Extract
Villa Maria Nursing Center, 1345 (2001)
Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. and The Service Master Company and UNITE!
Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, AFL-CIO/CLC. Cases 12-CA- 18137 and 12-RC-7957 September 26, 2001DECISION, ORDER, DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND TRUESDALE On January 5, 2001, Administrative Law Judge Benjamin Schlesinger issued the attached decision. Respon-dent Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (Villa Maria) filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party Union filed an answering brief, cross-exceptions, and a supporting brief. Villa Maria filed answering and reply briefs. 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 and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and conclusions,2 except as discussed below, and to adopt the recommended Order. 1 Respondent Villa Maria and the Charging Party Union have excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we would not reverse the judge's credibility resolutions supporting his finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by threatening employee Villa Louis. Our review of the record in accord with Standard Dry Wall does not convince us that the judge's credibility resolutions concerning the testimony of Louis were incorrect, or that the adverse inference drawn by the judge concerning the Respondent's failure to call Robert Mullen was inappropriate. 2 Contrary to the dissent, we agree with the judge's conclusion that the Respondent's distribution of an unprecedented and previously un-announced survey of employee working conditions during the Union's organization campaign violated Sec. 8(a)(1). The survey would reasonably tend to persuade employees that the Respondent was soliciting their grievances-indeed, the survey specifically inquired about employees' satisfaction with the handling of grievances-with an implicit promise to remedy them in order to counter the Union's campaign. We reach this conclusion regardless of whether the Respondent actually decided to circulate the survey before it knew about that campaign. The survey cannot be viewed as an existing benefit that the Respondent was obliged to maintain as if there were no union present. Furthermore, the Respondent offered no contemporaneous explanation of the survey's purpose that would have rebutted its reasonable tendency to interfere with employees' Sec. 7 rights. Part of this consolidated proceeding involves elections held in Case 12-RC-7957 in two separate employee bargaining units on May 31, 1996. One unit consists of certain classifications of employees of Respondent Villa Maria. The other unit consists of certain classifications of employees of Respondent Service Master Company (Service Master) who work at Respondent Villa Maria's facility. The Union lost each election. Thereafter, it timely filed a single document entitled "Petitioner's Objections to Conduct Affecting Results of Election." The caption of this document identifies both Villa Maria and Service Master as "Employers." The introductory t...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
