 2008, union organizers gave RNs ribbons stating, 201cSaint John2019s RNs for Safe Patient Care.201d On November 7, 2008, Steven Sharrer, Saint John2019s vice president of human resources, emailed the Respondent2019s nursing directors and asked them to inform employees who were wearing the ribbons that they 201cmay not wear them in immediate patient care areas.201d Sharrer explained that he banned the ribbons because he was concerned that 1 There are no exceptions to the judge2019s findings that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) interrogating employees about their union or other protected concerted activities; (2) threatening employees with discipline for engaging in union or other protected concerted activities; (3) threatening to call police on employees and have employees arrested for engaging in union or other protected concerted activities; and (4) creating the impression that employees2019 union activities were under surveillance. 2 We have modified the recommended Order and notice to conform to the violations found and to provide for the posting of the notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010). For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Flooring, Member Hayes would not require electronic distribution of the notice.the ribbons were 201cdetrimental and disruptive to patient care.201d On November 20 or 21, 2008, the director of labor and delivery, Irena Zuanic, told four RNs that they were not allowed to wear the ribbons in immediate patient care areas. She also told them that they would be written up for insubordination if they continued to wear the ribbons. Before and after the ban in November 2008, the Respondent allowed RNs to wear a variety of insignia on their uniforms including union buttons and political buttons. Employees were permitted to wear union buttons in immediate patient care areas, including one stating, 201cRespect and Dignity,201d and another stating, 201cSaint John2019s Nurses2014the Heart of Healthcare.201d In addition, the Respondent issued a ribbon to RNs that said 201cSaint John2019s mission is patient safe care.201d The Respondent permitted employees to wear this ribbon in all areas of the hospital including immediate patient care areas. The judge found that the ban, which was limited to immediate patient care areas, was presumptively valid, but found nevertheless that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because the ban was discriminatorily enforced. The Acting General Counsel and Charging Party except to the judge2019s finding that the ban was presumptively valid. The Respondent excepts to the judge2019s finding that the ban was discriminatorily enforced in violation of Section 8(a)(1). We agree that the judge erred by finding that the Respondent2019s ban was presumptively valid, and we therefore do not reach the judge2019s alternative finding that the ban was discriminatorily enforced. It is well established that employees have a protected right to wear union insignia at work in the absence of 201cspecial circumstances.201d See London Memorial Hospital, 238 NLRB 704, 708 (1978); Ohio Masonic Home, 205 NLRB 357 (1973), enfd. 511 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1975); see al...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
