ALARIS HEALTH AT BOULEVARD EAST

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 18, 2016

22-CA-125076 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

JD–15–16
Guttenberg, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ALARIS HEALTH AT BOULEVARD EAST
and Cases 22-CA-125076
22-CA-125886
22-CA-131372
1199, SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE 22-CA-140582
WORKERS EAST
Saulo Santiago, Michael P. Silverstein, and
Eric B. Sposito, Esqs., for the General Counsel.
David F. Jasinski and Rebecca D. Winkelstein, Esqs.
(Jasinski, P.C.), of Newark, New Jersey, for the Respondent.
William S. Massey and Patrick J. Walsh, Esqs.
(Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP), of New York, New York,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This proceeding was one of four
cases tried ad seriatim involving Alaris Health’s New Jersey nursing homes and their unionized
employees. Heard in Newark, New Jersey on September 8 through 10, 2015, the case addressed
complaint allegations that Alaris Health at Boulevard East (Boulevard East, Palisades or
Respondent), committed numerous unfair labor practices relating to 20141 bargaining for a new
contract: (1) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)2 by
refusing to meet with the Union’s chosen bargaining committee and then delaying and refusing
to provide information requested by the Union which was relevant to bargaining; (2) violated
Section 8(a)(1) by attempting to stifle employee participation in a likely strike through coercive
interrogation, surveillance, threats of job loss, directing employees to remove union insignia
from their clothing, imposing more onerous conditions on certain employees; and (3) violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to reinstate eight employee strikers after they unconditionally
offered to return to work and changing the terms and conditions of employment of three of
them.3

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 2014.
2 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
3 The complaint was amended to modify complaint pars. 17, 20, 24, 25 and 44(b). In addition, the
General Counsel subsequently withdrew pars. 28 and 29.
JD–15–16
2
Boulevard East contends that the Charging Party, Service Employees International Union
1199 (the Union), is bogged down on past history in negotiating for successor contracts and
engaged in a series of acts designed to “set up” Boulevard East for unfair labor practice charges,
which it denies, and then used those charges to mask an economic strike at Boulevard East and
the other three Alaris facilities as an unfair labor practice strike.5
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Union, and Boulevard East,4 I make
the following
10
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Boulevard East, a corporation, operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center providing 15
in-patient medical care at its facility in Guttenberg, New Jersey, where it annually derives gross
revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly
from points outside the State of New Jersey. Boulevard East 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, as
well as a health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, and the Union is a 20
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Parties25
At the relevant times in this complaint, Boulevard East’s supervisors and agents included:
Robert Smolin, the administrator; Amanda Furio (a/k/a Amanda Brett), the director of nursing;
and Maria Rodriguez, the dietary director. David Jasinski, Esq., has served as Boulevard East
labor counsel and chief negotiator during collective bargaining, accompanied by Mendy Gold, an 30
Alaris principal. Regina Figueroa is a Vice President of Alaris Health.5
Boulevard East and its predecessors have recognized the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of approximately 80 employees in successive collective-
bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was effective from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 35
2014:

4 Notwithstanding my instruction that counsel submit one “omnibus” brief addressing all four cases,
the General Counsel submitted separate briefs for each case. All four Respondents moved to strike the
General Counsel’s briefs. I decided against such an extreme measure but, in order to ensure that there was
no prejudice to Respondents, I permitted them to submit supplemental briefs in each case. Harborview
declined the option.
5 Boulevard East admitted only that Smolin was a Section 2(11) supervisor. However, the
undisputed facts established that Furio and Rodriguez were also statutory supervisors, while Jasinski and
Figueroa acted as agents within the meaning of Section 2(13).
JD–15–16
3
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, cooks, and all other employees
excluding professional employees, registered nurses, LPN’s, confidential [employees],
office clerical employees, cooks, supervisors, watchmen and guards.6
The Union’s leadership includes: Milly Silva, the executive vice president; Clauvice 5
Saint Hilaire, the vice president; and Ron McCalla and Christina Ozual, union organizers. During
collective bargaining, the Union’s chief negotiator was William Massey, Esq., assisted by
McCalla. Pursuant to the expiring agreement,7 the Union designated the following six Boulevard
East employees as members of the bargaining committee: Zeinabou Banks, Glyndora Gomollion,
Vicky Nieves, Walace Moreira, Rosa Aria and Oneida Paulino.10
Notwithstanding an employee strike in 2009 during negotiations over the 2010-2014
agreement, the parties enjoy a relationship that both describe as respectful. The parties began
meeting shortly before the 2010 contracts expired for Boulevard East, Alaris at Castle Hill,
Alaris at Rochelle Park, and Alaris at Harborview. However, controversy soon erupted over the 15
composition of the Union’s bargaining committee and information requested by the Union.
B. The Union’s Information Requests
1. The December 27, 2013 request20
Saint Hilaire initiated the process for a new contract in a letter, dated December 27, 2013.
He requested that Boulevard East engage in bargaining and offered alternative dates in February.
He also requested that Boulevard East furnish the Union with the following information by
January 24: detailed job descriptions and performance evaluations describing job duties for 25
bargaining unit positions; summary plan descriptions and related costs of available fringe
benefits such as health insurance, disability, pension, profit sharing and 401(k) plans;8 numbers
of employees covered by health insurance and related costs; temporary staffing agencies used
and related costs; work schedules for each nursing unit from January to October 2013; OSHA
injury and illness records for 2011-2013; health and safety policies; overtime work policies, shift 30
differentials, and premium pay; gross annual payroll information; cost reports submitted to
Medicaid; and any other documents describing any terms and conditions of employment for unit
members.9
Jasinski had several conversations with McCalla and Massey in January about dates to 35
commence collective bargaining. He apprised them several times that he would be engaged in a
lengthy trial in Atlantic City, New Jersey, during portions of January and February. The trial
eventually started on February 9 and lasted until March 22. Rebecca Winklestein, Esq.,
Jasinski’s co-counsel in this proceeding, served a similar role in that case.

6 GC Exh. 202.
7 Section 17(c) of the agreement, entitled “Negotiations,” stated that the “Union negotiating
committee, not to exceed six (6) Employees, shall be paid for up to three (3) negotiating sessions, by the
Employer, at straight time rates, for all lost time from work.”
8 McCalla knew that none of the Alaris facilities maintained 401(k) plans at the time of the previous
negotiations but credibly explained that it was a standard request that was made in the event that one was
created during the term of the expired agreement. (Tr. 155.)
9 GC Exh. 203.
JD–15–16
4
At some point during those discussions, Jasinski suggested a brief contract extension, but
did not request an extension of time to respond to the Union’s December 27 information
request.10 Neither Massey nor McCalla accepted that offer. McCalla did, however, express the
Union’s preference to bundle all four contracts together during collective bargaining, echoing the 5
Union’s position during the 2007 negotiations. Consistent with his response in 2007, Jasinski
refused, insisting there was a separate contract for each facility and each should be negotiated
separately. He proposed bargaining dates of either March 27 or 31.11
In a letter, dated February 21, McCalla responded to Jasinski by agreeing to meet on 10
either day and break out negotiations into separate bargaining sessions for each facility.
However, he also proposed to have an initial session with the bargaining committees for all four
facilities present in order for union officials to open with their remarks:
In our discussions concerning bargaining dates you said you have possible availability on 15
March 27 and definite availability on March 31. We request that we use one of those
dates to begin bargaining at Alaris Health at Boulevard East, Alaris Health at Castle Hill,
Alaris Health at Harbor View, and Alaris Health at Rochelle Park. If we need to move the
bargaining session for a different facility tentatively scheduled for the 31st, so be it. As
you know the four Alaris contracts expire on the March 31, 2014 and we’ve yet to 20
receive any response to information requests sent to the facilities on December 27, 2013.
We believe it’s important to start bargaining before the contracts expire as it’s our desire
to reach contract settlements in these facilities as quickly as possible.
While we understand the employer’s position on separate bargaining tables for each 25
facility and our agreement to hold four separate meetings on the first day of bargaining
we believe it would be advisable to add a fifth initial session with all facilities and
bargaining committees present to give our union leader Milly Silva and counsel Bill
Massey an opportunity to address the proceedings before we break into separate sessions.
This would obviously be an opportunity for management representatives to speak directly 30
with the employees and Union officials.

10 There is no dispute regarding Jasinski’s assertion regarding his past practice of providing a
response to the Union’s information requests on the first day of negotiations. (Tr. 2152-2154.) Moreover,
his testimony that he told McCalla in January and Massey in February that he would not have an
opportunity to delve into the December 27 information request was also undisputed. However, in light of
Massey’s March 13th email demanding a response to the information request, it is clear that the Union
never consented to delayed document production until March 27. (Tr. 1994-1995; GC Exh.7; R. Exh.
104.) It is also likely that Jasinski, an experienced labor litigator who defended against the Union’s unfair
labor practice charges resulting from previous contract negotiations, would have mentioned such an
agreement or understanding in subsequent written communications. (Tr. 1550-1552.)
11 Massey conceded that it was Jasinski’s longstanding position to negotiate each contract separately,
but noted that there were occasions prior to 2014 when the employer agreed to bargain two to four
facilities at different times on the same day. (Tr. 926-928.) Jasinski conceded that in 2010 all four
contracts were essentially bargained at the same time in the final bargaining session based on an off-the-
record meeting involving delegates from all four facilities. (Tr. 1509-1510.)
JD–15–16
5
Please let us know which of these dates would be your preference.12
In a letter, dated February 26, Jasinski confirmed the proposed bargaining dates and
agreed to the proposal to have Silva and Massey open with remarks, but insisted they make them
at the beginning of each bargaining session for each of the facilities. He also renewed his request 5
for a 90-day contract extension, but made no mention of the December 27 information request:
We are in receipt of your letter identifying a number of facilities whose contracts expire
on March 31, 2014. A brief response is warranted.
10
Each identified facility is a separate and independent operation with its own collective
bargaining agreement covering employees for that particular facility. They maintain
separation operations, including all necessary staff. Each facility is unique and the
bargaining history at each facility recognizes its independence.
15
In light of these undisputed facts, we will adhere to our prior practice and not agree to
joint bargaining. Of course, Milly Silva and Bill Massey may present the Union’s
respective positions for each facility at each bargaining session and, quite candidly, we
welcome their attendance.
20
We are available and confirm the March 27 and 31 dates for each facility. Please notify
me of the times to commence negotiations for each facility. In scheduling for these
sessions, we request notification of the members of the bargaining committee who will be
attending. We request these names at least two (2) weeks in advance to avoid any
disruption in our staffing. Bargaining sessions, as in our prior negotiations, will take 25
place at the Union's offices in Edison.
Finally, in a spirit of good faith and cooperation, as discussed, we will agree to the
extension of each collective bargaining agreement for an additional ninety (90) days. This
additional time will afford all parties the opportunity to formulate its bargaining positions 30
and engage in give-and-take at the bargaining table in an effort to reach an amicable
agreement that balances the needs of all parties. Should the Union wish to jumpstart the
negotiations and submit its initial proposals to us prior to the initial bargaining session,
we will accept and review each proposal. Thank you.13
35
On March 13, McCalla emailed Jasinski to inform him that each of the four Alaris
facilities would receive releases for bargaining committee members that day by fax and certified
mail. Massey followed up with an email later that day regarding the commencement of
bargaining and the outstanding information requests:
40
This is to follow up on Ron’s correspondence below concerning the start of bargaining
with the four Alaris facilities. As you are likely aware, on December 27, 2013, the Union,

12 Jasinski’s testimony regarding assurances by McCalla about negotiating the contracts separately is
consistent with McCalla’s documented agreement to do that— subject to an opening statement by Silva at
the beginning of negotiations. The assurances of separate bargaining, however, made no mention of the
composition of Boulevard East’s bargaining committee. (GC Exh. 5; Tr. 869, 1426-1427.)
13 GC Exh. 6.
JD–15–16
6
via Vice-President Clauvice St. Hilaire, served information requests on the four Alaris
facilities, copies of which are attached hereto for your convenience. Clauvice requested
that the sought after documents be produced to the Union by January 24, 2014. We are
now in March, only a couple of weeks away from sitting down to start negotiations, and I
understand that none of the four facilities has produced even a single document to the 5
Union. Similarly, I am advised that the facilities have not requested an extension of time
nor an explanation for the delay in producing these documents, which are relevant and
necessary for bargaining. Please have the four facilities produce the requested
information as soon as possible, but no later than March 18, 2014. Please advise your
clients to supply information as it becomes available rather than waiting to assemble all 10
the information requested. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards.14
2. The March 14th information request
In a letter, dated March 14, Massey followed up on his email to Jasinski from the day 15
before, insisting on a response to the December 27, 2013 information request by March 18. In
addition, Massey made a supplemental request for the most current payroll roster, daily
schedules from January to December 2013 (to the extent not already covered by the previous
request), actuarial plan values, and specific health insurance plan documents. The health
insurance documents sought included any relating to summary plan descriptions, costs, terms of 20
coverage, census data reflecting plans selected by employees, actuarial and utilization plan
values, and requests for proposals and financial impact related information.15
3. The March 27 bargaining session
25
On March 27, Jasinski arrived at 11 a.m. for the first bargaining session at the Union’s
offices in Iselin, New Jersey. Massey, McCalla, Saint Hilaire, Silva and Ozual were present,
accompanied by approximately 20-25 employee delegates from the four facilities. Two days
were set aside for bargaining. Bargaining was to start with the Castle Hill contract and be
followed by negotiations over the Harborview, Boulevard East, and Rochelle Park contracts.30
After waiting about an hour for Gold to arrive, Jasinski agreed to start the Castle Hill
negotiations. Milly Silva and Massey opened with brief opening remarks. After reviewing the
sign-in sheet, Jasinski protested the presence of employee-members from Harborview, Boulevard
East and Rochelle Park. He proclaimed Castle Hill’s readiness to commence Castle Hill 35
negotiations, but noted each contract was different and the parties had not previously engaged in
joint bargaining. Massey replied that the Union was entitled to bargain with a team of its

14 Jasinski’s testimony established that he never had an agreement from the Union for an extension of
time to respond to the December 27 information request. When asked on direct examination about that
request, Jasinski simply lumped that issue in with his interest in a contract extension. (Tr. 1416-1418.)
Massey had no recollection of any such conversation, but “could appreciate . . . that it would be difficult
to do lots of other work while [Jasinski was] on trial.” (Tr. 930-931.) Nevertheless, while corresponding
during that time over the logistics and dates for bargaining, Jasinski simply ignored Massey’s March 13th
reminder to provide the information in advance of the March 27 bargaining session. (Tr. 926, 929-930,
1416-1418; GC Exh. 7.)
15 This request refined the previous request for monthly work schedules from one that sought daily
work schedules. (GC Exh. 8.)
JD–15–16
7
choosing. Jasinski disagreed, accused the Union of playing games and was prepared to leave if
employees from the other three facilities did not leave. Massey asked him to reconsider and
reiterated that the Union was entitled to pick its own bargaining team. At that point, Jasinski
provided a packet of information relating to Castle Hill’s December 27 information request and
retreated to a caucusing room.165
Shortly thereafter, Massey and McCalla went to speak with Jasinski. They asked him to
relent, but neither side budged over the composition of the Union’s bargaining committee. That
conversation ended when Gold arrived and Jasinski asked to confer with his client. A few
minutes later, Jasinski and Gold returned to the negotiation room. After confirming the Union’s 10
continued position regarding the composition of the bargaining committee, Jasinski said that they
would leave. At no point during this meeting did Jasinski assert confidentiality concerns as a
reason for excluding employees from the other Alaris facilities during Castle Hill bargaining
sessions.
15
The parties then discussed future dates for bargaining and Jasinski provided Massey with
packets responsive to the December 27 information requests by Harborview, Boulevard East, and
Rochelle Park. The cover letter in each packet conveyed Jasinski’s view that the Union
previously requested the information:
20
Enclosed please find a copy of the requested information. As you will see, much of the
information was already in the position of the Union and available to the Union via its
members. We are glad to provide you with another copy. Should you have any additional
questions or require additional information, please advise.17
25
Before Jasinski and Gold left, the Union did not submit a proposal.18 Silva did, however,
ask about rumors that Boulevard East would be demolished to make way for apartment building
development. Jasinski replied that the Boulevard East question did not apply to the Castle Hill
negotiation, while Gold said that there was nothing to report. Jasinski said he would get back to
them about Boulevard East. Shortly thereafter, Jasinski and Gold left and did not return in order 30
to commence bargaining over Harborview, Boulevard East and Rochelle Park.
In a letter, dated April 1, Jasinski proposed dates for the resumption of bargaining for the
Boulevard East contract:
35
After the abbreviated March 27th bargaining session, I want to reiterate that we are
available to meet on April 1st, 2nd and 3rd to continue negotiations for the referenced
facility. We understand that the Union did not believe it was prudent to meet on any of
those dates since it needed additional time to review information. In light of the

16 I credit Jasinski’s undisputed testimony that some delegates in attendances made side remarks,
sneered, and laughed, but not his conclusion that their conduct made it “not conducive to bargaining.” If
that were true, Jasinski, an experienced labor litigator, would have raised that as a concern. He made no
mention of their conduct as he walked out. (Tr. 80-83, 870-872, 1432-1434.)
17 GC Exh. 204.
18 Boulevard East notes the discrepancy in testimony between Massey and Saint Hilaire as to whether
the Union was prepared to issue its proposals if the bargaining sessions had gone forward. (Tr. 938,
1059.)
JD–15–16
8
upcoming religious holidays, we confirmed that we are available on April 28th and 29th,
and also offered April 30th and May 1st to meet on any one of those dates for this
facility. We believe that it is best to dedicate one of these days for this facility only and
not piggyback any other negotiations for the designated dates. The employees deserve
our undivided attention. Unfortunately, despite our admitted avai1ability, the Union has 5
not confirmed any of those dates at this time.
If the Union is interested in meeting to continue negotiations at this facility, we ask that
you confirm one of those dates for this facility. In addition, if you are interested in
moving the negotiations forward, if we receive your written proposal prior to our next 10
session, it will give us the ability to review it and prepare a response and to continue good
faith bargaining.
Finally, we again express our willingness to extend the current collective bargaining
agreement for an additional period of time to afford the parties the opportunity to 15
continue negotiations in good faith, and seek to reach an amicable resolution that
balances the needs of your members with the facility and the care for our residents.
Thank you.19
In his reply later that day, McCalla documented the parties’ March 27 meeting, disagreed 20
with the four facilities’ “refusal to hold bargaining sessions for more than one facility per day” as
“unreasonable and a poor use of the time and resources of all parties.” Notwithstanding
Jasinski’s position, McCalla proposed to commence separate bargaining dates for each facility as
follows: Castle Hill on April 28; Boulevard East on April 29; Rochelle Park on May 1; and
Harborview on May 2:25
As discussed on March 27, we reiterate that your clients' refusal to hold bargaining
sessions for more than one facility per day is unreasonable and a poor use of the time and
resources of all parties. That said, assuming the Employers have not reconsidered on this
issue, the Union confirms our agreement from last week to bargain on April 28 and April 30
29, we accept your offer to bargain, on May 1, and we offer May 2 for a fourth session.
We propose the following sequence:20
4. The Union’s follow-up request
35
In a letter to Jasinski, dated April 9, Massey expressed concern over the facilities’ failures
to provide the Union with the information described in items 10, 11, and 12 of the December 27
request, and items 2, 3(b), (c), and (e) through (1) of the March 14 request. In addition, Massey
noted that the responses to items 14 and 15 of the December 27 request and item 3(a) of the
March 14 request were incomplete. He asked for the outstanding information to be provided by 40
April 15.21

19 GC Exh. 205.
20 GC Exh. 11.
21 GC Exh. 21.
JD–15–16
9
On April 21, Jasinski responded by reminding Massey that “each facility is separate and
we provided separate information for each facility. In the future, we request that any inquiry be
addressed for the individual facility.” In response to items 10 and 11, Jasinski stated that there
were no documents because the facility had not used agency personnel to perform bargaining
unit work. Item 12 was noted to be voluminous and Jasinski proposed that the Union “accept a 5
representative sample of work schedule[s] for a limited period of time.” As to items 14 and 15,
Jasinski referred Massey to the employee handbook.22 In a separate letter dated the same day,
Jasinski responded to the Union’s March 14 supplemental request by noting that items 1 and 3
were previously provided, while item 2 was burdensome and unnecessary. Jasinski requested the
Union to refine it to one not as overbroad.2310
5. The April 29 bargaining session
The parties subsequently agreed to resume the Boulevard East contract negotiations on
April 29. Prior to that session, the Union undertook a propaganda blitz in a flier distributed to the 15
employees at the four facilities:
At our first bargaining session on Thursday, March 27th, we came prepared to bargain
with management at each of our four facilities. But management refused to sit face to
face with our full bargaining team to discuss their proposals. They want to divide us and 20
weaken us, but we won't let that happen! We won't wait years for a new contract! For
more information, contact your organizer, Christina Ozual at [xxx-xxx-xxxx]. The next
negotiations are scheduled for Monday, 4/28 and Tuesday, 4/29. Let's all be ready to
stand strong and speak with one voice!24
25
At the April 29 bargaining session, Jasinski and Gold met with Massey, McCalla, Silva,
Saint Hilaire the six bargaining committee members from Boulevard East. This time, there was
no controversy regarding the composition of the Union’s bargaining team. Massey gave Jasinski
the Union’s written proposals, but reminded him that the Union was still waiting for the CNA
daily work schedules and health insurance related information. In response to Jasinski’s letter 30
asserting the 12-month request was burdensome, Massey agreed a day earlier during the Castle
Hill negotiations to accept three months of daily work schedules. Jasinski said he would get back
to the Union regarding the requests. Massey also asked about the rumors that Boulevard East
would be replaced by an apartment building. Jasinski replied that there was nothing new to report
and refused to respond to rumors2535
6. The Employee Schedules
In a letter, dated May 14, Jasinski furnished Massey with the monthly staffing schedules
at Boulevard East for each floor for all shifts from February 1 to May 25. The monthly schedules 40

22 GC Exh. 207.
23 GC Exh. 206.
24 GC Exh. 44.
25 The Union does not dispute that, notwithstanding Boulevard East’s failure or refusal to provide
necessary information requested on December 27 and March 14, it was still able to submit a fairly
comprehensive proposal. (GC Exh. 221; R. 202; Tr. 1926-1932, 2745-2749.)
JD–15–16
10
reflected projected CNAs’ work schedules and floor assignments.26 On May 21, Jasinski
responded to Massey’s additional information request:
In response to your additional information request, we have provided you with all
relevant information. Most recently, we supplemented our initial response with schedules 5
for this Facility. The additional information which you have requested is simply without
merit. You are well aware of this fact, since similar information was requested when the
SEIU responded that the information was not available, since it would be a violation of
HIPAA.27
10
It is disconcerting that the Union now requests information which it has previously been
unable or refused to provide in negotiations. It was either an oversight or, worse,
disingenuous, to make these requests.
We are prepared to continue to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that balances 15
the interests of our employees and your members with those of the Facility. Should you
have any other questions, please advise.28
The parties met again for bargaining on May 27. Massey again opened with a statement
that the information provided in response to the Union’s request was not satisfactory because it 20
lacked the requested health insurance information and consisted of projected monthly schedules
instead of work schedules reflecting actual work performed by CNAs.29 Massey also asked about
the status of Boulevard East’s zoning application to convert the facility into an apartment
building. Jasinski insisted that the monthly schedules were sufficient and Massey explained the
relevance of the more accurate daily work schedules, which reflect the days and shifts actually 25
worked. With respect to the conversion of the facility into an apartment building, Jasinski again
professed to have no knowledge and added that “these things take years.” After engaging in
bargaining, Jasinski provided and explained Boulevard East’s counterproposals.30
7. The June 16 bargaining session30
The June 16 bargaining session opened, as usual, with the Union’s request for daily work
schedules and health insurance information needed for bargaining. Once again, Jasinski
disagreed, insisting the Union already had the information and did not need anything further.
During the bargaining that ensued, Jasinski dismissed the Union’s staffing proposals based on 35
the CBA’s management rights clause reserving it unilateral control over staffing. The parties
then engaged in bargaining, with Jasinski providing Boulevard East’s latest contract proposals.31

26 GC Exh. 208.
27 During the hearing, Jasinski sought to undermine the Union’s need for health insurance information
based on the lack of health or safety-related grievances filed and focused on several CBA provisions: Sec.
8 (grievance and arbitration procedure); and Sec. 29(c) (Health and Safety Committee whose purpose
“shall be to identify and recommend preventative measures where appropriate”).
28 GC Exh. 209.
29 Saint Hilaire credibly testified that Boulevard East employees complained to him about short-
staffing, health insurance and vacation issues. (Tr. 1012-1013.)
30 GC Exh. 221 at 11-16.
31 GC Exh. 221 at 17-21.
JD–15–16
11
On July 30, Jasinski replied to the Union’s continuing request for health plan information
and employees’ daily schedules:
We want to be clear and avoid any misunderstanding regarding your multiple information 5
requests. The Employer has been fully responsive. The latest request purportedly asked
for supplemental information for the Employer's health plan which was nothing more
than harassment, grounded in bad faith, and not intended to facilitate contract
negotiations. It is intended to only stall negotiations. We are not about to allow that to
happen. At the negotiations, we informed you that the Employer is not in possession of 10
such information and/or the Union is requesting confidential information. We reiterated,
at the bargaining table, it is irrelevant, unnecessary and not intended to facilitate contract
negotiations.
In addition, the Union requested information concerning work schedules at this facility. 15
We provided the Union with the master list which represents our work schedules. This is
the only relevant information, and it was provided.
As stated across the bargaining table, the Employer will neither waive nor modify its
rights as set forth in the Managements Rights clause of the collective bargaining 20
agreement. Staffing has historically been a right reserved to this administration, and we
will not give-up in this contract negotiation our unilateral right to determine staffing at
this Facility. We will reject any Union proposal that modifies our rights concerning
staffing levels on the units and the way we staff this Facility. That is our final position
and we will not deviate from it.25
Once again, we suggest the Union focus on the negotiation of a new collective bargaining
agreement for our employees. We are puzzled with the Union's refusal to meet or
provide, dates for parties to bargain in good faith. We reiterate our request for new dates
to continue to negotiate.3230
8. The August 25 Bargaining Session
The parties next met for bargaining on August 25. Massey reiterated the Union’s need for
the outstanding daily work schedules and health insurance information for bargaining. Jasinski 35
did not respond to that inquiry and the parties engaged in bargaining.33
C. Employees Prepare for a Possible Strike
Beginning in March, Ozual or Saint Hilaire met periodically with employees at the 40
facility. Speaking to the employees in English and Spanish, they provided contract education,
bargaining updates, and listened to complaints. The bargaining updates included the significant
issues involving in bargaining such as health insurance coverage, pension plan funding, staffing,
and the rumored demolition of Boulevard East. Ozual and Saint Hilaire also informed employees

32 GC Exh. 210.
33 GC Exh. 131 at 22.
JD–15–16
12
about Boulevard East’s refusal to meet with the Union’s bargaining committee on March 27 and
its refusal to provide requested information.34
By May, the Union recommended that employees step up the pressure on the four Alaris
facilities. On May 19, several Boulevard East employees participated in informational picketing.5
Sandra Mejia, Maria Goris, Norma Diaz, Lorena Aguilar, Lovette Howard and Walace Moreira
carried signs containing several exclamatory messages to Boulevard East: “1199 Stop Unfair
Labor Practices,” “Be Fair To Those Who Care,” and “Contract Now!”35
Boulevard East management did not stand idly by as the union pressure increased. On 10
June 16, dietary director Maria Rodriguez approached a group of dietary employees gathered
outside the facility. She asked the group, which included Lorena Aguilar and assistant dietary
director Elliot Fernandez, when the strike would begin and warned that anyone who went on
strike would be fired. Someone replied that the employer could replace them during the strike,
but could not fire them and would be required to reinstate them upon returning from the strike. 15
At that point, one of the employees saw Ozual, brought her over to the group and repeated what
Rodriguez said. Ozual reinforced what the employees told her and explained they were within
their rights to engage in a strike and return to work. Rodriguez disagreed, insisting that “this is
my kitchen . . . and I let back who I want in this kitchen . . . and you’re not coming back after the
strike . . . 3620
Also in June, Rodriguez told Aguilar to go to Smolin’s office. When Aguilar and two
coworkers arrived, Smolin asked if they were going on strike. Aguilar said she was going on
strike because the employees insisted on a fair contract. Smolin replied that the Union was at
fault and was unwilling to sign a contract. Aguilar, having attended the bargaining sessions, told 25
Smolin that was not true.37
Thereafter, the Union gradually increased the public pressure. In July, the Union’s New
Jersey communications coordinator, Bryn Loyd-Bollard, created “Alarisk.com”, a website
devoted to the Union’s bargaining campaign against the four Alaris facilities. The website’s 30
home page included a news alert providing the economic motives behind a potential strike:
NEWS ALERT: HUNDREDS OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS
STRIKE AFTER CONTRACT TALKS SOUR.
35
Don't put your health at alarisk.
Stand up for quality care and good jobs in nursing home.
Stand with nursing home residents, families and caregivers and tell the
owners of Alaris Health (formerly Omni Health Systems) to settle a
far contract that protects patients and workers.40

34 It is undisputed that Ozual, accompanied occasionally by Saint Hilaire, followed a similar practice
of updating employees, as well as receiving their complaints, at each of the four Alaris facilities. (Tr.
1003-1011, 1012-1013, 1158-1187, 1206-1207.)
35 GC Exh. 213.
36 Fernandez did not dispute Aguilar’s credible testimony. (Tr. 2323-2326, 2645-2647.) Rodriguez did
not testify.
37 Smolin did not dispute Aguilar’s credible testimony on this point. (Tr. 2328-2330.)
JD–15–16
13
Despite making $41 million in profit in 2012, many Alaris nursing
homes suffer from substandard staffing levels while hardworking
caregivers live in poverty. The overwhelming majority of Alaris
nursing home employees earn less than $25,000 a year, and some have
to rely on public assistance just to make ends meet.5
Our communities depend on skilled caregivers to provide for our loved
ones in their times of need. They deserve better. We deserve better.38
On July 23, Silva convened a press conference in Jersey City near Alaris’ corporate
headquarters. There were elected officials and approximately 10 employees from Alaris facilities 10
in attendance. In prepared remarks that followed, Silva excoriated Alaris for a mélange of
reasons as justification for a possible future strike, including unfair labor practices and regressive
economic proposals.
We are here today because Alaris Health, the multimillion dollar for-profit nursing chain 15
based here in Journal Square, is showing a callous disregard for the wellbeing of the
communities in which they operate.
The owners of Alaris are violating the rights of its employees, they are raking in huge
profits while maintaining substandard staffing levels, and they are planning to demolish 20
one of their long-term care facilities without being forthright to the nursing home’s
residents or caregivers about their plans. We are here to demand that Alaris start acting
responsibly.
The women and men standing beside me play a critical role as caregivers to some of the 25
most vulnerable people in our communities. It is essential that their rights and dignity as
workers be upheld, because there is a connection between the quality of life of caregivers
and the quality of care for patients.
It is of grave concern to us that Alaris has committed numerous unfair labor practices and 30
continues to act in the same disrespectful and illegal manner as they did five years back,
when they operated under the name Omni Health Systems. We do not want a repeat of
2009, when hundreds of nursing home workers had no choice but to go on strike in order
to protect standards for good jobs and quality patient care. Omni may have changed their
name to Alaris, but it seems that they haven't changed their ways.35
After nearly four months and 16 bargaining sessions, 450 caregivers at four Alaris Health
nursing homes are still working under expired contracts. All they are asking for are the
basics to make ends meet—something that must be insisted upon for every healthcare
worker who, as a fundamental requirement of her job, needs to remain physically and 40
mentally healthy.
Yet instead of moving forward, Alaris wants to further erode job standards in nursing
homes. They’re asking low-wage workers, who earn less than $23,000 a year full-time, to
pay even more for health insurance and to reduce critical benefits including sick leave. 45

38 GC Exh. 48.
JD–15–16
14
Many workers already have no choice but to enroll in public assistance just to get their
children the healthcare they need, and the concessions that Alaris is seeking will only
make the situation worse.
We will not let vital healthcare jobs suffer so that Alaris, which makes $40 million in 5
profit a year, can walk away with even more.
It is disgraceful that Avery Eisenreich, the principal owner of Alaris, which receives
literally hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid and Medicare funding each year to
provide care to the elderly and vulnerable, decides to pocket millions for himself before 10
making sure that the caregivers who work directly with patients have what they need to
get by.
Avery has also failed to address persistent staffing shortages at these four facilities, each
of which have certified nursing assistant staffing levels below both state and national 15
averages. Our union has proposed a framework for addressing staffing shortages, but
management has for months failed to provide the union with requested information on
staffing and has refused to negotiate over this critically important issue.
And in Guttenberg, where Avery Eisenreich owns a facility on Boulevard East that is 20
home to 100 elderly and frail residents, he plans to demolish the nursing home in order to
build luxury high-rise apartments. He is not being upfront about what his plans are, and
the nursing home’s residents, their family members, and workers have been left in the
dark. This is incredibly disrespectful to everyone who depends on Boulevard East, either
as a patient or as an employee.25
In many ways, Alaris is acting in complete disregard for the community. We are here
today to say that enough is enough. We do not want to strike. Our members would rather
be doing the job they love and caring for their residents instead of walking the picket line.
But they are ready to strike if they have to, to protect quality care and good jobs.30
I’d like to introduce you to a few members of 1199, who work at Alaris nursing homes in
Hudson and Bergen counties. They have been working very hard these past months to
win a contract that respects their dignity as caregivers and as providers for their own
families.3935
Jasinski knew about the Union’s July 23 press conference and discussed that event with
Alaris corporate officials.40
D. Unit Employees Decide to Strike40
On August 27, Massey, Silva, McCall, Ozual, and Saint Hilaire met at the Union’s office
in Iselin, New Jersey, with ten employee delegates from Harborview, Boulevard East and

39 GC Exh. 57.
40 Jasinski conceded that Alaris officials were provided with the details. (Tr. 1536-1538.)
JD–15–16
15
Rochelle Park. Another six employees from Castle Hill participated by telephone. Rosa Arias
and Lovette Howard were the delegates from Boulevard East.
The union officials met with the employees for about 1-1/2 hours. McCalla laid out a case
for a strike based on the Union’s inability to make significant headway in negotiations and the 5
wide gap between proposals. Massey followed with a recitation of the unfair labor practice
charges filed for the four facilities and the complaints that he expected to be filed by the Board in
September. He also provided an explanation of the difference between an economic strike and a
strike premised on unfair labor practices.
10
Massey then proposed a resolution setting forth the reasons for going out on strike. At the
conclusion, the employee delegates present voted to deliver ten-day notices to engage in a three-
day strike. The group discussed and decided who would deliver the notices along with McCalla.
The delegates were also instructed to tell the membership that the strike was authorized and it
was motivated by economic and unlawful practice reasons.41 The employees present signed the 15
resolution and the six employees participating by telephone from Castle Hill voiced approval:
At a meeting of the Alaris Bargaining Committee of 1199 SEIU United Healthcare
Workers East ("the Union"), held at the Unions office in Iselin, NJ on August 27, 2014,
upon the recommendation of Executive Vice President Milly Silva, the following 20
resolution was considered and adopted by the undersigned Committee members:
WHEREAS, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East is the collective bargaining
representative of bargaining unit employees of Bristol Manor Health Care Center, Castle
Hill Health Care Center, Harborview Healthcare Center and Palisades Nursing Center, all 25
affiliates of Alaris Health (collectively, "the Employer"); and
WHEREAS the Union has bargained in good faith with the Employer to negotiate a
collective bargaining agreement; and
30
WHEREAS, the Employer has Violated our rights by committing Unfair Labor Practices,
specifically by failing and refusing to provide information requested by the Union that is
needed for bargaining (especially health insurance and staffing information), unduly
delaying in providing other information, and unlawfully interfering with the composition
of the Union's bargaining committee and35
WHEREAS, Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board has informed the Union
that a Complaint against the Employer alleging multiple Unfair Labor Practices in
connection with this unlawful conduct is forthcoming; and
40
WHEREAS, the Employer has continued to make unreasonable bargaining demands of
the Union and its members; and

41 Art. IV, sec. 7 of the Union’s Constitution gives delegates the “responsibility of involving their
members in all affairs of the Union. Article V, Section 6(b) states the rights of members ‘[t]o vote on all
strike calls and strike settlements directly affecting the members as employees. Article VII, Section
11(1)(f) states that the’” Regional Delegate Assembly shall have the power to call strikes in its region,
subject to the approval of the members directly involved and the executive council. (R. 106.)
JD–15–16
16
WHEREAS the Employer has continued to commit additional Unfair Labor Practices,
including by unlawfully polling and coercively interrogating Union members, and
threatening Union members with adverse employment consequences for engaging in
protected Union activity; and5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: the Union and its members hereby
determine to serve the Employer with the legally required ten-day notice of intent to
engage in a rally and vigil at Castle Hill Healthcare Center on or about September 10,
2014, in response to the Employer's ongoing Unfair Labor Practices and unreasonable 10
bargaining position; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the Union and its members hereby determine to
serve the Employer with a subsequent legally required ten-day notice of intent to engage
in a strike, for three days at each facility, in response to the Employer's ongoing Unfair 15
Labor Practices and unreasonable bargaining position.42
In a letter, dated August 29, Jasinski decried the Union’s justification in moving towards
a strike, noting that it had been approximately two months since the parties’ last bargaining
session. He referred to his request at the conclusion of their last session for future bargaining 20
dates, but the Union never proposed any. At this point, Jasinski suggested the parties resume
negotiations during the weeks of either September 8 or 15. He concluded by attributing the
standoff to the Union’s continuing request for ‘irrelevant and unnecessary” information, and the
Union’s attempts to resurrect staffing proposals that were previously resolved.43
25
On September 6, the Union delivered to Boulevard East the contractually required 10-day
notice of bargaining unit employees’ intention to go out on strike for three days:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to section 8(g) of the National Labor Relations Act, that
1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, New Jersey Region and the employees it 30
represents intend to conduct a strike and picketing at Harborview located at 178-198
Ogden Ave., Jersey City, NJ 07 306. The strike and informational picket are to protest the
Employer's ongoing Unfair labor Practices and the Employer's unreasonable bargaining
demands. The strike will commence at 6:00 AM on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 and
end at 6:59 AM on Saturday, September 20, 2014.4435
Such action had been submitted to the membership for a vote in past years, as required by
the Union’s constitution.45 In this instance, unit members were informed of the scheduled strike

42 It is undisputed that the strike resolution was not disseminated to the entire union membership for a
vote as required by the Union's constitution. (GC Exh. 15.)
43 GC Exh. 211.
44 GC Exh. 212.
45 Boulevard East correctly notes that a membership strike vote was not conducted in accordance with
the Union’s constitution. However, the vote of the delegates was subsequently ratified by the
membership’s actions in going on strike and Boulevard East failed to cite any CBA or other legal
provision supporting the notion that the delegate’s strike vote was null and void or that it even has
standing to raise such a procedural objection. (R. Exh. 106 at 5-7.)
JD–15–16
17
and provided with reasons attributing the strike action to Boulevard East’s bargaining posture
and unfair labor practices.46
On the same day, Jasinski emailed Massey, questioning the Union’s motives and
cancelling proposed bargaining dates in September in order for his clients to dedicate their “time, 5
effort and our resources to ensuring the strike contingency plan at each Facility that received a
strike notice is in place and fully operational.”47
E. Supervisors Statements Prior To The Strike
10
Around the same time, the Union began mobilizing employees for the strike. Saint
Hilaire and/or Ozual met with Boulevard East employees 2-3 times a week in the break room to
answer employees’ questions and rally support for the strike. In doing so, they distributed
informational flyers and addressed concerns regarding Boulevard East’s alleged unfair labor
practices, including the aforementioned statements by supervisors.48 They also explained that the 15
strike was motivated by the desire to pressure Boulevard East to agree to their contract proposals
and put a stop to its unfair labor practices.49
Sometime in August, Smolin called several CNAs into a meeting in the main office.
Amanda Furio, the nursing director, was also present. The CNAs present included Elizabeth 20
Christie-Duran, Sandra Mejia, Yavida Mena and Rosa Fernandez. Smolin acknowledged the lack
of an agreement between the Union and Boulevard East and understood there would be a strike.
He then proceeded to ask each employee if they were going to participate in the strike. Christie-
Duran said she would go out on strike. After the others also responded, Smolin warned that if
they went on strike, they could lose their jobs. Christie-Duran took issue with that assertion, 25
insisting it was within employees’ rights to go on strike. Smolin replied that he would hire
replacements and there would be no work for returning employees. Furio chimed in at that point,
acknowledging employees’ rights to strike, but urging the employees to appreciate the risk of
“winding up without a job.” Smolin did not end the inquiry there. About a week later he asked
Christie-Duran while she was working if she was going on strike. Christie-Duran said yes.5030
In early September, Smolin increased the pressure on employees by calling them into
meetings in his office. He was accompanied by Furio and Linda Restrepo, the business office
manager, who interpreted his comments into Spanish. Once there, he asked the employees if they
were going to participate in the strike. Several CNAs, including Norma Diaz, Patricia Ruiz and 35
Maria Goris responded that they were going to participate in the strike. He continued to blame

46 Boulevard East refers to the testimony of several witnesses indicating that their strike participation
was motivated by the employers’ bargaining positions. Interestingly, their testimony related to statements
made in response to coercive interrogation or threats by Smolin, Furio and Rodriguez. (Tr. 2329-2330,
2336, 2346-2350, 2396-2397, 2401, 2403, 2409, 2452-2453, 2498-2499, 2526.)
47 R. Exh. 8.
48 GC Exhs. 44(c), (e) and (f); R. Exh. 4-5.
49 This finding is based on the credible and undisputed testimony of Ozual and Saint Hilaire. (Tr.
1013-1016, 1020-1022, 1024-1028, 1170, 1206, 1208-1210, 1212, 1216-1220, 1284-1286, 1290-1297,
1300, 1302-1303, 1306-1308.)
50 Christie-Duran and Sandra Mejia testified credibly about this encounter and their testimony was not
disputed. (Tr. 2446-2451, 2516-2517.)
JD–15–16
18
the controversy on the Union’s unwillingness to negotiate with Boulevard East and warned that
strikers could be replaced. Also, while holding a document, he explained that it related to the
previous strike and that 16 to 20 strikers were locked out and some were never reinstated.51
A few days after Aguilar served the Union’s 10-day strike notice, Smolin called Aguilar 5
and two other dietary employees into his office. Regina Figueroa, Alaris’ vice president, was
present. Figueroa criticized the Union’s bargaining campaign and opined said that employees’
priorities should be their patients. Aguilar took issue, insisting employees cared for the patients,
but management did not care about the employees. Smolin then referred to Boulevard East’s
proposal for a $500 bonus for the employee of the month. Aguilar questioned that assertion, 10
given that she attended bargaining sessions. Smolin then warned that there would be changes if
employees went on strike. He asked the three employees if they were going on strike and they
responded in the affirmative.52
In early September, Rodriguez renewed her threats of termination. Rodriguez called 15
Aguilar into the dietary office and asked if she was going on strike. Aguilar said she was going
to participate in the strike and Rodriguez replied that she would be fired. Aguilar held her
ground, insisting she was within her right to strike and would be entitled to return after the strike.
Rodriguez replied that she would do what she had to do.
20
Around the same time, Rodriguez remarked to dietary employee Walace Moreira while
he was in her office getting supplies that anyone who participated in the strike would be
replaced. A few days later, Rodriguez approached Moreira and Aguilar in the kitchen, asked if
they would participate in the strike and warned that they would be replaced if they did.53
25
F. Alaris Supervisors Prohibit Union Insignia
Boulevard East has a uniform policy prohibiting dietary employees from wearing jewelry
or buttons in the kitchen. The policy reflected a safety concern regarding such items breaking
and/or falling onto patients’ food trays. Several months prior to the strike, however, Smolin 30
began distributing buttons for supervisors to wear. The buttons read, “I Care. I am Alaris
Health.” Rodriguez wore the button continuously, even in the kitchen area. In August, Smolin
distributed the “I Care” button to employees. Aguilar received one and wore it on her uniform,
even while working in the kitchen.
35
In late August or early September, several employees began wearing union buttons on
their clothing during work time. One button bore the Spanish version of “We Care For New
Jersey” while the other stated “We don’t want to strike, but we will if we have to, 1199 SEIU.”54
However, Rodriguez instructed Moreira on two occasions and Aguilar once to remove them
during work time because they were not part of the dietary department uniform. The employees 40
took issue with her directive, but complied.55

51 This finding is based on the credible and undisputed testimony of Diaz and Goris. (Tr. 2497-2450,
2525-2526.)
52 Aguilar’s testimony was not disputed. (Tr. 2347-2352, 2419.)
53 Again, the credible testimony of Aguilar and Moreira was undisputed. (Tr. 2363-2354, 2543-2545.)
54 GC Exhs. 216-217.
55 Assistant dietary supervisor Elliott Fernandez testified regarding the existence of, and reasons for,
JD–15–16
19
The prohibition against pro-union buttons, however, was not limited to work time in the
kitchen. In late August, as Moreira ate lunch in the employee dining room, Smolin approached
him and told him to remove the “We Don’t Want To Strike” button. Smith then proceeded to
post a letter on the Union bulletin board. The letter stated, in pertinent part:5
Dear Employee: We have to be careful when caring for our residents because information
can be misrepresented and misperceived and can cause the resident to become anxious.
Any information that is worm on the uniform such as a button that can be interpreted as
threatening to a resident may not be worn at Boulevard East unless approved by the 10
administration. A button such as “Alaris Health, I Care” is ok to wear on the uniform. If
you have any questions, please contact me, Thank you, Robert Smolin.56
G. Alaris Supervisors Observe Employees During Prayer Vigil
15
On September 10, employees from all four facilities, including Norma Diaz from
Boulevard East, participated in a prayer vigil and rally with Silva and their local State
Assemblyman in front of Castle Hill.57 Flyers distributed to employees at the four facilities prior
to the vigil referred to the upcoming strike relating to the facilities’ unfair labor practices and
undermining of job standards.58 During the event, Castle Hill administrator Maurice Duran stood 20
about ten feet away. He could be heard saying that their action was a joke, there was nothing to
worry about, it was just bad publicity, and it would not be a problem to do what he had to do
next.59 The Union photographed the rally/vigil and depicted it in a flyer distributed on September
15.60
25
H. Alaris Prepares for the Strike
In anticipation of its staffing needs prior to the strike, Boulevard East entered into
contracts with three temporary staffing companies. Included in the agreements with Tristate
Rehab Staffing and Towne Nursing were requirements that that Boulevard East retain their30
employees for minimum terms of four weeks. This was a peculiar development in light of the
Union’s prior notice of a three-day strike. There was, however, no written agreement with Staff
Blue.61

the uniform policy. He was unaware of employees wearing any buttons in the kitchen. (Tr. 2841-2844.)
However, in light of Smolin’s corroborative memorandum, I credit the testimony of Moreira and Aguilar
regarding the disparity between the employer’s restrictions against pro-union buttons while permitting
them to wear company-issued buttons. (Tr. 2332-2338, 2547-2554, 2593; GC Exh. 219.)
56 GC Exh. 219.
57 GC Exh. 35.
58 GC Exh. 44(f).
59 I base the finding regarding the observation of employees on Castle Hill CNA Leanne Crawford’s
credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 489-492.) Although his employment role was limited to Castle
Hill, Duran conceded that he is engaged to Alaris official Ann Taylor. (Tr. 1584-1585.)
60 GC Exh. 44(b).
61 I did not credit Jasinski’s vague testimony regarding alleged negotiations by unidentified persons
which resulted in Boulevard East agreeing to four week terms. (Tr. 2767, 2803; R. Exh. 11; GC Exhs.
JD–15–16
20
I. The Strike
Massey did not speak with Jasinski about the strike beforehand, but sent him an email
and voice mail on September 15. On the same day, Jasinski called McCalla and requested he 5
alert employees not to walk off early because it could leave the facilities understaffed and
compromise their licenses.62
On September 17, approximately 20-30 Boulevard East employees/unit members ceased
work and engaged in a strike. The strikers included Walace Moreira, Elizabeth Christie-Duran, 10
Lovette Howard, Norma Diaz, Maria Goris, Erika Pena and Lorena Aguilar. Over the next three
days, the striking employees picketed outside the facility. They included Sandra Mejia, who was
on medical leave during the strike but returned to participate in the picket on September 18.
The picketers’ signs demanded Boulevard East engage in good-faith bargaining and cease 15
committing unfair labor practices.63 As the employees picketed on the first and second days of
the strike, Smolin stood in the lobby and took photographs of the picketing employees with his
cell phone. Employees saw several flashes in their direction.64
During the three-day strike, Boulevard East covered the shifts of the striking CNAs with 20
22 temporary employees from the three staffing agencies.65
J. Employees Attempt to Return to Work
On September 18, the second day of the strike, Jasinski informed Massey that some 25
strikers would not be allowed to return to work the next day because of the contractual
commitments with the staffing agencies. Massey questioned why the facilities would make such
a commitment if employees gave notice of a three-day strike. Jasinski explained that the facilities
needed to be cautious in case the employees changed their minds and remained on strike for a
longer period of time. Massey disagreed, noting that the Union’s history belied such a concern. 30
In an email sent later that day, Massey, on behalf of all Boulevard East employees/unit members
who engaged in the strike, made an unconditional offer to return to their former or substantially
equivalent positions of employment.66
On or after September 20, employees who participated in the strike reported to work at 35
Boulevard East. Miller and other employees who arrived to work the morning shift were directed
to the dining room. When they arrived, most employees were met by a contingent of Furio,
Restrepo, Figueroa and Rodriguez. Two kitchen aides, Moreira and Aguilar, were informed that

226, 233-234.) Linda Dooley, an Alaris officer who signed the agreements was available, but did not
testify, and the circumstances by which the addenda were added were not explored. (Tr. 722, 2636.)
62 GC Exh. 28.
63 GC Exh. 19.
64 The credible testimony of Aguilar, Goris, Mejia and Moreira was undisputed. (Tr. 2356-2357,
2502-2503, 2519-2520, 2559.)
65 GC Exhs. 225-226, 236-237.
66 GC Exh. 28.
JD–15–16
21
they were locked out. In addition, the following 6 CNAs were not immediately reinstated:
Christie-Duran, Mejia, Goris, Diaz, Pena and Howard.
K. Employees Are Eventually Reinstated
5
1. Walace Moreira.
Moreira, a union shop steward for many years, worked as a full-time pot washer for the
past 10 years. In that position, he worked an average of 75 hours per pay period on the 10:30
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. shift. After reporting to work on September 20, Rodriguez informed him that 10
someone else took his position during the strike and his “full time hours were no longer
available.” She offered Moreira a part-time dishwasher position, which he reluctantly accepted.67
2. Lorena Aguilar
15
Prior to the strike, Aguilar worked as a full-time dietary aide on the 11:30 a.m. to 7:30
p.m. shift, with every other weekend and Tuesdays off. Her duties include preparing food trays,
inspecting patient menu tickets, distributing food trays for delivery to patients and other tasks as
needed.
20
Aguilar was off duty on September 20 but went into work to ascertain her status. She was
informed by Rodriguez that she had been replaced. On September 22, Aguilar was offered a full-
time dietary floater position, which Moreira had turned down. She accepted the offer. As a
floater, Aguilar’s schedule changed from a consistent 11:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. to a variable 6:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m. On numerous occasions, her schedule was changed on short notice, requiring 25
her to come in at 6:00 a.m. even though she had been working until 9:00 p.m. the previous night.
These duties continued until April 2015, when Aguilar became a cook.
3. Elizabeth Christie-Duran
30
Prior to the strike, Duran was a floater on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, covering for other
CNAs as needed. In that capacity, she cared for an equal number of total care and independent
patients. On September 20, Christie-Duran was informed by Boulevard East management that
she was not on the schedule for that day and would be called when there was work for her.
Christie-Duran was reinstated on October 15. 35
4. Norma Diaz
Prior to the strike, Diaz worked as a CNA on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift as a floater. She
attempted to return to work on September 20 but was informed that she had been replaced by a 40
temporary staffing agency worker for 4 weeks. She was reinstated 3 weeks later.

67 Subsequent developments regarding other positions offered to, but rejected by, Moreira are left for
compliance.
JD–15–16
22
5. Sandra Mejia
Prior to the strike, Mejia worked as a CNA on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, handling the
permanent #2 assignment in the front nurse area of the facility. In that capacity, she worked
approximately 16 hours of overtime every other weekend. 5
Mejia did not participate on the first day of the strike because she had a medical
procedure on September 18. She was able, however, to join the picket line during the second day
of the strike. Upon returning to work on September 20, she was told by a nurse serving as a
messenger for Smolin or Furio that she was not on the reinstatement list as there was no work for 10
her because they hired a temporary employee for her position. Mejia immediately informed
Massey, who reached out to Jasinski and explained that Mejia had been approved for medical
leave during the strike.68
Mejia was reinstated on September 21 but was instead reassigned to other positions 15
because her position had been filled with a temporary agency employee. She returned to her
position on September 24. After the strike, Mejia did not receive customary overtime for
weekend work from October through March 2015.69
6. Lovette Howard20
Prior to the strike, Howard, a union delegate, worked as a full-time floater on the 7 a.m.
to 3 p.m. shift.70 She was locked out on September 20, but reinstated on September 23.71
7. Maria Goris25
Prior to the strike, Goris worked as a full-time CNA on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift.72 Her
duties consisted of assignment 1 in 68 Nurse area, taking care of 10 patients.73 Goris participated
in picketing all three days of the strike. She was locked out upon her return to work on
September 22. Furio informed her at that time that she had no hours for her but would call when 30
something opened up. Goris was reinstated on September 28.74
8. Erika Pena
Prior to the strike, Pena worked as full-time CNA in the 68 Nurse area, responsible for 35
assignment #1 on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift.75 She participated in picketing on September 17 and
18. Upon returning to work on her next regularly scheduled day, September 30, Pena was
informed that she had been replaced. Pena was reinstated on October 15.

68 GC Exh. 222.
69 GC Exh. 214 at 55
70 GC Exh. 208, 214.
71 GC Exhs. 214 at 48.
72 GC Exh. 208, 214.
73 GC Exh. 214.
74 GC Exh. 214 at 60.
75 GC Exh. 214.
JD–15–16
23
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. BOULEVARD EAST’S OBJECTION TO THE UNION’S BARGAINING COMMITTEE5
The complaint alleges that Boulevard East violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by refusing to bargain with the Union on March 27, 2014 because employee
representatives from the other three facilities were present. Boulevard East contends that
its insistence that the Union’s bargaining committee be restricted solely to Boulevard 10
East employees was consistent with past practice. Additionally, Boulevard East contends
that the parties' collective-bargaining agreement limited the Union's bargaining
committee to six members.
Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees and employers the right to “to bargain 15
collectively through representatives of their own choosing” and the Supreme Court has
recognized this right as fundamental to the statutory scheme. NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 33 (1937). Generally, both parties have a right to choose
whomever they wish to represent them in negotiations, and neither party can control the
other party's selection of representatives. General Electric Co., 173 NLRB 253, 255 20
(1968), enfd. 412 F.2d 512, 516-517 (2d Cir. 1969); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v.
NLRB, 415 F.2d 174, 177-178 (8th Cir. 1969) (affirming Board determination that “so
long as it confines negotiations to terms and conditions of employment within the
bargaining unit, it has free rein . . . in its choice of negotiators.”)
25
The right to choose one’s bargaining representatives, however, is not absolute. An
exception to the general rule arises when the situation is so infected with ill will, usually
personal, or conflict of interest as to make good-faith bargaining impractical. See, e.g., NLRB v.
ILGWU, 274 F.2d 376, 379 (3d Cir. 1960) (ex-union official added to employer committee to
“put one over on the union”); Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 108 NLRB 1555 (1954) (union 30
established company in direct competition with employer); NLRB v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 182
F.2d 810 (6th Cir. 1950) (union negotiator expressed great personal animosity towards
employer). But cf. NLRB v. Signal Mfg. Co., 351 F.2d 471 (1st Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert.
denied 382 U.S. 985 (1966) (similar claim of animosity rejected). On the other hand, where the
employer simply asserts that there was ill will and a conflict of interest relative to the proposed 35
union representatives, the Board is unlikely to grant an exception to the presumptive rule that
both employers and employees have an unrestricted right to choose their own representative.
Atlas Refinery, Inc., 354 NLRB 1056, 1070 (2010) (employer "violated § 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by refusing to bargain with the Union as long as [the union's designated representative] was
part of the bargaining committee”).40
Mere inclusion of persons outside the negotiating unit does not constitute exceptional
circumstances. NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 599 F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1979) (other
units); Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. NLRB, 415 F.2d at 177-178 (other
locals); General Electric Co. v. NLRB, 412 F.2d at 517-520 (2d Cir. 1969) (other international 45
unions); Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d 40, 44 (6th Cir. 1963) (other locals). Furthermore,
a claim that a union's use of outsiders was an unlawful attempt to compel companywide or
JD–15–16
24
multiplant bargaining is also insufficient, unless the employer can demonstrate that the union
actually attempted to bargain outside unit boundaries NLRB v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co.,
599 F.2d at 191; Minnesota Mining, 415 F.2d at 178; General Electric, 412 F.2d at 519-520.
In this case, there was no evidence that the Union sought to force Boulevard East 5
into multiemployer bargaining through the presence of bargaining unit members from the
other three facilities. The only hint of a Union strategy affecting all four facilities was its
desire to have Silva and Massey make opening statements out the outset of bargaining.
See International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 46, AFL-CIO, 302
NLRB 271, 273-274 (1991) (union not justified in refusing to negotiate with employer 10
group’s chosen committee of members and non-members at the outset of separate
bargaining sessions in accordance with a longstanding practice of including all both
group members and nonmembers under a single collective-bargaining agreement).
Some delegates in attendances made side remarks, sneered and laughed in 15
response to Jasinski’s remarks on March 27. However, Jasinski never mentioned that as
an issue on March 27 and it was hardly an indication that the participation of employees
from the other three facilities represented a “clear and present danger to the collective
bargaining process” or would create ill will and make bargaining impossible. See
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 46, AFL-CIO, 302 20
NLRB at 273-274 (union did not meet burden of showing that the employer group's
chosen representatives were “so tainted with conflict or so patently obnoxious as to
negate the possibility of good-faith bargaining”).
Jasinski’s additional concern at hearing that the presence of employees from other 25
facilities would violate the confidentiality of employees at the other facilities does not pass
muster. See Milwhite Co., Inc., 290 NLRB 1150, 1152 (1998) (mere fear that negotiations will
result in compromising confidentiality is insufficient), citing General Electric Co., 173 NLRB at
255. No such concern was expressed on March 27.
30
Boulevard East cites CBS, Inc., 226 NLRB 537, 539 (1976), as support for the
proposition that the Union’s bargaining representatives presented “a clear and present danger to
the bargaining process or would create such ill will as to make bargaining impossible or futile.”
That case, however, involved a conflict of interest regarding the composition of a bargaining
committee because one committee member was part of a labor organization that did not represent 35
CBS's members, but rather, two key competitors. That is hardly the scenario here. Boulevard
East also cites Fitzsimons Mfg. Co., 251 NLRB 375, 379-380 (1980), for a similar proposition. In
Fitzsimons, however, an employer lawfully excluded a union representative who engaged in an
unprovoked physical attack on the company's personnel director. Id. That scenario was also
inapplicable.40
Given the absence of evidence of exceptional circumstances indicating bad faith on the
part of the Union, Boulevard East was obligated to bargain with the Union’s bargaining
committee on March 27 even though employee-members from the other three facilities were
present. General Electric, 412 F.2d at 520. By walking out of the negotiations under those 45
circumstances, Boulevard East refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act. See Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d at 44 (employer unlawfully refused
JD–15–16
25
to negotiate with union bargaining committee, which added temporary representatives from
affiliated bargaining units in order to improve communication between them); NLRB v. Indiana
& Michigan Electric Co., supra, (employer unlawfully refused to bargain with union negotiating
committee because the union was coordinating the various bargaining efforts).
5
II. BOULEVARD EAST’S DELAY IN PROVIDING INFORMATION
The complaint alleges that Boulevard East also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it
unreasonably delayed in providing the Union with information requested in order to prepare for
bargaining. Boulevard East contends that it responded in a manner reasonably consistent with 10
past practice and that union officials sanctioned the delay because of counsel’s other
commitments.
The duty to timely furnish requested information cannot be defined in terms of a per se
rule. Good Life Beverage Co., 312 NLRB 1060, 1062 fn. 9 (1993). Rather, what is required is a 15
reasonable good-faith effort to respond to the request “as promptly as circumstances allow.”
Id. See also Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000). In evaluating the promptness of an
employer's response, the Board considers the complexity and extent of the information sought,
its availability, and the difficulty in retrieving the information. West Penn Power
Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), citing Samaritan Medical Center, 319 NLRB 392, 398 (1995), 20
enfd. in relevant part 394 F.2d 233 (4th Cir. 2005). Since “information concerning terms and
conditions of employment is presumably relevant,” it must be “provided within a reasonable
time, or, if not provided, accompanied by a timely explanation.” In Re W. Penn Power Co., supra
at 597(citing FMC Corp., 290 NLRB 483, 489 (1988)). Even a relatively short delay of two or
three weeks may be held unreasonable. See, e.g., Capitol Steel & Iron Co., 317 NLRB 809, 813 25
(1995), enfd. 89 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1996) (two week delay unreasonable under the
circumstances because the information sought was simple, close at hand, and easily
assembled); Aeolian Corp., 247 NLRB 1231, 1244 (1980) (three week delay unreasonable under
the circumstances).
30
Boulevard East received the Union’s initial information request on December 27 and a
supplemental request on March 14. In early January, Jasinski informed Massey and McCalla that
he would be busy with a State court proceeding in parts of January and February. The trial
eventually took place between early February and the third week in March. Jasinski did propose,
on several occasions, to extend the term of the expiring contract, but the Union never agreed. At 35
no time, however, during his written and verbal communications with the Union did he request
an extension of time to respond to the information requests. That is because Jasinski always
intended to produce a response to the information requests on the first day of bargaining.
Dallas & Mavis Forwarding Co., 291 NLRB 980(1988), enfd, 909 F.2d 1484 (6th Cir. 40
1990), cited by Boulevard East, is inapplicable. In that case, the Board found a delay in
providing requested information justified to the extent that the employer's confidentiality
interests outweighed a union's need for information. The employer feared that competitors might
gain an advantage if they acquired information about tariff rates contained in certain business
contracts. In this case, however, Boulevard East never asserted confidentiality concerns as an 45
excuse for the delay at any time prior to March 27.
JD–15–16
26
The passage of nearly three months in responding to the Union’s initial information
request and five weeks responding to the supplemental request was unreasonable. Boulevard
East was entirely mum on the subject notwithstanding follow-up reminders by the Union to
provide the information prior to the March 27 bargaining session. Instead, Jasinski simply
delivered the information at the conclusion of the March 27 session, just before he and Gold 5
walked out. The tactic was clearly calculated to prolong bargaining by ensuring that the Union
would have insufficient time to analyze the information provided and, thus, be unable to
commence meaningful bargaining at the first session. The fact that Boulevard East previously
delayed in producing requested information until the first bargaining session does not rescue it
from a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.10
III. REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SCHEDULES AND HEALTH INSURANCE INFORMATION
The General Counsel also contends that Boulevard East violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act on May 21, when it refused to provide daily work schedule information, and July 30, 15
when it refused to provide health insurance related information, both of which were relevant and
necessary to the performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representative. Boulevard
East refused to provide such further work schedule information, insisting that the Union should
be satisfied with monthly master schedules. With respect to the health insurance information,
Boulevard East claimed it was prohibited from releasing such information under the privacy 20
provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.76
An employer has a duty to furnish relevant information necessary to union
representatives for the proper performance of their duties as the exclusive bargaining
representative. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 153 (1956); Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 25
U.S. 301, 303 (1979); W-L Molding Co., 272 NLRB 1239, 1240-1241 (1984); NLRB v. Acme
Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-436 (1967); A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356 NLRB No.
76, slip op. at 2 (2011). Information requests regarding bargaining unit employees' terms and
conditions of employment are “presumptively relevant” and must be provided. Whitesell Corp.,
352 NLRB 1196, 1197 (2008), adopted by a three-member Board, 355 NLRB 635 (2010), 30
enfd. 638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2011); Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005).
The standard for establishing relevancy is the liberal, “discovery-type standard.” Alcan
Rolled Products, 358 NLRB No. 11, slip op. at 4 (2012), citing and quoting applicable
authorities. The Union, in accord with its duty, sought copies of daily work schedules in order to 35
formulate and present appropriate proposals on behalf of employee-members. See
Wayneview Care Center, 352NLRB 1089, 1115 (2008) (work schedules relating to unit
employees, are presumptively relevant, including information on current schedules for each
department). Accordingly, the Union was entitled to production of schedules of work actually
performed by employees and was not relegated to the monthly work schedules. See McGuire 40
Steel Erection, Inc. & Steel Enterprises, Inc., 324 NLRB 221, 223-224 (1997) (employer
unlawfully refused to provide additional payroll records on the grounds that it already provided
the union with other types of payroll records); National Grid USA Service Co., Inc., 348 NLRB
1235 (2006) (union was entitled to copies of invoices containing base line information, not just

76
45 CFR §§ 160 and 164.
JD–15–16
27
unverified summaries made by employer); Merchant Fast Motor Line, 324 NLRB 563 (1997)
(union was not required to accept an employer’s declaration as to profitability or summary
financial information provided by the employer); McQuire Steel Erection, Inc., 324 NLRB 221
(summaries of payroll records deemed not sufficient to meet a respondent's statutory obligation).
5
Similarly, Boulevard East was obligated to furnish the requested health insurance
information necessary for the Union to formulate its own proposal. One Stop Kosher
Supermarket, Inc., 355 NLRB 1237 (2010) (union was entitled to health insurance plan
information). The Union was entitled to the requested information concerning the costs of health
insurance to Boulevard East and covered employees in order to analyze them within the context 10
of the Affordable Care Act. This was significant information, given the Union’s bargaining
objective to increase dependent health insurance coverage and its interest in exploring alternative
proposals to offset the costs.
On May 21, Jasinski formally denied the union’s request for the daily work schedules. 15
With respect to the health insurance information request, Jasinski initially insisted the Union
already had the information. That was incorrect. The Union had only been provided with partial
information relating to gross payroll benefits, monthly health plan costs, and a summary
description of the plan. After the Union persisted, he agreed to inquire further. On July 30,
Jasinski closed the door regarding any further health insurance related information. He based that 20
objection on spurious confidentiality concerns that came more than two months after the
information request. Exxon Co. USA, 321 NLRB 896, 898 (1996) (confidentiality objection must
be timely raised). Moreover, the documentary evidence and Jasinski’s vague testimony failed to
identify how any of the requested health insurance related documents involved the confidential
medical information of any employees. Lastly, Jasinski refused Massey’s offer to work out an 25
accommodation for the release of the allegedly confidential information. See Castle Hill Health
Care Center, 355 NLRB 1156, 1183-1184 (2010) (generalized confidentiality concern
unavailing as an excuse to refuse information request);
Under the circumstances, Boulevard East’s refusal to provide daily work schedule 30
information on May 21 and health insurance related information on July 30 as requested by the
Union violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THREATS REGARDING STRIKE ACTIVITY
35
A. Threats to Employees of Job Loss or Other Reprisals
The complaint alleges that Boulevard East engaged in various violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. The standard in determining whether employer conduct violates that section
of the Act is based on whether statements made to employees reasonably tend to interfere with 40
the free exercise of employee rights under the Act. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575
(1969). In determining whether a supervisor's statement is unlawfully coercive, the test is
whether the employee would reasonably be coerced by it. See Engelhard Corp., 342 NLRB 46,
60-61 (2004) (test for coercion under Sec. 8(a)(1) is “whether the employer engaged in conduct
which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights 45
under the Act”) (emphasis in original), enfd. 437 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2006).
JD–15–16
28
In June 2014, Rodriguez warned employees that they could lose their jobs if they went on
strike. In response, the employees brought over Ozual, a union representative, to witness the
threat. Rodriguez repeated her threats and stated that no employee would return to the kitchen if
they went on strike. Similarly, in September 2014 Rodriguez issued threats to Aguilar and
Moreira, warning that they would be replaced and/or discharged if they participated in the strike. 5
Like Rodriguez, Smolin, Boulevard East’s administrator, told employees they could be
discharged for striking on two separate occasions. In the first instance, he interrogated a group of
CNAs, including Christie-Duran and Mejia as to whether they were going to strike and
threatened termination if they did. Christie-Duran spoke up, insisting it was within employees’ 10
rights to strike. Smolin replied that he would replace them with substitutes and that no work
would remain after the strike. Smolin again threatened a group of CNAs with termination in the
days leading up to the strike. Using a Spanish-language interpreter, Smolin again asked each
employee whether they were going on strike and warned that each could be replaced.
15
The aforementioned supervisory statements sent clear messages that engaging in Section
7 activity was harmful to Boulevard East. See Hoffman Fuel Co., 309 NLRB 327, 327
(1992) (employer's questioning coupled with a veiled threat unlawful where there was no
legitimate purpose for ascertaining the employee's prospective union activities). In addition, the
threats that a strike will lead to job loss were unlawful because they incorrectly conveyed to 20
employees that their employment will be terminated as a result of a strike, whereas the law is
clear that economic strikers retain certain reinstatement rights. Baddour, Inc., 303 NLRB 275
(1991) (mere statement without further explanation that employee “could end up losing your job
by being replaced with a new permanent worker” was unlawful).
25
Under the circumstances, the threats by Smolin and Rodriguez that employees could be
replaced and lose their jobs if they participated in a strike violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. Interrogation of Employees Regarding Strike Activity
30
In assessing the lawfulness of an interrogation, the Board applies the totality of
circumstances test adopted in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. sub nom. Hotel
Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). The Board has additionally
determined that in employing the Rossmore House test, it is appropriate to consider the factors
set forth in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964): whether there was a history of 35
employer hostility or discrimination; the nature of the information sought (whether the
interrogator was seeking information to base taking action against individual employees); the
position of the questioner in the company hierarchy; the place and method of interrogation, and;
the truthfulness of the reply. In applying the Bourne factors, the Board seeks to determine
whether under all of the circumstances the questioning at issue would reasonably tend to coerce 40
the employee at whom it was directed so that he or she would feel restrained from exercising
rights protected by Section 7 of the Act. Westwood Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 935, 941
(2000).
In June 2014, Rodriguez called Aguilar and several other employees into a meeting
where Smolin asked each employee if she intended to participate in the strike. Smolin repeated 45
the coercive exercise with another group of employees in his office in late August. Rodriguez
JD–15–16
29
capped off the interrogation two more instances in early September when she again asked
Aguilar and Moreira if they intended to go on strike. In neither instance did Rodriguez or Smolin
assure the employees that no reprisals would be taken against them as a result of their responses.
Such assurances were vital since Rodriguez and Smolin were canvassing the facility threatening
employees, including Aguilar, Moreira, Goris, Christie-Duran and Meija with termination if they 5
participated in the strike. Under the circumstances, the questioning by Smolin and Rodriguez
was coercive in nature and violated Section 8(a)(1).Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center, 348
NLRB 1016 (2006); Reno Hilton Resorts, 320 NLRB 197, 207 (1995).
V. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNION INSIGNIA10
The complaint alleges that Boulevard East committed additional Section 8(a)(1)
violations in August and September when Rodriguez and Smolin ordered dietary employees to
remove pro-Union buttons from their uniforms. Boulevard East concedes that Rodriguez and
Smolin issued such directives, but contends that it had a legitimate business and safety reasons 15
for restricting buttons or other accessories in the kitchen.
Employees generally have a protected right under Section 7 to wear union insignia,
including union buttons, in the workplace. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801-
803 (1945); P.S.K. Supermarkets, 349 NLRB 34, 35 (2007). This right, however, may give way 20
when the employer demonstrates special circumstances sufficient to outweigh employees'
Section 7 interests and legitimize the regulation of such insignia. See Healthbridge Management,
LLC, 360 NLRB No. 118 (2014) enfd. 798 F.3d 1059 (2015); W San Diego, 348 NLRB 372, 372
(2006). In a hospital setting, special circumstances are generally deemed to exist in immediate
patient care areas. See NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, 442 U.S. 773, 783 fn. 12 (1979) (presumption 25
of validity of employer ban on solicitation or the wearing of insignia in immediate patient care
areas to prevent situations that might be unsettling to patients). On the other hand, a rule
prohibiting the wearing of union insignia in nonpatient care areas is presumptively invalid,
absent special circumstances that such a ban was “necessary to avoid disruption of health care
operations or disturbance of patients.” Baptist Hospital, supra at 781.30
Boulevard East’s policy prior to the controversy – prohibiting the wearing of buttons in
the kitchen area – was a reasonable one. It sought to eliminate the risk of buttons or jewelry
breaking and/or falling into patient’s food trays. While it is unlikely that any Boulevard East
patients would be present in the kitchen, the kitchen staff serves a patient care function by 35
preparing patients’ individualized food trays. Considering the safety factors in that scenario, the
prohibition against wearing buttons during the preparation of food in Boulevard East’s kitchen
would be presumptively valid.
That presumption, as well as the legitimacy of Boulevard East’s rationale for the policy, 40
however, was negated by Boulevard East’s arbitrary prohibition against pro-Union buttons while
permitting kitchen staff to wear company-issued buttons. Employees were urged to wear buttons
promoting the company brand – “I Care. I am Alaris Health” – but prohibited from wearing
buttons supporting a likely strike – “We Care For New Jersey” and “We don’t want to strike, but
we will if we have to, 1199 SEIU.” See Saint John’s Health Center, 357 NLRB No. 170, slip op. 45
at 2 (2011) (presumption of validity does not apply to a selective ban on only certain union
insignia in immediate patient care areas).
JD–15–16
30
The only explanation in the record as to why Rodriguez instructed kitchen staff on three
occasions in August and September to remove pro-Union buttons was because it was “[her]
kitchen” and, as such, within her unfettered discretion. Clearly, justification for the ban was
lacking. Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 438, 507 (1978) (circumstances must establish 5
that action was necessary to avoid disrupting operations or patients).
In a fourth instance, Smolin instructed Moreira on August 27 to remove a pro-Union
button while he sat in the employee break room. Moreira complied and Smolin proceeded to post
a memorandum prohibiting the wearing of any buttons other than the company-issued “I Care. I 10
am Alaris Health” buttons. The letter alluded to the risk of that other types of buttons might
cause “resident[s] to become anxious” and could be “be interpreted as threatening to a resident . .
” and needed to be “approved by the administration.”
While a button conveying the message of a possible strike by the facility’s employees 15
might have concerned some patients, Moreira was not wearing the button in a patient care area
when he was told to remove it. As such, Smolin’s directive was unlawful. See Casa San Miguel,
Inc., 320 NLRB 534, 540 (1995) (restrictions on wearing insignia in nonpatient care areas are
presumptively invalid in the absence of special circumstances justifying the ban).
20
Similarly, Smolin’s August 27 memorandum, posted immediately after his coercive
encounter with Moreira, discriminated based on its pro-Union content. It limited button-wearing
to those permitted by management in order to prevent situations that could cause anxiety or be
deemed threatening to patients. The only evidence, however, proved otherwise – the employer’s
concern about employees displaying their support for the union. See Healthbridge Management, 25
LLC, supra at 3.
VI. SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES DURING STRIKE
While standing in close proximity in the lobby, Smolin photographed employees 30
as they picketed during the first and second days of the strike.
It is not unreasonable to expect that the spectacle of a mass protest of employees
carrying signs and chanting slogans would pique the interest of managers, supervisors
and employees working within the facility. The Board does, however, consider the 35
photographing and videotaping of employees, with certain exceptions, as generally
coercive since such behavior tend to create a fear of future reprisals for engaging in
concerted activity. F.W. Woolworth Co., 310 NLRB 1197 (1993).
Boulevard East failed to demonstrate any justification for the photographing of picketing 40
employees outside its facility. National Steel Shipbuilding Co., 324 NLRB 499 (1997), enfd. 156
F. 3d 1268 (3d Cir. 1988). There was no evidence of violence, unruly behavior or past actions on
the part of picketing employees indicating any possibility of a disruption to Boulevard East’s
operations which might otherwise have justified photographing their activity by the facility’s
manager and nursing director. Under the circumstances, Boulevard East violated Section 8(a)(1)45
of the Act by engaging in unlawful surveillance of picketing employees outside its facility on
September 17 and 18.
JD–15–16
31
VII. REFUSAL TO REINSTATE STRIKING EMPLOYEES
The complaint further alleges that the Boulevard East violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to reinstate eight employees when they returned to work the day after the 5
strike ended: Walace Moreira, Elizabeth Christie-Duran, Lovette Howard, Norma Diaz, Sandra
Mejia, Maria Goris, Erika Pena and Lorena Aguilar. Boulevard East disagrees, insisting that the
eight employees were not reinstated because they engaged in an economic rather than unfair
labor practice strike.
10
Strikes may be categorized as either economic or unfair labor practice strikes. Spurlino
Materials, LLC, et ano. v. NLRB, 805 F.3d 1131, 1136-1137 (D.C. Cir. 2015), citing Gen. Indus.
Emps. Union, Local 42 v. NLRB, 951 F.2d 1308, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1991). That categorization
carries significant consequences. Economic strikers run the risk of replacement if, during the
strike, the employer takes on permanent new hires. NLRB v. International Van Lines, 409 U.S. 15
48, 50 (1972); Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311. In such instances, economic strikers
are entitled, upon their unconditional offers to return to work, to reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, if no permanent replacements have been hired to replace them
and the positions remain open. NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 378–379 (1967).
20
In the case of an unfair labor practice strike, employees are entitled to immediate
reinstatement to their former positions upon their unconditional offers to return to work, even if
the employer has hired replacements. See International Van Lines, 409 U.S. at 50–51,
93; Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 278 (1956); Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951
F.2d at 1311; Hajoca Corp. v. NLRB, 872 F.2d 1169, 1177 (3d Cir.1989). Accordingly, an 25
employer violates the Act if it fails to reinstate such strikers once they have made an
unconditional offer to return to work. See Alwin Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 192 F.3d 133, 141–142 (D.C.
Cir.1999).
In determining whether the General Counsel has met his burden of establishing that an 30
employer’s unfair labor practices caused the employee’s decision to go on strike, the Board looks
to the employees' motivations for striking, considering both objective and subjective
evidence. See Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1312; Spurlino Materials, 357 NLRB No.
126, slip op. 15-16 (2011); Executive Management Services, 355 NLRB 185, 194-196
(2010); Chicago Beef Co. v. Local 26, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, 298 NLRB 35
1039 (1990). A strike wholly driven by the desire of employees to obtain favorable employment
terms is an economic strike. When employees strike as a result of an employer's unfair labor
practices, the strike is an unfair labor practice strike. See International Van Lines, 409 U.S. at
50–51; Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311.
40
In this case, there is little testimony by employees as to their reasons for participating in
the strike. There is objective proof of motivation for the strike, however, in the statements by
Union officials and signs carried employees during informational and strike picketing. Through
public statements, media publications and its website, the Union conveyed the mixed message
that it sought redress for Boulevard East’s unfair labor practices and economic reasons (e.g., 45
better wages, health insurance coverage and pension plan). The Union followed up on these
actions by filing unfair labor practice charges and informing employees that Board complaints
JD–15–16
32
would issue. See Citizens Publishing & Printing Co., 263 F.3d 224, 235 (3d Cir. 2001) (facts
supported finding that Board’s decision to issue a complaint “galvanized bargaining unit
members' belief that an unfair labor practice had been committed and served as the flashpoint for
discussion about calling a strike”).
5
It is evident that meaningful collective bargaining was hamstrung at the outset by
Boulevard East’s failure to provide responsive information prior to March 27 and then refusing
to commence bargaining with Boulevard East’s chosen bargaining committee. While certainly
not dispositive of the reasons for an eventual strike nearly six months later, it set the tone for a
ragged path of trickling information and resistance in providing relevant work schedule and 10
health insurance related information.
Under Board law, the dual motivation of Boulevard East’s employees to strike in order to
improve their bargaining position and assail Boulevard East’s unfair labor practices means that
the strike must be characterized as an unfair labor practice strike. See Executive Management 15
Services, supra at 193; Domsey Trading Corp., 310 NLRB 777, 791 (1993); General Drivers &
Helpers Union, Local 662 v. NLRB, 302 F.2d 908, 911 (D.C.Cir.1962). “The employer's unfair
labor practice need not be the sole or even the major cause or aggravating factor of the strike; it
need only be a contributing factor.” Teamsters Local Union No. 515 v. NLRB, 906 F.2d 719, 723
(D.C.Cir.1990); Alwin Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d at 141; Gen. Indus. Emps. Union, 951 F.2d at 1311. 20
See also Struthers Wells Corp. v. NLRB, 721 F.2d 465, 471 (3d Cir.1983); NLRB v. Cast Optics
Corp., 458 F.2d 398, 407 (3d Cir.1972).
The Union, on behalf of the striking workers, gave Boulevard East a 10-day notice prior
to the strike that employees would strike on September 17, 18, and 19. On September 18, the 25
Union notified Boulevard East that the striking employees would return to work on September
20. Under the circumstances, Boulevard East’s refusal to reinstate Moreira, Christie-Duran,
Howard, Diaz, Mejia, Goris, Pena, and Aguilar on or after September 20 violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
30
VIII. CHANGES TO WORK HOURS AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
The complaint also alleges that Boulevard East committed various violations of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily changing the terms and conditions of employment
of Moreira, Aguilar and Mejia after they returned from the strike. Boulevard East contends that 35
these employees were replaced after going out on an economic strike and were provided with the
work that was available when they returned.
In determining whether adverse employment action is attributable to unlawful
discrimination, the Board applies the analysis set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980),
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). The Wright Line 40
framework requires proof that an employee's union or other protected activity was a motivating
factor in the employer's action against the employee. 251 NLRB at 1089. The elements required
to support such a showing are union or protected concerted activity, employer knowledge of that
activity, and union animus on the part of the employer. Amglo Kemlite Laboratories, 360 NLRB
No. 51, slip op. at 7 (2014); Consolidated Bus Transit, 350 NLRB 1064, 1065 (2007), enfd. 577 45
F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009). Proof of animus and discriminatory motivation may be based on direct
JD–15–16
33
evidence or inferred from circumstantial evidence. Robert Orr/Sysco Food Services, 343 NLRB
1183, 1184 (2004); Purolator Armored, Inc. v. NLRB, 764 F.2d 1423, 1428-1429 (11th Cir.
1985). Factors which may support an inference of antiunion motivation include employer
hostility toward unionization, other unfair labor practices committed by the employer
contemporaneous with the adverse action, the timing of the adverse action in relation to union 5
activity, the employer's reliance on pretextual reasons to justify the adverse action, disparate
treatment of employees based on union affiliation, and an employer's deviation from past
practice. 764 F.2d at 1429.
All three employees engaged in protected concerted activity, including informational
picketing before the strike and during the strike. Boulevard East knew of their pro-strike 10
inclinations and expressed repeatedly its animus towards such activity. Additional proof of
animus is found in the numerous unfair labor practices in the form of threats, interrogation and
prohibition of union insignia. The only differences were in the nature of the significant adverse
action suffered by each employee.
Although Moreira was eventually reinstated after the strike, it was as a part-time pot 15
washer. As Rodriguez predicted, his work hours were significantly reduced from 75 hours per
pay period to (at most) 52.5 hours per pay period.77
Aguilar was reassigned to a different position after the strike and saw her schedule
changed from a consistent 11:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. to a variable 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Making
matters worse, Aguilar’s supervisor oftentimes changed her schedule on short notice, requiring 20
her to come in at 6:00 a.m. even though she had been working until 9:00 p.m. the previous night.
Prior to the strike, Mejia received approximately 16 hours of overtime each pay period,
by covering an extra weekend shift. After returning to work, Mejia did not work any extra
weekends from October through February 2015, even though the opportunity for overtime work
continued to exist.25
The General Counsel having established a prima facie case, the burden shifted to
Boulevard East to prove that union activity was not a motivating factor in the changes to the
terms and condition of employment of Moreira, Aguilar and Mejia. Wright Line, supra; approved
in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). That burden is impossible
to meet here where the adverse action flowed from Boulevard East’s unfair labor practice in 30
refusing to reinstate them after the strike and their former positions continued to exist after the
strike.
Under the circumstances, after reinstating employees after the strike, Boulevard East
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by changing the following employees’ terms and conditions of
employment: (1) reducing Moreira’s work hours and reassigning him to a part-time pot washer 35
position; (2) imposing more onerous working conditions on Aguilar; and (3) reducing Mejia’s
overtime opportunities. Wright Line, supra; Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12 (1996).
40

77 Moreira’s inability/refusal to perform the duties of a dietary aide are matters left for compliance.
JD–15–16
34
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Boulevard East was an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act.
5
2. The Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all relevant times, Robert Smolin, Amanda Furio and Maria Rodriguez were
supervisors of Boulevard East within the meaning of Section 2(11) the Act, and David Jasinski,
Esq. and Regina Figueroa were agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. 10
4. Boulevard East violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by:
(a) Refusing on March 27, 2014 to bargain in good faith with the Union’s chosen
bargaining committee. 15
(b) Delaying for 3 months before producing information requested by the Union which
was relevant and necessary to its role as unit employees’ labor representative prior to the
commencement of collective bargaining between the parties on March 27, 2014.
20
(c) Refusing to provide daily work schedule information requested by the Union on May
21, 2014 and health insurance information requested on July 30, 2014, all of which was relevant
and necessary to the Union’s role as unit employees’ representative.
5. Boulevard East violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the following manner:25
(a) Smolin and Rodriguez threatened employees in June and September 2014 with loss of
their jobs, loss of work hours or other changes in their terms and conditions of employment if
they went on strike.
30
(b) Smolin and Rodriguez interrogated employees in June and September 2014 as
to whether they were going to participate in the strike.
(c) Smolin and Rodriguez prohibited employees in August and September 2014
from wearing union insignia in patient and non-patient care areas, while permitting them 35
to wear pro-employer insignia in the same areas.
(d) Smolin issued a memorandum on August 27, 2014 prohibiting employees
from wearing union buttons or other insignia within the facility, except for those
expressly approved by management.40
(e) Smolin engaged in surveillance of picketing employees outside its facility on
September 17 and 18.
6. By failing and refusing, on or after September 20, to immediately reinstate 45
eight employees who engaged in protected concerted activity and made an unconditional
offer to return to work, Boulevard East violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
JD–15–16
35
7. By (1) reducing Moreira’s work hours and reassigning him to a part-time pot
washer position, (2) imposing more onerous working conditions on Aguilar, and (3)
reducing Mejia’s overtime opportunities because they participated in and supported the
strike, Boulevard East violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.5
8. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY10
Having found that Boulevard East has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On
request, Boulevard East shall bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the
employees concerning terms and conditions of employment, timely provide the Union with 15
relevant information it has requested and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement. Boulevard East shall also, within 14 days of the Board’s
Order, offer the eight employees who engaged in an unfair labor practice strike in September
2014, and were not immediately reinstated on request, recalled to their former positions,
terminating, if necessary, any replacements who occupy those positions, or if those positions no 20
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed. I shall also order Boulevard East to make whole the
unfair labor practice strikers who were denied reinstatement for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall be computed in
accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed 25
in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010). In addition, I shall order Boulevard East to expunge
from its files any reference to the failure to reinstate the strikers, and to notify them in writing
that this has been done. Finally, I shall order Harborview to post a notice to all employees in
accordance with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010).30
Boulevard East shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating
backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters. Boulevard East shall also compensate the
discriminatee(s) for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum
backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year. Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 35
(2012).
40
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended7845

78 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
JD–15–16
36
ORDER
The Respondent, Alaris Health at Boulevard East, Guttenberg, New Jersey, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall5
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting 1199,
SEIU United Healthcare Workers East or any other union.10
(b) Coercively threatening any employee with job loss if they go on strike or engage in
other union activities.
(c) Coercively interrogating any employee as to whether he or she intends to participate 15
in a strike or engage in other union activities.
(d) Prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia in non-patient care areas,
or in immediate patient care areas while permitting employees to wear employer-issued
insignia in the same areas.20
(e) Issuing memoranda prohibiting employees from wearing union buttons or
other insignia within the facility, except for those expressly approved by management.
(f) Conducting surveillance of employees engaged in peaceful picketing in the 25
vicinity of its facility.
(g) Refusing to bargain with the Union’s chosen bargaining committee.
(h) Refusing to provide or delaying in providing necessary and relevant 30
information to the Union.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
35
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding 40
in a signed agreement:
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, cooks, and all other
employees excluding professional employees, registered nurses, LPN’s,

findings, conclusions, and recommended 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.
JD–15–16
37
confidential [employees], office clerical employees, cooks, supervisors,
watchmen and guards.
(b) On request, furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested
concerning daily work schedules and health insurance on May 21 and July 30, 2014.5
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Walace Moreira, Elizabeth
Christie-Duran, Lovette Howard, Norma Diaz, Sandra Mejia, Maria Goris, Erika Pena and
Lorena Aguilar full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or 10
privileges previously enjoyed.
(d) Make Walace Moreira, Elizabeth Christie-Duran, Lovette Howard, Norma Diaz,
Sandra Mejia, Maria Goris, Erika Pena and Lorena Aguilar whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in 15
the remedy section of the decision.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, expunge from its files any
reference to the failure to reinstate the strikers, and to notify them in writing that this has been
done and that such adverse actions will not be used against them in any way.20
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in 25
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Guttenberg, New
Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”79 in both English and Spanish. Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by 30
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily 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 35
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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 40
March 27, 2014.

79 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
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
(h) 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 Respondent has taken to comply.
5
Dated, Washington, D.C. February
10

38
18, 2016
______________________________
Michael A Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
JD–15–16
__
JD–15–16
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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for supporting 1199,
SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT coercively threaten you with job loss if you go on strike or engage in any other
union activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you as to whether or not you intend to participate in a
strike or engage in other union activities.
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from wearing union insignia in non-patient care areas, or in
immediate patient care areas while permitting employees to wear employer-issued insignia in the
same areas.
WE WILL NOT issue memoranda prohibiting you from wearing union buttons or other
insignia within the facility.
WE WILL NOT conduct surveillance of employees engaged in peaceful picketing in the
vicinity of our facility.
WE WILL NOT refuse to timely provide the Union with necessary and relevant information.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
JD–15–16
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, cooks, and all other
employees excluding professional employees, registered nurses, LPN’s,
confidential [employees], office clerical employees, cooks, supervisors,
watchmen and guards.
WE WILL, on request, furnish to the Union in a timely manner the information requested
concerning daily work schedules and health insurance on May 21 and July 30, 2014.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Walace Moreira, Elizabeth Christie-
Duran, Lovette Howard, Norma Diaz, Sandra Mejia, Maria Goris, Erika Pena and Lorena
Aguilar full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exists, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Walace Moreira, Elizabeth Christie-Duran, Lovette Howard, Norma Diaz,
Sandra Mejia, Maria Goris, Erika Pena and Lorena Aguilar whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from our refusal to reinstate them or, upon their reinstatement, reducing
their work hours, less any net interim earnings, plus interest compounded daily.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the
appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL compensate Walace Moreira, Elizabeth Christie-Duran, Lovette Howard, Norma
Diaz, Sandra Mejia, Maria Goris, Erika Pena and Lorena Aguilar for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods
longer than 1 year.
ALARIS HEALTH AT BOULEVARD EAST
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
JD–15–16
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-3110
(973) 645-2100, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-125076 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.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (973) 645-3784.