ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 25, 2016

22-CA-124968 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

JD–17–16
Rochelle Park, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK
and Cases 22-CA-124968
22-CA-125889
1199, SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE 22-CA-140560
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 the last 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 11 and October 6-7, 2015, the case
addressed complaint allegations that Alaris Health at Rochelle Park (Rochelle Park, Bristol
Manor 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, threats of job loss or other changes to terms and conditions of
employment, and removing a union representative from its facility; and (3) violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to reinstate 1 employee striker after he unconditionally offered to
return to work, delaying the reinstatement of 9 other employees, and changing the terms and
conditions of employment of 5 employees after they returned to work after the strike.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, 22, 25-26, 33-35 and 48. Paragraph
29 was withdrawn and par. 36(c) was added. (GC Exh. 301(y).)
JD–17–16
2
Rochelle Park 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” Rochelle Park for unfair labor practice charges,
which it denies, and then used those charges to mask an economic strike at Rochelle Park and 5
the other three Alaris facilities as an unfair labor practice strike.
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 Rochelle Park,4 I make
the following10
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
15
Rochelle Park, a corporation, operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center providing
in-patient medical care at its facility in Rochelle Park, 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. Rochelle Park 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 20
well as a health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, and the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
25
A. The Parties
At the relevant times in this complaint, Rochelle Park’s supervisors and agents included:
Kristine Giles, the administrator; Dexter Caldona, the director of nursing; Arlene Concepcion,
the dietary director; Peter German, housekeeping director; Susan Posluzny, a quality assurance 30
nurse; and Moses Adu, staffing coordinator. David Jasinski, Esq., has served as Rochelle Park’s
labor counsel and chief negotiator during collective bargaining, accompanied by Mendy Gold, an
Alaris principal. Regina Figueroa is a Vice President of Alaris Health.5
Rochelle Park and its predecessors have recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-35
bargaining representative of approximately 110 employees in successive collective-bargaining

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. Rochelle Park
declined the option.
5 Rochelle Park admitted only that Jasinski was a Section 2(13) supervisor. However, the undisputed
facts established that Giles, Caldona, German and Concepcion were supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11), while Figueroa, Adu and Posluzny acted as statutory agents.
JD–17–16
3
agreements (CBA), the most recent of which was effective from April 1, 2010, to March 31,
2014:
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs, and all other employees
excluding professional employees, registered nurses, cooks, confidential [employees], 5
office clerical employees, supervisors, watchmen and guards.6
The Union’s leadership includes: Milly Silva, the executive vice president; Clauvice
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 10
McCalla. Pursuant to the expiring agreement,7 the Union designated the following Rochelle Park
employees as members of the bargaining committee: Max Predestin, Delores Alston, Marie
Moise, Wanieta Davis, Jean Fritz Pierre, Jamir Gaston, and Adeline Deriphone.8
Notwithstanding an employee strike in 2009 during negotiations over the 2010-2014 15
agreement, the parties enjoy a relationship that both describe as respectful. The parties began
meeting shortly before the 2010 contracts expired for Rochelle Park, Alaris at Boulevard East,
Alaris at Castle Hill, and Alaris at Harborview. However, controversy soon erupted over the
composition of the Union’s bargaining committee and information requested by the Union.
20
B. The Union’s Information Requests
1. The December 27, 2013 request
Saint Hilaire initiated the process for a new contract in a letter, dated December 27, 2013. 25
He requested that Rochelle Park engage in bargaining and offered alternative dates in February.
He also requested that Rochelle Park furnish the Union with the following information by
January 24: detailed job descriptions and performance evaluations describing job duties for
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;9 numbers 30
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
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 35
members.10

6 GC Exh. 302.
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 Notwithstanding the CBA’s limit of 6 employees on the bargaining committee, there is no evidence
that Rochelle Park objected to the Union’s designation of 7 employees.
9 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.)
10 GC Exh. 303.
JD–17–16
4
Jasinski had several conversations with McCalla and Massey in January about dates to
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. 5
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.11 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 10
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 31.12
In a letter, dated February 21, McCalla responded to Jasinski by agreeing to meet on 15
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 20
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 25
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 30
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.

11 There is no dispute regarding Jasinski’s assertion as to his past practice of responding 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 is also undisputed. However, in light of Massey’s March 13th
email demanding a response, it is clear that the Union never consented to delayed document production
until March 27. (Tr. 1994-1995; GC Exh.7; R. Exh. 104.) 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 in subsequent written communications. (Tr. 1550-1552.)
12 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–17–16
5
This would obviously be an opportunity for management representatives to speak directly
with the employees and Union officials.
Please let us know which of these dates would be your preference.13
5
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
for a 90-day contract extension, but made no mention of the December 27 information request:
10
We are in receipt of your letter identifying a number of facilities whose contracts expire
on March 31, 2014. A brief response is warranted.
Each identified facility is a separate and independent operation with its own collective
bargaining agreement covering employees for that particular facility. They maintain 15
separation operations, including all necessary staff. Each facility is unique and the
bargaining history at each facility recognizes its independence.
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 20
respective positions for each facility at each bargaining session and, quite candidly, we
welcome their attendance.
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 25
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
place at the Union's offices in Edison.
30
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
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 35
negotiations and submit its initial proposals to us prior to the initial bargaining session,
we will accept and review each proposal. Thank you.14
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 40
mail. Massey followed up with an email later that day regarding the commencement of
bargaining and the outstanding information requests:

13 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 Rochelle Park’s bargaining committee. (GC Exh. 5; Tr. 869, 1426-1427.)
14 GC Exh. 6.
JD–17–16
6
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,
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 5
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
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 10
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
the information requested. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards.15
15
2. The March 14th information request
In a letter, dated March 14, Massey followed up on his email to Jasinski from the day
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 20
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
coverage, census data reflecting plans selected by employees, actuarial and utilization plan
values, and requests for proposals and financial impact related information.1625
3. The March 27 bargaining session
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, 30
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.
After waiting about an hour for Gold to arrive, Jasinski agreed to start the Castle Hill 35
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

15 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.)
16 This request refined the previous request for monthly work schedules from one that sought daily
work schedules. (GC Exh. 8.)
JD–17–16
7
East and Rochelle Park. He proclaimed Castle Hill’s readiness to commence Castle Hill
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
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 5
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.17
Shortly thereafter, Massey and McCalla went to speak with Jasinski. They asked him to 10
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
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 15
reason for excluding employees from the other Alaris facilities during Castle Hill bargaining
sessions.
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 20
Rochelle Park. The cover letter in each packet conveyed Jasinski’s view that the Union
previously requested the information:
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 25
members. We are glad to provide you with another copy. Should you have any additional
questions or require additional information, please advise.18
Before Jasinski and Gold left, the Union did not submit a proposal.19 Silva did, however,
ask about rumors that Boulevard East would be demolished to make way for apartment building 30
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
to commence bargaining over Harborview, Boulevard East and Rochelle Park.
35
In a letter, dated April 1, Jasinski proposed dates for the resumption of bargaining for the
Rochelle Park contract:
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 40

17 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.)
18 GC Exh. 304.
19 Rochelle Park notes the discrepancy in testimony between Massey and Saint Hilaire as to whether
the Union was prepared with proposals if the bargaining sessions had gone forward. (Tr. 938, 1059.)
JD–17–16
8
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
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 5
not piggyback any other negotiations for the designated dates. The employees deserve
our undivided attention. Unfortunately, despite our admitted avai1ability, the Union has
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 10
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
session, it will give us the ability to review it and prepare a response and to continue good
faith bargaining.
15
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
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.2020
In his reply later that day, McCalla documented the parties’ March 27 meeting, disagreed
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 25
follows: Castle Hill on April 28; Boulevard East on April 29; Rochelle Park on May 1; and
Harborview on May 2:
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 30
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
29, we accept your offer to bargain, on May 1, and we offer May 2 for a fourth session.
We propose the following sequence: . . .21
35
4. The Union’s follow-up request
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 40
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
April 15.22

20 GC Exh. 305.
21 GC Exh. 11.
22 GC Exh. 21.
JD–17–16
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 bargaining5
unit work. Item 12 was noted to be voluminous and Jasinski proposed that the Union “accept a
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.23 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 10
Union to refine it to one not as overbroad.24
5. The May 1 bargaining session
The parties subsequently agreed to resume the Rochelle Park contract negotiations on 15
May 1. Prior to that session, the Union undertook a propaganda blitz in a flier distributed to the
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 20
face with our full bargaining team to discuss their proposals. They want to divide us and
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!2525
At the May 1st bargaining session, Jasinski and Gold met with Massey, McCalla, Silva,
Saint Hilaire the bargaining committee members from Boulevard East. This time, there was no
controversy regarding the composition of the Union’s bargaining team. Massey reminded
Jasinski that the Union was still waiting for the CNA daily work schedules and health insurance 30
related information. In response to Jasinski’s letter asserting the 12-month request was
burdensome, Massey previously agreed during the April 28th Castle Hill negotiations to accept
three months of daily work schedules. Jasinski told Massey at the time that he would get back to
the Union regarding the requests. At this meeting, however, Jasinski changed the subject to
information he requested from the Union’s national pension fund. Massey had no information 35
about that issue. The Union then provided Rochelle Park with its initial written proposals.26
6. The Employee Schedules
In a letter, dated May 14, Jasinski furnished Massey with the monthly staffing schedules 40
at Rochelle Park for each floor for all shifts from February to April. The monthly schedules

23 GC Exh. 306.
24 GC Exh. 307.
25 GC Exh. 44.
26 The Union does not dispute that, notwithstanding Rochelle Park’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. 326 at 5-9; R. Exh. 302; Tr. 1943, 3137-3138, 3146, 3274.)
JD–17–16
10
reflected projected CNAs’ work schedules and floor assignments.27 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.28
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.29
The parties met again for bargaining on June 12. 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.30 Jasinski did not reject
the request for additional health insurance information, but suggested it would be unnecessary if
the Union accepted Rochelle Park’s proposal. As for the work schedules, he insisted that the
insisted that the monthly reports were sufficient. Massey explained the relevance of the daily 25
work schedules, which reflect the days and shifts actually worked. After engaging in bargaining,
Jasinski provided and explained Rochelle Park’s counterproposals.31
7. The July 16 bargaining session
30
McCalla filled in for Massey as the Union’s chief negotiator at the next bargaining
session on July 16. The 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.
McCalla reiterated the request for the additional information, stressing that it would be unable to 35
enter into a new agreement without it. During the bargaining that ensued, Jasinski dismissed the
Union’s staffing proposals based on the CBA’s management rights clause reserving it unilateral

27 GC Exh. 308.
28 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”).
29 GC Exh. 309.
30 Saint Hilaire and Ozual credibly testified that Rochelle Park employees complained to them about
short-staffing and health insurance issues prior to bargaining. (Tr. 1008-1009, 1054, 1208-1210.)
31 GC Exh. 326 at 10-15.
JD–17–16
11
control over staffing. The parties then engaged in bargaining, with Jasinski providing Rochelle
Park’s latest contract proposals.32
On July 30, Jasinski replied to the Union’s continuing request for health plan information
and employees’ daily schedules:5
We want to be clear and avoid any misunderstanding regarding your multiple information
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 10
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
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. 15
In addition, the Union requested information concerning work schedules at this facility.
We provided the Union with the master list which represents our work schedules. This is
the only relevant information, and it was provided.
20
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
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 25
staffing levels on the units and the way we staff this Facility. That is our final position
and we will not deviate from it.
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 30
provide, dates for parties to bargain in good faith. We reiterate our request for new dates
to continue to negotiate.33
8. The August 27 Bargaining Session
35
The parties’ final bargaining session was on August 27. Massey reiterated the Union’s
need for the outstanding daily work schedules and health insurance information for bargaining.
Jasinski did not respond to that inquiry and the parties engaged in bargaining.34
C. Employees Prepare for a Possible Strike40
Article 5(A) of the CBA provides for access by Union officials to employees at Rochelle
Park under certain conditions. It states, in pertinent part:

32 GC Exh. 326 at 16-19; R. Exh. 306 at 5-6.
33 GC Exh. 310.
34 GC Exh. 326 at 20-25.
JD–17–16
12
The Union’s Business Representatives or the Union’s designees, shall have admission to
the facility covered by this Agreement to discharge their duties as representatives of the
Union, provided such privilege is not abused. . . The Union shall be permitted to conduct
Union meetings on the Employer’s premises, provided the same are conducted at 5
reasonable times and places, are of reasonable duration, and do not interfere with the
normal operations of the Employer.”35
Beginning in March, Ozual or Saint Hilaire met periodically with employees in the
Rochelle Park employee break room. They provided contract education, bargaining updates, and 10
listened to their 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 about Rochelle
Park’s refusal to meet with the Union’s bargaining committee on March 27 and its refusal to
provide requested information.3615
By May, the Union recommended that employees step up the pressure on the four Alaris
facilities. Sometime in June, about 10 employees engaged in informational picketing outside
Rochelle Park. During that event, employees carried placards advocating the issues that had
arisen during the bargaining process with Rochelle Park.37 20
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
home page included a news alert providing the economic motives behind a potential strike: 25
NEWS ALERT: HUNDREDS OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS
STRIKE AFTER CONTRACT TALKS SOUR.
Don't put your health at alarisk.30
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.
Despite making $41 million in profit in 2012, many Alaris nursing35
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.
Our communities depend on skilled caregivers to provide for our loved40

35 GC 302 at 4.
36 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.)
37 Only two partial photographs were provided from this event on an unspecified date. (GC Exh.
315(a)-(b); Tr. 2934-2936.)
JD–17–16
13
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
in attendance. In prepared remarks that followed, Silva excoriated Alaris for a mélange of 5
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
based here in Journal Square, is showing a callous disregard for the wellbeing of the 10
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
one of their long-term care facilities without being forthright to the nursing home’s 15
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
most vulnerable people in our communities. It is essential that their rights and dignity as 20
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
continues to act in the same disrespectful and illegal manner as they did five years back, 25
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.
30
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
mentally healthy.35
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.
Many workers already have no choice but to enroll in public assistance just to get their 40
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
profit a year, can walk away with even more.45

38 GC Exh. 48.
JD–17–16
14
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
making sure that the caregivers who work directly with patients have what they need to 5
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
averages. Our union has proposed a framework for addressing staffing shortages, but 10
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
home to 100 elderly and frail residents, he plans to demolish the nursing home in order to 15
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.
20
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.
25
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.39
30
Jasinski knew about the Union’s July 23 press conference and discussed that event with
Alaris corporate officials.40
D. Unit Employees Decide to Strike
35
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
Rochelle Park. Another six employees from Castle Hill participated by telephone. Maxsuze
Predestin, Delores Alston, Jean Fritz and Jamir Gaston were the delegates from Rochelle Park.
40
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
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

39 GC Exh. 57.
40 Jasinski conceded that Alaris officials were provided with the details. (Tr. 1536-1538.)
JD–17–16
15
September. He also provided an explanation of the difference between an economic strike and a
strike premised on unfair labor practices.
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-5
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
resolution and the six employees participating by telephone from Castle Hill voiced approval:
10
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
resolution was considered and adopted by the undersigned Committee members:
15
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
affiliates of Alaris Health (collectively, "the Employer"); and
20
WHEREAS the Union has bargained in good faith with the Employer to negotiate a
collective bargaining agreement; and
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 25
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 and
WHEREAS, Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board has informed the Union30
that a Complaint against the Employer alleging multiple Unfair Labor Practices in
connection with this unlawful conduct is forthcoming; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has continued to make unreasonable bargaining demands of
the Union and its members; and35
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; and40

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–17–16
16
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
bargaining position; and5
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
Labor Practices and unreasonable bargaining position.4210
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
dates, but the Union never proposed any. At this point, Jasinski suggested the parties resume 15
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
On September 6, Predestin, accompanied by approximately 15 coworkers, delivered to 20
Giles 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 25
represents intend to conduct a strike and picketing at Rochelle Park (Bristol Manor)
located at 96 Parkway, Rochelle Park, NJ 07662. 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 7:00 AM on Wednesday, September
17, 2014 and end at 6:59 AM on Saturday, September 20, 2014.4430
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, delegates Predestin, Gaston and Marie Moise
communicated that determination to coworkers and explained that the strike was precipitated by
Rochelle Park’s bargaining posture and unfair labor practices.46 35

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. 311.
44 GC Exh. 312.
45 Rochelle Park 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 Rochelle Park 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.)
46 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Predestin and Gaston. (Tr. 2937, 2958, 3080-
3081, 3091-3092.)
JD–17–16
17
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,
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
5
E. The Union Mobilizes Employees
Around the same time, the Union began mobilizing employees for the strike. Saint
Hilaire and/or Ozual met with Rochelle Park 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 10
informational flyers and addressed concerns regarding Rochelle Park’s alleged unfair labor
practices, including the failure to provide requested information.48 They also explained that the
strike was motivated by the desire to pressure Rochelle Park to agree to their contract proposals
and put a stop to its unfair labor practices.49
15
In some instances, Ozual encountered employees reluctant or disinclined to participate in
a strike. An aggressive organizer committed to the execution of the Union’s strike strategy,
Ozual was not one to take no for an answer. As a result, several employees complained to Giles
about their treatment by Ozual. She was accused of yelling, using foul language and straying
from the break room and harassing employees whom were reluctant to participate in the strike. In 20
one instance, Giles heard Ozual engaged in heated argument with employees in the lobby. She
was loud, angry and confrontational. In response, Jasinski sent a letter to McCalla, dated August
29, detailing the aforementioned disruptive conduct. He referred to previous communication
relaying Rochelle Park’s concern to the Union and the latter’s assurance that the conduct would
be corrected. Notwithstanding the warnings to Ozual, her disruptive conduct continued. As a 25
result, Jasinski concluded:
We cannot and will not allow this behavior to continue. Ms. Ozual has, by her actions,
forfeited the right to enter the Alaris at Rochelle Park Facility. She will no longer be
allowed to enter this Facility. If any other Union representatives engage in similar 30
behavior, we will likewise exercise any and all rights and remove that individual who
exhibits no respect for the Facility and the care we provide to our residents. While we
recognize and respect the Union’s right to represent its members, we expect nothing less
than the same respect, recognizing the rights of the Facility and care for our Residents.50
35
Sometime in late August, after Jasinski’s August 29 letter, Ozual went to meet with
Rochelle Park employees. She signed in and went to the break room to meet workers on break.
Within minutes, an unidentified individual came in and said Ozual needed to leave. She refused
and Giles and German came shortly thereafter and ordered her to leave. Ozual insisted she was
entitled under the contract to meet there with employees. A short while later, the police came, 40
ordered Ozual to leave and she complied.51

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.
1013-1029, 1176-1186, 1190-1192, 1206-1212, 1216-1219, 1276-1286, 1315-1306.)
50 R. Exh. 304.
51 Although I credited Ozual’s corroborated testimony regarding other union activity at Rochelle Park,
JD–17–16
18
F. Supervisors Statements Prior To The Strike
Rochelle Park’s management did not stand idly by as the Union mobilized employees. In
August, dietary director Arlene Concepcion called employees into her office for individual 5
meetings during work time and asked if they were going to go on strike. Pot washer Rodley
Lewis said he was undecided. When asked, however, dietary employee Gaston said that he was
going to go on strike. Concepcion replied that the last strike did not result in the dietary
department delegate getting the same benefits as everyone else. She also warned that Gaston
risked being replaced and losing his full-time position. In September, Concepcion followed up 10
the individual meetings by convening dietary staff in the kitchen and asked again if they were
going to go on strike. No one responded.52
Concepcion subjected dietary staff to another group meeting in the kitchen in September,
but this time along with housekeeping director Peter German. German asked the employees if 15
they were going to strike and noted the risk of job loss if they did. Concepcion expressed hope
that employees would not lose their jobs, but it was their choice.53
German made similar statements to housekeeping employees during a group meeting that
he convened in late August or early September. He warned staff that the strike would not end 20
well for striking employees and they would be replaced. German reinforced those remarks in a
conversation with dietary employee Julieta Dominguez a few days before the strike. He
approached her at work and asked if she intended to strike. Dominguez replied that she would go
out on strike. German said okay and walked away.54
25
Several days before the strike, supervisors summoned employees to Giles’ office, where
they lined up outside. One by one, employees entered and were asked by Giles if they planned to
go out on strike. Dominguez replied that she was going to go on strike, whereby Giles tersely
concluded the conversation: “that’s it.” After the interrogation procession, Giles followed up by
confronting approximately 50 individual employees as they worked, asking Dominguez, Gaston 30
and others how much the Union would pay them during the strike.55

I did not credit her denial that she engaged in disruptive behavior within the facility. (Tr. 3081-3083,
3177-3180, 3194-3199, 3310-3314.) I based that assessment on my observation—which I stated on the
record—of Ozual violating my instruction not to speak with other witnesses during breaks outside the
hearing room. That defiance strongly suggests an aggressive intolerance towards the opposing views of
others. (Tr. 2580.) As such, I credited Giles’ testimony, corroborated by Jasinski’s letter, regarding
several altercations between Ozual and employees during the month prior to the strike. (Tr. 3207-3208,
3213-3218, 3230-3233.)
52 The credible testimony of Lewis and Gaston was undisputed. Neither Concepcion nor German, still
employed at Rochelle Park, testified. (Tr. 2899-2902, 2928-2930, 2932-2934.)
53 Again, Gaston’s credible testimony was undisputed. German did not testify. (Tr. 2932-2934.)
54 This finding is based on the credible and undisputed testimony of housekeeping employees
Dominguez and Jacinta Hormaza. (Tr. 3010-3012, 3014-3015, 3045-3047.)
55 Giles did not dispute the credible testimony of Dominguez and Gaston. (Tr. 2931, 3012-3014,
3047-3048, 3221, 3236-3228.)
JD–17–16
19
Lastly, Giles distributed a flyer to Rochelle Park employees explaining their rights and
the ramifications of going out on strike, and responding to the distortions and misrepresentations
of “The Truth” by the Union. It stated, in pertinent part:
A strike does not unite people and hurts all involved, including those who chose to walk 5
away from their jobs. A strike will not get us a collective bargaining agreement nor will it
change terms of the contract. it will only result in the possibility of lost wages and
benefits for those who choose to voluntarily participate . . . History at our facility has
proven that a strike will not impact the fair negotiations for a contract and only results in
the possibility of lost wages and benefits for those [sic] choose to voluntarily participate.10
The Union claims “All members who go out on strike – including all part-timer and per-
diem workers – are eligible for strike benefits . . . Strike benefits, should you receive any,
may not cover your lost wages and benefits. Employees who went on strike in 2009 were
not paid and never recovered what they lost while out on strike.15
The Union claims that “In the history of our union, 1199 SEIU, no healthcare employer
has hired permanent replacement workers when workers have gone on a short strike . . .
Once a strike is over, you may not be able to immediately return to your job. That is a
fact. Moreover, the Union does not tell that . . . several times SEIU called a strike at non-20
Alaris facilities where the employees trusted SEIU and its officials. However, as was
their right, these Employers sometimes permanently replaced those employees.56
G. Alaris Supervisors Observe Employees During Prayer Vigil
25
On September 10, employees from all four facilities 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 about ten feet away. He could be heard saying that their 30
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
H. Alaris Prepares for the Strike35
In anticipation of its staffing needs prior to the strike, Rochelle Park entered into
contracts with two temporary staffing companies. Included in the agreements with Tristate
Rehab Staffing and Towne Nursing were requirements that that Rochelle Park retain their

56 GC Exh. 319.
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).
JD–17–16
20
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.61
I. The Strike
5
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
alert employees not to walk off early because it could leave the facilities understaffed and
compromise their licenses.62
10
On September 17, approximately 15-20 Rochelle Park employees/unit members ceased
work and engaged in a strike. The strikers included CNAs Deloris Alston, Jean Abellard,
Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, SantiaVilceus and Gabby Youmane, housekeeping
employees Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza and Jean Fritz, and dietary employees Jamir
Gaston and Rodley Lewis. Fritz, the union delegate, also participated and spoke in a prayer vigil 15
and rally outside Castle Hill that day.63
Over the next three days, the striking employees picketed outside the facility. The
picketers’ signs demanded Rochelle Park engage in good-faith bargaining and cease committing
unfair labor practices.6420
During the three-day strike, Rochelle Park covered the shifts of the striking CNAs with 7
temporary employees from the two staffing agencies.65
J. Employees Attempt to Return to Work25
On September 18, the second day of the strike, Jasinski informed Massey that some
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 30
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.
In an email sent later that day, Massey, on behalf of all Rochelle Park employees/unit members
who engaged in the strike, made an unconditional offer to return to their former or substantially
equivalent positions of employment.6635

61 I credit Jasinski’s testimony that he “reviewed” the agency contracts, but not his vague assertion
regarding alleged negotiations by unidentified persons which resulted in Rochelle Park agreeing to four
week terms. (Tr. 2767, 2803, 3282-3283; R. Exh. 11, 305.) 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 Fritz did not testify but I based this finding on Silva’s credible testimony as to who participated in
that rally. (Tr. 998-999.)
64 GC Exh. 19.
65 GC Exhs. 336-337.
66 GC Exh. 28.
JD–17–16
21
On or after September 20, employees who participated in the strike reported to work at
Rochelle Park. In accordance with the procedure previously agreed to between Jasinski and
Massey, Rochelle Park provided the Union with a list of those who would be reinstated. Ten
employees were not reinstated when they returned to work: housekeeping employees Dominguez
and Hormaza; dietary employees Gaston and Lewis; and CNAs Alston, Abellard, Padda, 5
Meronvil, Vilceus and Youmane.67
K. Employees Locked-Out on September 20
1. Rodley Lewis10
Prior to the strike, Lewis was employed as a part-time dietary aide on the 7 a.m. to 10:30
a.m. He worked six days a week with Wednesdays off. Lewis participated in all three days of the
strike. He attempted to return to work on September 20, but Giles instructed him, through Saint
Hilaire, to return on September 22. Upon returning on September 22, however, Giles met him 15
outside the facility and told him that Concepcion had no work for him, but would call him when
there was work available. Rochelle Park has never called Lewis to return to work.68
2. Deloris Alston
20
Alston, a CNA at Rochelle Park for 26 years, worked full-time on the 3 pm to 11 pm shift
and regularly worked overtime two Saturdays each month. She was a shop steward for 23 years,
attended the 2014 bargaining sessions, participated in the August 27 strike vote session, and
served Giles with the Union’s 10-day strike notice. Alston participated in all three days of the
strike and had been on the schedule to work on September 20. 25
Rochelle Park notified the Union that Alston was to return to work on September 22. She
was unable to work that day but returned on September 24, her next regularly scheduled work
day.69 Thereafter, Alston did not work again until September 29 and October 5. On the latter
date, she inquired of nursing director Caldona as to her hours. Caldona then met with Moses 30
Adu, the staffing coordinator. A short while later, Adu told Alston that her full-time hours would
be restored, but that there would be no overtime for anyone who participated in the strike. Since
returning to work, Alston has not received overtime work opportunities.70
3. Julieta Dominguez35
Dominguez, a full-time housekeeping employee who participated in the strike, worked 5
days per week on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, with Tuesdays and Saturdays off. She returned from
the strike on September 20, but was not reinstated until September 23. On that date, although her

67 GC Exh. 323(a).
68 Lewis’ credible version of his strike activity and Rochelle Park’s refusal to reinstate him is
undisputed. (Tr. 2895-2896, 2904-2908; GC Exh. 313(b).)
69 Alston was unable to resume on September 22 because the Union did not tell her until the same
day. (GC Exh. 318 at 24, 35.)
70 Alston’s credible testimony was undisputed. (Tr. 2991-2992, 2998-2999.)
JD–17–16
22
former full-time position continued to exist, she was reassigned to a part-time position working
an average of three days per week.71
4. Jacinta Hormaza
5
Hormaza, also a full-time housekeeping employee who participated in the strike, worked
5 days per week on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift. She returned from the strike on September 20, but
was not reinstated until September 23. On that date, although her former full-time position
continued to exist, she was reassigned to a part-time position working an average of three days
per week. She asked German why she had been reassigned to a part-time work and he told her 10
that she had been warned that there would be consequences if she went on strike. Hormaza
recorded the conversation.72
5. Jean Abellard
15
Abellard, a CNA at Rochelle Park since 2007, worked full-time prior to the strike. He
participated in picketing during the first and third days of the strike. After the strike, Abellard
attempted to return to work on September 20, but was locked out. He was not reinstated to his
pre-strike position until October 18.73
20
6. Rajvinder Padda
Padda, a full-time CNA who went on strike for the three days, attempted to return to
work on September 20. She was told that there were no hours available for her. She was
reinstated to her shift on September 28.7425
7. Evelyn Meronvil
Meronvil, a full-time CNA, also participated in the strike. She attempted to return to
work, but was also told that there was no work for her. She was reinstated on October 4.7530
8. Santia Vilceus
Vilceus, a full-time CNA, participated in the strike. When she returned to work after the
strike, she was told there was no work for her. She was reinstated on October 15.7635
40

71 Dominguez’s testimony was confirmed by the payroll records. (Tr. 3025; GC Exh. 323.)
72 Hormaza’s credible testimony was undisputed. (Tr. 3042-3043, 3059-3067; GC Exh. 322-323.)
73 Interim offers of employment to Abellard to work at other Alaris facilities are left for compliance.
(Tr. 3035-3036.)
74 GC Exhs. 324(c); GC Exh. 318 at 28.
75 GC Exhs. 318 at 34, 324(d), 325(a) and (e), and 328.
76 GC Exhs. 318 at 45, 323(a), 324(g) and 329.
JD–17–16
23
9. Gabby Youmane
Youmane, a full-time CNA, participated in the strike. After the strike concluded, she was
informed by Rochelle Park that there was no work for her. Youmane was locked out until she 5
was reinstated on September 29.77
10. Jamir Gaston
Gaston, a full-time dietary aide, served as a Union delegate, attended the 2014 bargaining 10
sessions and participated in all three days of the strike. He returned to work after the strike on
September 20, but was instructed by Giles to call on September 22. Gaston called on September
22 and was instructed by Concepcion to return to work on September 24. She added, however,
that he would no longer work a full-time schedule.
15
Before the strike, Gaston worked 75 hours per pay period with regular days off. Although
his position continued to exist after returning to work from the strike, Gaston’s hours were
significantly reduced. Over the course of the 9 months following the strike, with the exception of
4 weeks, Gaston’s work was limited to, at most, 4 days per week.78
20
L. Fritz’s Hours Are Reduced
Jean Fritz, a full-time housekeeping employee, served as a Union delegate and
participated in the 3-day strike. He played a prominent role in the preparations for the strike and
during the strike. Fritz also represented Rochelle Park at the August 27 strike authorization 25
meeting and spoke at the Union rally on September 17 in front of Castle Hill.
Prior to the strike, Fritz worked 5 days per week. He was reinstated upon returning to
work after the strike. Although his full-time position continued to exist, Fritz’s hours were
reduced and he worked, at most, 4 days per week after returning from the strike.7930
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. ROCHELLE PARK’S OBJECTION TO THE UNION’S BARGAINING COMMITTEE
35
The complaint alleges that Rochelle Park 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. Rochelle Park contends that
its insistence that the Union’s bargaining committee be restricted solely to Rochelle Park
employees was consistent with past practice. Additionally, Rochelle Park contends that 40

77 GC Exhs. 318 at 30, 323, 324(d) and 325.
78 Notwithstanding evidence of replacement workers hired after the strike, the relevant fact is that
Gaston’s full-time position continued to exist. (GC Exh. 317.)
79 Rochelle Park’s records were incomplete and unreliable, but the available information confirms that
Fritz incurred a reduction in work hours of one or more days per week. (GC Exh. 323; Tr. 3074-3076,
3225.)
JD–17–16
24
the parties' collective-bargaining agreement limited the Union's bargaining committee to
6 members (or 7, given Rochelle Park’s acquiescence to the designated individuals).
Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees and employers the right to “to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing” and the Supreme Court has 5
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
(1968), enfd. 412 F.2d 512, 516-517 (2d Cir. 1969); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. 10
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.”)
The right to choose one’s bargaining representatives, however, is not absolute. An 15
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
established company in direct competition with employer); NLRB v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 182 20
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
union representatives, the Board is unlikely to grant an exception to the presumptive rule that 25
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”).
30
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
unions); Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d 40, 44 (6th Cir. 1963) (other locals). Furthermore, 35
a claim that a union's use of outsiders was an unlawful attempt to compel companywide or
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.
40
In this case, there was no evidence that the Union sought to force Rochelle Park
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 45
NLRB 271, 273-274 (1991) (union not justified in refusing to negotiate with employer
group’s chosen committee of members and non-members at the outset of separate
JD–17–16
25
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
response to Jasinski’s remarks on March 27. However, Jasinski never mentioned that as 5
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
NLRB at 273-274 (union did not meet burden of showing that the employer group's 10
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
facilities would violate the confidentiality of employees at the other facilities does not pass 15
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.
Rochelle Park cites CBS, Inc., 226 NLRB 537, 539 (1976), as support for the proposition 20
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
CBS's members, but rather, two key competitors. That is hardly the scenario here. Rochelle Park 25
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.
30
Given the absence of evidence of exceptional circumstances indicating bad faith on the
part of the Union, Rochelle Park 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
circumstances, Rochelle Park refused to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and 35
(1) of the Act. See Standard Oil Co. v. NLRB, 322 F.2d at 44 (employer unlawfully refused 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).40
II. ROCHELLE PARK’S DELAY IN PROVIDING INFORMATION
The complaint alleges that Rochelle Park also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it
unreasonably delayed in providing the Union with information requested in order to prepare for 45
bargaining. Rochelle Park contends that it responded in a manner reasonably consistent with past
practice and that union officials sanctioned the delay because of counsel’s other commitments.
JD–17–16
26
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
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 5
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),
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 10
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
(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 15
assembled); Aeolian Corp., 247 NLRB 1231, 1244 (1980) (three week delay unreasonable under
the circumstances).
Rochelle Park 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 20
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
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 25
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.
1990), cited by Rochelle Park, is inapplicable. In that case, the Board found a delay in providing
requested information justified to the extent that the employer's confidentiality interests 30
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, Rochelle Park never asserted confidentiality concerns as an excuse for the
delay at any time prior to March 27.
35
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. Rochelle Park
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 walked out. The 40
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 Rochelle Park 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.45
JD–17–16
27
III. REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SCHEDULES AND HEALTH INSURANCE INFORMATION
The General Counsel also contends that Rochelle Park 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,
when it refused to provide health insurance related information, both of which were relevant and 5
necessary to the performance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representative. Rochelle
Park 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,
Rochelle Park claimed it was prohibited from releasing such information under the privacy
provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.8010
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
U.S. 301, 303 (1979); W-L Molding Co., 272 NLRB 1239, 1240-1241 (1984); NLRB v. Acme 15
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),
enfd. 638 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2011); Southern California Gas Co., 344 NLRB 231, 235 (2005).20
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
formulate and present appropriate proposals on behalf of employee-members. See 25
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
Steel Erection, Inc. & Steel Enterprises, Inc., 324 NLRB 221, 223-224 (1997) (employer 30
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
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 35
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).
Similarly, Rochelle Park was obligated to furnish the requested health insurance
information necessary for the Union to formulate its own proposal. One Stop Kosher 40
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 Rochelle Park and covered employees in order to analyze them within the context of
the Affordable Care Act. This was significant information, given the Union’s bargaining

80
45 CFR §§ 160 and 164.
JD–17–16
28
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.
With respect to the health insurance information request, Jasinski initially insisted the Union 5
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
objection on spurious confidentiality concerns that came more than two months after the 10
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
accommodation for the release of the allegedly confidential information. See Castle Hill Health 15
Care Center, 355 NLRB 1156, 1183-1184 (2010) (generalized confidentiality concern
unavailing as an excuse to refuse information request);
Under the circumstances, Rochelle Park’s refusal to provide daily work schedule
information on May 21 and health insurance related information on July 30 as requested by the 20
Union violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THREATS REGARDING STRIKE ACTIVITY
A. Threats to Employees of Job Loss or Other Reprisals25
The complaint alleges that Rochelle Park 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 the free
exercise of employee rights under the Act. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). In 30
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 under the
Act”) (emphasis in original), enfd. 437 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2006).35
Dietary director Concepcion issued threats to employees in August and September 2014.
First, Concepcion summoned Lewis to her office where she asked him if he planned on striking.
Lewis did not explicitly answer. Second, Concepcion questioned Gaston about whether he would
strike. Gaston answered that he would strike. In response, Concepcion told Gaston that by 40
striking he risked losing his job and an hour reduction. Finally, a week before the strike,
Concepcion questioned several employees about their intention to strike. The employees did not
answer and Concepcion threatened termination if the employees participated in the strike.
Like Concepcion, housing director German told employees they could be fired for 45
striking on three occasions. First, German threatened a group of employees that they could be
fired if they went on strike. At this meeting, housekeeping employees Hormaza and Dominguez
JD–17–16
29
were called to the basement by German. German told the employees that if the Union went on
strike things were going to get ugly and employees would be replaced. Following the group
meeting, German questioned each employee individually about who was planning to strike.
Second, German again questioned Dominguez about whether she planned on striking.
Dominguez answered affirmatively and German responded by saying okay and walking away. 5
Third, prior to the strike, both Concepcion and German jointly questioned a group of employees
whether they planned on striking. At this meeting, German told the employees that they could
lose their jobs if they went on strike.
The aforementioned supervisory statements sent clear messages that engaging in Section 10
7 activity was harmful to Rochelle Park and striking would result in changes of working
conditions and hours. 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 employees that their 15
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).
20
Under the circumstances, the threats by Concepcion and German, coupled with
interrogation, 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 Activity25
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 30
set forth in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964): whether there was a history of
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 35
whether under all of the circumstances the questioning at issue would reasonably tend to coerce
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).
During the aforementioned meeting with dietary employees, German questioned 40
employees about whether they planned to strike and that a strike could cause employees to lose
their jobs. German did not assure the employees that no reprisals would be taken against them as
a result of their responses. Such assurances were necessary given that German was canvassing
the facility threatening employees, including the same employees, with termination if they
participated in the strike. Under the circumstances, German’s remarks were coercive in nature 45
and violated Section 8(a)(1). Reno Hilton Resorts, 320 NLRB 197, 207 (1995).
JD–17–16
30
Rochelle Park administrator Kristine Giles also interrogated employees regarding
participation in the upcoming strike. She approached Gaston and asked if he was going to strike.
When Gaston replied that he was planning to participate in the strike, Giles responded that the
strike was futile and asked how much the union would pay him for striking. When Dominguez 5
answered that question affirmatively, Giles responded by also asking how much the union would
pay her for striking. A few days before the strike, Giles systematically questioned approximately
50 employees individually about their intention to strike. She did not, however, assure employees
during such questioning that no reprisals would be taken against them as a result of their
responses. Under the circumstances, German’s remarks were coercive in nature and violated 10
Section 8(a)(1). Reno Hilton Resorts, supra at 207.
Under the circumstances, the questioning by German Giles was coercive in nature and
violated Section 8(a)(1). Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center, 348 NLRB 1016 (2006).
15
V. Ozual is Removed from Rochelle Park
The complaint alleges that Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to
bargain over its decision to deny Union organizer Ozual access to its facility in order to meet
with bargaining unit members as provided under the CBA. Rochelle Park contends that Ozual 20
violated the CBA provision requiring the Union’s representative to behave reasonably while
meeting with employees at Rochelle Park.
The law is well settled that an employer may not change the terms and conditions of
employment of represented employees without providing their representative with prior notice
and an opportunity to bargain over such changes. See NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 747 (1962). A 25
union access provision in a collective-bargaining agreement is a term and condition of
employment that survives the agreement's expiration. See, e.g., T.L.C. St. Petersburg, Inc., 307
NLRB 605, 610 (1992), enfd. mem. 985 F.2d 579 (11th Cir. 1993). “[A] unilateral change in an
employer's policy permitting access by union representatives to its premises is a unilateral
change in the employees' terms and conditions of employment and is, ordinarily, unlawful.” 30
Turtle Bay Resorts, 355 NLRB 1272, 1272 (2010). In addition, a unilateral change in the past
practice of permitting union access is a material change about which an employer is obligated to
bargain. Ernst Home Centers, 308 NLRB 848, 849 (1992).
The credible evidence revealed that Ozual’s ejection was preceded by several episodes
during August in which she yelled loudly, used foul language, confronted and harassed 35
employees reluctant to participate in the strike. The incidents occurred outside the break room
and Rochelle Park reasonably considered them disruptive enough that Jasinski wrote to McCalla
on August 29 to inform him that Ozual was banned from the facility. He premised the decision
on past discussions with the Union, but there was no evidence that those discussions amounted to
bargaining over the issue.40
The Board has held that where an employer unilaterally denies or reduces the union's
ability to access unit employees for purposes of representation the unilateral action or change is
material in nature. Turtle Bay Resorts, 355 NLRB 1272, 1272-1273 (2010); Frontier Hotel &
Casino, 323 NLRB 815, 817-818 (1997), enfd. in pertinent part 118 F.3d 795 (D.C. Cir. 1997); 45
JD–17–16
31
Ernst Home Centers, Inc., 308 NLRB 848, 848-849 (1992); American Commercial Lines, 291
NLRB 1066, 1072 (1988). More to the point, even when an employer accuses a union agent of
misconduct, the employer is required to give the union notice and an opportunity to bargain
before changing rules regarding the agent's access so that the parties can work together to arrive
at a solution to the problem. Frontier Hotel & Casino, 323 NLRB at 817. Here, Ozual was 5
excluded from the facility because of her disruptive conduct. However, Rochelle Park merely
informed the Union as a fait accompli. As a result, the Union had no opportunity to bargain over
Rochelle Park’s decision to unilaterally deny Union member’s access to their representative at a
critical juncture in the bargaining and strike preparation process.
10
Under the circumstances, Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to
afford the Union an opportunity to bargain over its decision in late August to deny Ozual access
to its facility.
VI. REFUSAL TO REINSTATE STRIKING EMPLOYEES15
The complaint further alleges that the Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to reinstate ten employees when they returned to work the day after the strike
ended: Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis, Delores Alston, Jean
Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus and Gabby Youmane. Rochelle 20
Park disagrees, insisting that the ten employees were not reinstated because they engaged in an
economic rather than unfair labor practice strike.
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. 25
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.
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 30
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).
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 35
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
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. 40
Cir.1999).
In determining whether the General Counsel has met his burden of establishing that an
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 45
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
JD–17–16
32
(2010); Chicago Beef Co. v. Local 26, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, 298 NLRB
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 1311.5
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 message10
that it sought redress for Rochelle Park’s unfair labor practices and economic reasons (e.g.,
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
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 15
members' belief that an unfair labor practice had been committed and served as the flashpoint for
discussion about calling a strike”).
It is evident that meaningful collective bargaining was hamstrung at the outset by
Rochelle Park’s failure to provide responsive information prior to March 27 and then refusing to 20
commence bargaining with Rochelle Park’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
health insurance related information.
25
Under Board law, the dual motivation of Rochelle Park’s employees to strike in order to
improve their bargaining position and assail Rochelle Park’s unfair labor practices means that the
strike must be characterized as an unfair labor practice strike. See Executive Management
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 30
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.
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). 35
The Union, on behalf of the striking workers, gave Rochelle Park a 10-day notice prior to
the strike that employees would strike on September 17, 18, and 19. On September 18, the Union
notified Rochelle Park that the striking employees would return to work on September 20. Under
the circumstances, Rochelle Park’s refusal to reinstate Dominguez, Hormaza, Gaston, Lewis, 40
Alston, Abellard, Padda, Meronvil, Vilceus and Youmane upon their return to work on or after
September 20 violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
VII. CHANGES TO WORK HOURS AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
45
The complaint also alleges that Rochelle Park committed various violations of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily reducing the work hours of Fritz, Dominguez,
JD–17–16
33
Hormaza, Gaston and Alston when they returned to work after the strike. Rochelle Park contends
that these employees were temporarily or permanently replaced by temporary agency employees
or new employees, and provided with the work that was available when they returned.
In determining whether adverse employment action is attributable to unlawful 5
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
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 10
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
F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009). Proof of animus and discriminatory motivation may be based on direct
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. 15
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
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 20
practice. 764 F.2d at 1429.
All five employees engaged in protected concerted activity, to wit, the 3-day strike.
Rochelle Park’s administrator and several supervisors expressed repeatedly their animus towards
a strike and predicted adverse consequences for those employees who participated. Some of 25
those communications by Giles, Concepcion and Caldona constituted unlawful threats and
interrogation. In addition, Giles distributed a memorandum shortly before the strike accusing the
Union of distorting “The Truth” as to the cause of the impending strike. The only differences
were in the nature of the significant adverse action suffered by each employee.
30
Fritz served played a prominent role as a Union delegate in speaking out against Rochelle
Park during rallies and participated in the strike. He incurred adverse action after the strike in the
form of a reduction from a full-time position to a reduced 4-day work week.
Alston was a longtime shop steward and delegate. She attended all of the bargaining 35
sessions, participated in the August 27 strike vote, served Giles with the Union’s 10-day strike
notice, and participated in all three days of the strike. She was reinstated on September 22, but
was off the schedule for all but two days over the next two weeks. On October 5, her full-time
schedule was restored but she has been deprived of overtime work opportunities since then. That
adverse action was admittedly attributable to her participation in the strike.40
Gaston also served a prominent role as a Union delegate. He attended the bargaining
sessions and participated in all three days of the strike. After the strike, he incurred a significant
reduction in work hours and his work was limited to, at most, 4 days per week.
45
Unlike the previous three employees, Dominguez and Hormaza did not play prominent
roles in the strike planning and execution. They did, however, participate in all three days of the
JD–17–16
34
strike and, upon returning to work on September 23, were rewarded with a demotion to part-time
work. German, their supervisor, admitted that the adverse action was, as he predicted
beforehand, a consequence of their choice to participate in the strike.
The General Counsel having established a prima facie case, the burden shifted to 5
Rochelle Park to prove that union activity was not a motivating factor in the changes to the terms
and condition of employment of Fritz, Dominguez, Hormaza, Gaston and Alston. 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 Rochelle Park’s unfair
labor practices in refusing to reinstate them after the strike and their former positions continued 10
to exist after they were reinstated.
Under the circumstances, after reinstating Fritz, Dominguez, Hormaza, Gaston and
Alston, Rochelle Park discriminatorily changed their terms and conditions of employment by
reducing their work hours in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). Wright Line, supra; Manno
Electric, 321 NLRB 278, 280 fn. 12 (1996).15
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Rochelle Park was an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act.20
2. The Union was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all relevant times, Kristine Giles, Dexter Caldona, Arlene Concepcion and Peter
German, were supervisors of Rochelle Park within the meaning of Section 2(11) the Act, and 25
David Jasinski, Esq., Regina Figueroa, Moses Adu and Susan Posluzny were agents within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
4. Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by:
30
(a) Refusing on March 27, 2014 to bargain in good faith with the Union’s chosen
bargaining committee.
(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 35
commencement of collective bargaining between the parties on March 27, 2014.
(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.40
JD–17–16
35
5. Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the following manner:
(a) Concepcion and German threatened employees during individual and group meetings
in August and September 2014 with loss of their jobs, loss of work hours or other changes in 5
their terms and conditions of employment if they went on strike.
(b) Giles, Concepcion and German coercively interrogated individual employees
in August and September 2014 as to whether they were going to participate in the strike.
10
(c) Rochelle Park unilaterally changed employees’ terms and conditions of
employment without giving the opportunity to bargain over such change when it denied
Christina Ozual access to meet with employees in the facility in August 2014.
6. By failing and refusing, on or after September 20, to immediately reinstate ten 15
employees who engaged in protected concerted activity and made an unconditional offer
to return to work, Rochelle Park violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. Rochelle Park discriminatorily changed employees’ terms and conditions of
employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by reducing the work hours of Fritz, 20
Dominguez, Hormaza and Gaston, and denying Alston the opportunity to work overtime,
because they participated in and supported the strike.
8. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.25
REMEDY
Having found that Rochelle Park 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 30
request, Rochelle Park shall bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the
employees concerning terms and conditions of employment, timely provide the Union with
relevant information it has requested and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement. Rochelle Park shall also, within 14 days of the Board’s
Order, offer the ten employees who engaged in an unfair labor practice strike in September 2014, 35
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 longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed. I shall also order Rochelle Park to make whole the unfair labor
practice strikers who were denied reinstatement for any loss of earnings and other benefits 40
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 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 Rochelle Park to expunge from its
files any reference to the failure to reinstate the strikers, and to notify them in writing that this 45
has been done. Finally, I shall order Rochelle Park to post a notice to all employees in
accordance with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010).
JD–17–16
36
Rochelle Park shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating
backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters. Rochelle Park 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 5
(2012).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended81
10
ORDER
The Respondent, Alaris Health at Rochelle Park, Rochelle Park, New Jersey, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
15
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.
20
(b) Coercively threatening any employee with job loss or loss of work hours 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
in a strike or engage in other union activities.25
(d) Refusing to bargain with the Union’s chosen bargaining committee.
(e) Refusing to provide or delaying in providing necessary and relevant
information to the Union.30
(f) Refusing to permit the Union’s representative to meet at reasonable times with
employees in the facility’s employee break room.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in 35
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees 40
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
in a signed agreement:

81 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
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–17–16
37
All CNAs, dietary, housekeeping, recreational aides, LPNs, and all other
employees excluding professional employees, registered nurses, cooks,
confidential [employees], office clerical employees, supervisors, watchmen and
guards.5
(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.
(c) On request, permit the Union’s representative to meet at reasonable times with 10
employees in the facility’s employee break room.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta
Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis, Delores Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn
Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane and Jean Fritz full reinstatement to their former jobs 15
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(e) Make Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis, Delores
Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane and 20
Jean Fritz whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(f) 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 25
done and that such adverse actions will not be used against them in any way.
(g) 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 30
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Rochelle Park, New
Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”82 in both English and Spanish. Copies 35
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by
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 40
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not

82 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.”
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the eve
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
March 27, 2014.5
(i) 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
the Respondent has taken to comply.
10
Dated, Washington, D.C. February
15

38
nt that, during the pendency of these
25, 2016
______________________________
Michael A Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
JD–17–16
steps that
__
JD–17–16
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 or loss of work hours 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 the Union’s representative from meeting at reasonable times with
employees in the facility’s employee break room.
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.
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, LPNs, and all other employees
excluding professional employees, registered nurses, cooks, confidential [employees],
office clerical employees, supervisors, watchmen and guards.
JD–17–16
WE WILL, on request, permit the Union’s representative to meet at reasonable times with
employees in the facility’s employee break room.
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 Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta
Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis, Delores Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn
Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane and Jean Fritz 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 Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis, Delores
Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby Youmane and
Jean Fritz 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 Julieta Dominguez, Jacinta Hormaza, Jamir Gaston, Rodley Lewis,
Delores Alston, Jean Abellard, Rajvinder Padda, Evelyn Meronvil, Santia Vilceus, Gabby
Youmane and Jean Fritz for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-
sum backpay awards covering periods longer than one year.
ALARIS HEALTH AT ROCHELLE PARK
(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.
20 Washington Place, 5th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-3110
(973) 645-2100, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
JD–17–16
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-125023 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.