356 N.L.R.B. 140 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

Atlantis Health Care (Ponce, Aguadilla y Fajardo)

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 15, 2010

356 N.L.R.B. 140 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 140 Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc. and Union General de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1199.1 Case 24–CA–11300 November 15, 2010 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE AND HAYES On April 21, 2010, Administrative Law Judge William N. Cates issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions, and to adopt the recommended Order, except as modi- fied.3 AMENDED REMEDY The Respondent, having unlawfully reduced the hourly pay of unit employees by 30 to 45 cents per hour, must make the unit employees whole for the losses they suf- fered as a result of the unlawful reduction in hourly pay, computed on a quarterly basis, less any net interim earn- ings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus daily compound interest as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). 1 We have amended the caption to reflect the disaffiliation of the Service Employees International Union from the AFL–CIO effective July 25, 2005. 2 Member Hayes joins in finding that the Respondent was not privi- leged to rescind unilaterally the pay increase that it implemented in February 2009 and in rejecting the Respondent’s contention that it “erroneously” implemented that increase. The Respondent’s action was consistent with a practice of granting annual wage increases for 6 straight years, the last 3 times in or retroactive to February. Notably, the 2008 increase was given in the absence of any contract or contract extension calling for it, thus negating any possible inference that the 2009 increase was mistaken because the extant contract extension made no mention of a wage increase. Accordingly, in these circumstances, the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally reducing the employees’ wage rates. 3 In accordance with our decision in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), we modify the judge’s recommended remedy by requiring that backpay and other monetary awards shall be paid with interest compounded on a daily basis. Also, we shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to provide for the posting of the notice in accord with J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010). For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Flooring, Member Hayes would not require electronic distribution of the notice. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec- ommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc., Ponce, Aguadilla, and Fajardo, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(e). “(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Ponce, Aguadilla and Fajardo, Puerto Rico, locations copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Cop- ies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector for Region 24, after being signed by the Respond- ent’s authorized representatives, 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 physi- cal posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re- spondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re- spondent has gone out of business or closed the proceed- ings, 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 2009.” Jose Luis Ortiz, Esq., for the Government.1 Manuel A. Nunez, Esq. and Zulimary V. Serrano, Esq., for the Company.2 Jose Aneses-Pena, Esq., for the Union.3 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This is a unilateral change case which I heard in trial in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 2, 2010. The case originates from a charge filed on August 20, 2009, by Union General de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL–CIO (the Union). The prosecution of the case was formalized on November 30, 2009, when the Act- ing Regional Director for Region 24 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), acting in the name of the Board’s 1 I shall refer to counsel for the General Counsel as counsel for the Government and General Counsel as the Government. 2 I shall refer to counsel for the Company as counsel for the Compa- ny and shall refer to the Respondent as the Company. 3 I shall refer to counsel for the Charging Party as counsel for the Union and refer to the Charging party as the Union. 356 NLRB No. 26 ATLANTIS HEALTH CARE GROUP (P.R.) INC. 141 General Counsel, issued a complaint and notice of hearing (complaint) against Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc. (Company). The Company, in a timely filed answer to the complaint, de- nied having violated the Act in any manner alleged in the com- plaint. Specifically, it is alleged that the Company, during approxi- mately the second pay period in March 2009, decreased the wage rates of the employees in certain appropriate collective- bargaining units, represented by the Union, by 45 cents per hour without prior notice to the Union and without providing the Union an opportunity to bargain with regard to the conduct and the effects of such conduct. It is alleged the Company, by the conduct described above, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to in- troduce relevant evidence, and to file briefs. The parties en- tered into a stipulated record, consisting of various stipulations of fact, and called no witnesses. Additionally, the parties stipu- lated that, if called, Company Human Resources Director Her- mongenes Torres–Morilla (HR Director Torres–Morilla), an admitted supervisor and agent of the Company, would testify as set forth in the factual stipulation pertaining to him. The parties also stipulated that, if called, Union Representative Maria S. Cancel would testify as set forth in the factual stipulation per- taining to her. I have studied the stipulated record, the post-trial briefs, and the authorities cited therein. Based on more detailed findings and analysis below, I conclude and find the Company violated the Act as alleged in the complaint. FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION, LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS AND BARGAINING UNITS The Company is a Commonwealth of Puerto Rico corpora- tion with a main office in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, and has been, and continues to be, engaged in the operation of 12 outpa- tient dialysis and related health centers at various locations throughout the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including Ponce, Aguadilla, and Fajardo. Annually, the Company pur- chases and receives, directly from points located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, equipment, goods, and materi- als valued in excess of $50,000, and annually derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000 in the operation of its business. The parties admit, and I find, the Company is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The parties admit, and I find, the Union is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. It is admitted that the following employees of the Company, herein called the Units, constitute units appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: Ponce Units UNIT A INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including LPNs, equipment technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees, receptionists, billing and col- lection employees employed by the Company in its facilities located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. UNIT B INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician) and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. Aquadilla Units UNIT A INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including LPNs, equipment technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees, receptionists, billing and col- lection employees employed by the Company in its facilities located in Good Samaritan Community Hospital in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. UNIT B INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician) and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Good Samaritan Commu- nity Hospital in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. Fajardo Unit INCLUDED: All professional employees including registered nurses, dieticians and social workers employed by the Com- pany at its facilities located in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. II. THE STIPULATED AND /OR ADMITTED FACTS Since about November 1, 2002, the Union has been the des- ignated exclusive collective–bargaining representative of the Units, and, since about the year 2000, the Company has acknowledged the Union as the representative. This recogni- tion has been embodied in collective-bargaining agreements, effective from November 1, 2002, to October 31, 2005, for each of the respective units, including Ponce, Aguadilla, and Fajardo. The agreements were, thereafter, extended by various stipulations between the parties. Specifically, on April 12, 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the collec- tive-bargaining agreements until January 31, 2008. On March 5, 2008, the parties again stipulated to an extension of the col- lective-bargaining agreements until June 30, 2008, and, on that date, stipulated to an extension of their agreements until Janu- ary 31, 2009. On January 14, 2009, the parties agreed to extend their collective-bargaining agreements, thereafter, on a day-to- day basis, until bargaining resulted in new agreements or the DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 142 parties reached impasse in negotiations. The parties started negotiations in January 2009, but, as of the trial herein, had not arrived at any successor agreements. Article 19, section 1 of each of the parties’ expired collec- tive-bargaining agreements relates to wage increases, on a year- ly basis, for the unit employees for each of the three covered years of 2003, 2004, and 2005. The same provisions in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements provides the Compa- ny will grant a salary increase of 45 cents per hour for all pro- fessional employees, 40 cents per hour for all technicians and 30 cents per hour for all other employees. In as much as the parties extended their collective-bargaining agreements in the subsequent three years, the Company continued to grant the salary increases for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008. On April 2006, the salary increases were granted retroactive to the first pay period of February of the same year. In 2007 and 2008, the salary increases were granted on the first pay period of Febru- ary of each year. During the first payroll period of February 2009, the Com- pany granted its unit employees salary increases of 45 cents per hour to all professional employees, 40 cents per hour to all technicians and 30 cents per hour to all other employees. The February 2009 increases were not negotiated with the Union, nor did the Company give prior notification of the salary in- creases to the Union. The parties’ January 14, 2009 stipulation, extending the terms of their previous collective-bargaining agreements, is silent regarding any salary increases. The par- ties’ prior stipulations and collective-bargaining agreements do contain a mandatory arbitration clause for resolution of all con- troversies arising under the collective-bargaining agreements or the stipulations. The Union did not file an unfair labor practice charge with the Board following the Company’s granting of the February 2009 wage increase. On March 26, 2009, HR Director Torres–Morillo sent an e– mail to Union Representative Maria Silva Cancel with an at- tached letter, addressed to all unit employees and dated March 25, 2009, regarding a salary reduction for the unit employees. This e–mail, which was received by the Union, on March 27, 2009, was the Company’s only notification to the Union on the issue of a salary reduction prior to its implementation. On March 30, 2009, HR Director Torres–Morillo sent the Compa- ny’s letter, dated March 25, 2009, to the unit employees in Ponce, Aguadilla, and Fajardo. In his letter, HR Director Torres–Morillo informed the unit employees he had mistakenly granted a salary increase in February 2009, and that their sala- ries would be adjusted to reflect the salary they received prior to February 2009. Torres–Morillo explained in the letter that adjustments were not going to be made to the payroll already paid in the month of February 2009 and the first biweekly pay period of March 2009. Salary reductions of 30 to 45 cents per hour were implemented on March 9, 2009, and are reflected in the Company’s March 23, 2009 pay period. As of the trial herein, the unit employees continue to receive the same amount they earned prior to the salary increase implemented in Febru- ary 2009. The Company and the Union met on May 12, 2009, and dis- cussed, for the first time, the issue of the salary reduction, but did not reach any agreement. The Company and Union have been engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations for succes- sor contracts and have reached an issue regarding salary in- creases. As of the trial herein, the Company’s negotiating posi- tion concerning a salary increase is to grant a 45 cent salary increase, retroactively with a payment plan, in exchange for the Union’s acceptance of a reduction of certain fringe benefits. The parties stipulated that, if called, HR Director Torres– Morillo and Union Representative Cancel would testify as fol- lows: Should Mr. Torres testify, he would testify that the increases given in 2009 to the union employees were a product of his confusion on the interpretation of the stipulation signed by the parties on January 14, 2009. That, upon discussing said in- crease with counsel and other officers of the company, he be- came aware of his misinterpretation regarding the giving of said increase and the impact on the scheduled negotiations for a new CBA between the parties. It was his interpretation that he had committed a good faith error regarding the wage in- creases, and that said error had to be corrected by withdraw- ing the same and by providing notice to the union of said withdrawal. The withdrawal of the erroneous wage increase would restore the status for proper good faith bargaining to be carried out by the parties in order to reach a new CBA. The union did not respond to the notice that was given until a un- ion representative, in a bargaining session for a new contract held on May 12, 2009, stated that they would file an unfair la- bor practice charge regarding withdrawal of the increase. Should Union Representative Marie S. Cancel testify she would state that, after receiving the notice of salary reduction via e–mail sent by HR Director Torres, she called HR Direc- tor Torres and told him said reduction in salary was illegal. III. ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS If a term or condition of employment concerns a mandatory subject of bargaining, an employer generally may not discon- tinue that term or condition without first bargaining with the union to impasse or agreement. See NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962). Stated differently, during contract negotiations, an employer may not make unilateral changes to represented em- ployees’ terms and conditions of employment without bargain- ing to impasse. The Board has recognized exceptions to this general rule where “economic exigencies” compel prompt ac- tion, and where the union waives its right to bargain. See Trib- une Publishing Co., 351 NLRB 196, 197 fn. 9 (2007). No eco- nomic exigencies or waivers are asserted in the instant case. It is well settled, and beyond dispute, that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when, absent waiver, it changes employees’ wages without giving the union an appro- priate opportunity to bargain about the changes. Wages are, of course, a mandatory subject of bargaining NLRB v. Borg– Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342, 348 (1958). Specifically the Board has long held that an employer may not, without consult- ing with the union, unilaterally reduce hourly pay rates of unit employees. See Huttig Sash & Door Co., 154 NLRB 811 (1965), enf. NLRB v. Huttig Sash & Door Co., 377 F.2d 964 (8th Cir. 1967). ATLANTIS HEALTH CARE GROUP (P.R.) INC. 143 A brief restatement of certain facts is helpful at this point. The parties’ collective-bargaining agreements and related stipu- lated extensions provided for annual wage increases of 45 cents per hour for professional employees, 40 cents per hour for technicians and 30 cents per hour for all other employees at least from 2003 and through 2008. Starting in 2006, the effec- tive date for the increases was the first pay period of February. On January 14, 2009, the parties agreed to extend their collec- tive-bargaining agreements on a day-to-day basis until agree- ment or impasse. The January 14, 2009 extension is silent re- garding wage increases; however, during the first pay period of February 2009, the Company implemented wage increases for employees in the units in the amounts specified in the prior extended collective-bargaining agreements. The Union did not protest nor file a charge with the Board regarding the February 2009 wage increases. On March 9, 2009, the Company imple- mented wage reductions for the unit employees of 30 to 45 cents per hour with the reductions reflected in the employees’ March 23, 2009 pay. As of the trial herein, the employees have continued to receive wages in the amounts they earned prior to the wage increases of February 2009. On March 26, 2009, HR Director Torres–Morillo sent an electronic letter to Union Rep- resentative Cancel with an attached memorandum addressed to the unit employees advising the employees the Company had granted their February 2009 wage increases erroneously, and, advised their wages would be reduced to the levels in effect before the February 2009 increase. This electronic message was received by the Union on March 27, 2009, and the attached memorandum was sent to the employees of the units on March 30, 2009. Wages, especially wage reductions, are mandatory subjects of bargaining. The wage reductions at issue herein were unilat- erally implemented by the Company at a time when the parties were in negotiations for successor collective-bargaining agree- ments. The Union was presented with a fait accompli with no opportunity to bargain concerning the wage reductions. The wage reductions significantly and materially impacted every unit employee. I find the Company’s unilateral actions violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The fact Company HR Director Torre–Morillo, sometime af- ter implementation of the wage increases, concluded he had erroneously and mistakenly implemented the February 2009 wage increases does not justify the Company’s unilaterally rescinding the increases without notifying the Union and bar- gaining with the Union over the rescissions. The Company may well be able to correct the “erroneously” implemented wage increases; however, it was obligated to notify and bargain with the Union when it decided to rescind the wage increases. Furthermore, it is appropriate under these circumstances, to direct, as I do, that the Company cease and desist from rescind- ing the wage increases and make the unit employees whole. See Mid–Wilshire Health Care Center, 337 NLRB 72, 73 (2001). Contrary to the contentions of the Company, there are no ad- verse legal consequences for the Union not initially objecting to the wage increases in February 2009, nor does its not objecting require a different result than that reached. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company, Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Union General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Ser- vice Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL– CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. At all times since at least the year 2000, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of appropriate units, of employees employed by the Company. 4. By unilaterally reducing the wage rates of the employees in the units by 30 to 45 cents per hour the Company has en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. The Company’s unfair labor practices specified in 4 above, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found the Company has engaged in certain unfair la- bor practices, I find it necessary to order the Company to cease and desist there from and to take certain action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In particular, to remedy the unlawful reduction in hourly pay of the employees in the units by 30 to 45 cents per hour, I recommend the Company be or- dered to make the unit employees whole for losses they suf- fered as a result of the unlawful reduction in hourly pay, with interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The specific identification of the employ- ees affected and the precise amounts owed to them is, if neces- sary, left for determination at the compliance stage of this pro- ceeding. I also recommend the Company be ordered to restore the wages of the employees in the Units as they existed prior to the implementation of the change and bargain regarding any changes in wages. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended4 ORDER The Company, Atlantis Health Care Group (P.R.) Inc., its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Unilaterally reducing the hourly wage rates, or otherwise altering the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of its employees, in the Units represented by Un- ion General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Em- ployees International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL–CIO without affording the Union notice and an opportunity to bar- gain. 4 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 pur- poses. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 144 (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. (a) Restore the wages of the employees in the units as they existed prior to the implementation of the change that reduced their wages. (b) Before implementing any reduction in the hourly wage rates or any other changes affecting the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of employees in the Units represented by the Union, notify and, on request, bargain with Union General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1199, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of em- ployees in the following appropriate bargaining units: Ponce Units UNIT A INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including: LPNs, equipment technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees, receptionists, billing and col- lection employees employed by the Company in its facilities located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. UNIT B INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician) and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. Aquadilla Units UNIT A INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including: LPNs, equipment technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees, receptionists, billing and col- lection employees employed by the Company in its facilities located in Good Samaritan Community Hospital in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. UNIT B INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician) and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Good Samaritan Commu- nity Hospital, in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. Fajardo Unit INCLUDED: All professional employees including registered nurses, dieticians and social workers employed by the Com- pany at its facilities located in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. (c) Make employees in the units whole for any loss of earn- ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unilateral reduction in the hourly wage rates of employees in the units represented by the Union in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi- tional time as the Regional Director for Region 24 of the Board 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, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of the records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of any back pay due under the terms of this Order. (e) Post, at its Ponce, Aguadilla, and Fajardo, Puerto Rico, locations, copies of the attached notice, marked “Appendix”5 in English and Spanish. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 24 of the Board, and after being signed by the Company’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Company and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that during the pendency of these proceedings the Company has gone out of business or closed any of the facilities involved in these proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice, to all employees employed at any time after March 2009. (f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 24 of the National Labor Rela- tions Board a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Company has taken to comply. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio- lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be- half Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi- ties. 5 If this order is enforced by a Judgement of the 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 Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board” ATLANTIS HEALTH CARE GROUP (P.R.) INC. 145 WE WILL NOT unilaterally reduce the wage rates and other terms and conditions of employment of our employees in the Units represented by Union General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Lo- cal 1199, AFL–CIO without first affording the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, before implementing any reduction in your hourly wage rates or other changes affecting your wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, notify and, on re- quest, bargain with Union General, de Trabajadores de Puerto Rico, a/w Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Lo- cal 1199, AFL–CIO as the exclusive collective–bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate bargaining units: Ponce Units UNIT A INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including: LPNs, equipment technicians, maintenance technicians, re- use technicians, clerical employees, receptionists, billing and collection employees employed by the Company in its facili- ties located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. UNIT B INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician) and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Hospital San Lucas II, Ponce, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. Aquadilla Units UNIT A INCLUDED: All non–professional employees, including: LPNs, equipment technicians, maintenance technicians, reuse technicians, clerical employees, receptionists, billing and col- lection employees employed by the Company in its facilities located in Good Samaritan Community Hospital, in Aguadil- la, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. UNIT B INCLUDED: All professional employees, including RNs, nutritionist (dietician) and social workers employed by the Company at its facilities located in Good Samaritan Commu- nity Hospital, in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. Fajardo Unit INCLUDED: All professional employees including registered nurses, dieticians and social workers employed by the Com- pany at its facilities located in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. EXCLUDED: All other employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. WE WILL restore the wages of our employees in the units to the pay levels that existed prior to the reduction of their wages in March 2009. WE WILL make our employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unilateral reduc- tions in wages, plus interest. ATLANTIC HEALTH CARE GROUP (P.R.) INC.