Columbia Memorial Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 20, 2015

03-CA-132367 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 20, 2015)

JD(NY)–10–15
Hudson, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
COLUMBIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
and Case 03-CA-132367
1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS EAST
Greg Lehmann, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Paul E. Davenport, Esq. (Lombardi, Walsh, Davenport
and Amodeo, P.C.), Albany, NY, for the Respondent.
Jay Jaffe, Esq., Senior Managing Counsel, New York, NY, for the Union.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge: Based on a charge filed on July 9, 2014
by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (Union), a complaint was issued against
Columbia Memorial Hospital (Respondent or Employer) on August 21, 2014.
The complaint alleges, essentially, that the Respondent failed and refused to furnish the
Union with certain information which the Union requested on March 19 and April 1, 2014, which
information is necessary for, and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit.
The Respondent’s answer denies the material allegations of the complaint and asserts
certain affirmative defenses which will be addressed below.
On November 20, 2014, a hearing was held before me in Albany, New York.1 On the
entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering
the briefs filed by all parties, I make the following:
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction and Labor Organization Status
The Respondent, a not-for-profit corporation with an office and place of business in
Hudson, New York, has been engaged in the operation of a hospital providing inpatient and
outpatient medical care. Annually, in the conduct of its business operations, the Respondent
derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and purchases and receives at its Hudson, New
York facility, goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside New York State. The
Respondent admits, and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning

1 The General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct the transcript to change the word “advance” to
“abeyance” on transcript page 104, is granted.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and has been a health care institution within the meaning
of Section 2(14) of the Act. The Respondent also admits, and I find, that the Union has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
The Respondent and the Union have been parties to successive collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which is effective from January 1, 2011 through December 31,
2015. The Union has been recognized in the following professional unit:2
All full-time and regular part-time Registered Professional Nurses
licensed to practice in the State of New York including per diem
Registered Professional Nurses, Pharmacists, Physical
Therapists, Medical Technologists, Histology Technologist
employed by the Employer at Columbia Division of Columbia
Memorial Hospital located at 71 Prospect Avenue, Hudson, NY
and its surrounding clinics in accordance with the National Labor
Relations Board Certification of Representative, Case No. 3-RC-
8323, dated December 9, 1982.
This matter involves the Union’s requests for information concerning the operation of the
Respondent’s mandatory overtime program for registered nurses.3 Mandatory overtime is the
requirement that an on-duty nurse work beyond her regularly scheduled hours of work. Such
employees are required to work overtime in order to fill shifts of nurses who are absent for
various reasons.
The parties’ contract provides that “prior to requiring mandatory overtime, the Employer
will exhaust all efforts to obtain needed staff as set forth in [this Article of the contract] and as
required by Section 167 of … the New York State Labor Law which restricts mandatory overtime
for Registered Nurses….”
Director of human resources Kelly Sweeney testified that the Respondent undertakes a
process before “mandating” that a nurse work overtime, including the steps set forth in the
Employer’s Nurse Coverage Plan. She stated that each step in the process is documented as
required in State Labor Law Section 177.4.
When the nursing administration needs to mandate a nurse, the nursing staffing office
first determines whether the need for an extra nurse is on one specific floor. If that is the case,
the administration attempts to obtain a nurse from another floor to fill in on the floor where help
is needed. Then the staffing personnel examine the patient census of the floor from which the
nurse will be transferred to determine if a transfer of a nurse from that floor is feasible.
Following that exercise, the staffing office performs a “call list” in which all nurses
employed by the Employer are advised of the opening on the specific shift and floor, and asked
if they would work the shift.

2 The contract also covers a unit of Service and Technical employees, which is not involved in this
matter.
3 Hereafter, the term “nurse” or “nurses” will refer to registered professional nurses.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
If the Employer is unable to obtain one of its nurses to fill the vacant shift, the nurse
managers are asked to take the shift. If the Employer still cannot find a nurse for the shift, it then
calls one of the nursing employment agencies it contracts with, and asks that a nurse be
provided. The agency called is identified on the call list.
If all of these efforts are unsuccessful in obtaining a nurse to fill the vacant shift, an on-
duty nurse is “mandated” – required to work the shift on an overtime basis, for which she
receives bonus pay.
Section 167 of the New York State Labor Law broadly prohibits hospitals from requiring
an on-duty nurse to work overtime – a period of time after their regular shift has been
completed. However, there are two events in which the hospital may require such overtime.
First, in the event of an unforeseen patient care emergency, defined below, or during periods of
nurse absences for various reasons, where various steps have first been undertaken, pursuant
to the Nurse Coverage Plan, to provide for the vacancy.
Part 177.3 Mandatory Overtime Prohibition.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health care
employer shall not require a nurse to work overtime….
(b) The following exceptions shall apply to the prohibition against
mandatory overtime for nurses:
(3) Patient Care Emergency. The prohibition against
mandatory overtime shall not apply in the case of a patient care
emergency, which shall mean a situation which is unforeseen and
could not be prudently planned for and as determined by the
health care employer, that requires the continued presence of the
nurse to provide safe patient care, subject to the following
limitations:
(i) Before requiring an on-duty nurse to work beyond
his or her regularly scheduled work hours in connection with a
patient care emergency, the health care employer shall make a
good faith effort to have overtime covered on a voluntary basis or
to otherwise secure nurse coverage by utilizing all methods set
forth in its Nurse Coverage Plan … The health care employer shall
document attempts to secure nurse coverage through use of
phone logs or other records appropriate to this purpose.
(ii) A patient care emergency cannot be established in a
particular circumstance if that circumstance is the result of routine
nurse staffing needs due to typical staffing patterns, typical levels
of absenteeism, and time off typically approved by the employer
for vacation, holidays, sick leave, and personal leave, unless a
Nurse Coverage Plan which meets the requirements of Section
177.4 is in place, has been fully implemented and utilized, and has
failed to produce staffing to meet the particular patient care
emergency. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to limit an
employer’s right to deny discretionary time off (e.g., vacation time,
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
personal time, etc.) where the employer is contractually or
otherwise legally permitted to do so.
(iii) A patient care emergency will not qualify for an
exception to the provisions of this Part if it was caused by the
health care employer’s failure to develop or properly and fully
implement a Nurse Coverage Plan as required under Section
177.4 of this Part.
The State Labor Law requires a Nurse Coverage Plan, as follows:
Part 177.4 Nurse Coverage Plans.
(a) Every health care employer shall implement a Nurse Coverage
Plan, taking into account typical patterns of staff absenteeism due
to illness, leave, bereavement and other similar factors. Such plan
should also reflect the health care employer’s typical levels and
types of patients served by the health care facility.
(b) The Plan shall identify and describe as many alternative
staffing methods as are available to the health care employer to
ensure adequate staffing through means other than use of
mandatory overtime including contracts with per diem nurses,
contracts with nurse registries and employment agencies of
nursing services, arrangements for assignment of nursing floats,
requesting an additional day of work from off-duty employees, and
development and posting of a list or roster of nurses seeking
voluntary overtime.
(c) The Plan must identify the Supervisor(s) or Administrator(s) at
the health care facility or at another identified location who will
make the final determination as to when it is necessary to utilize
mandatory overtime. The Plan may require a nurse to assist in
making telephone calls consistent with the Nurse Coverage Plan
to find his or her own shift replacement, but may not require a
nurse to self-mandate overtime.
(d) The Plan shall require documentation of all attempts to avoid
the use of mandatory overtime during a patient care emergency
and seek alternative staffing through the methods identified in
subdivision (b) of this Section. In the event that the health care
employer does utilize mandatory overtime, the documentation of
such efforts to avoid the use of mandatory overtime shall be made
available, upon request, to the nurse who was required to work
the mandatory overtime and/or to the nurse’s collective bargaining
representative….
Part 177.6 provides that this Part “shall not be construed to diminish or
waive any rights or obligations of any nurse or health care provider pursuant to
any other law, regulation, or collective bargaining agreement.”
The Employer has a current Nurse Coverage Plan which provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES
Columbia Memorial Hospital has employed various measures to
ensure adequate staffing and to allow additional flexibility of staff
after time sheets are posted. The hospital work force consists of a
36 – 37.5 hour work week, allowing any staff to work a minimum
of 2.5 additional hours weekly prior to an overtime situation.
Other measures initiated at Columbia Memorial Hospital include:
1. Hiring per diems to fill vacancies.
2. Voluntary cross-training of existing staff to other areas within
[the Employer].
3. Flexible hours and shift options for interested staff.
4. Posting job openings where it is accessible for those staff
seeking additional or new assignments.
5. Acceptance of volunteers to work extra shifts.
6. Alternative incentives for volunteering extra time.
7. Ongoing calls to staff to cover vacancies and unexpected
situations.
8. Scheduling of one additional staff member wherever possible
to fill in, in the event of an unexpected absence.
9. Implementation of a software system to allow for self-
scheduling and to track vacancies.
10. Contracts with outside nursing employment agencies to
provide coverage for both per-diem situations and extended
travel assignments.
11. Use of on-call staff in areas where volume and acuity fluctuate
(i.e. ICU, OB, Surgical Services)
12. Rotation of staff in accordance with the contract provision to fill
staffing needs.
13. Creative scheduling on individual units to cover unexpected
needs, which may include temporary coverage by a charge
nurse or nurse manager.
14. Relocation and congregation of patients to areas where
nursing staff ratios can accommodate patient care needs
without creating an overtime situation.
15. Education to staff of the need for early notification to the
hospital of any absence. Tracking of absenteeism to assure
patient care is not compromised due to abuse of sick time
policies.
16. Encouragement to switch with other staff when there is a need
to be out of work after the timesheet is published, rather than
call list sent.
17. Employment of a recruiter for the Nursing Division who can
devote time to marketing, recruitment and retention.
18. Involvement of the nursing staff in recruitment of new staff,
and precepting new staff.
19. Initiation of advertising for licensed personnel on radio,
television, job fairs and billboards.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
DOCUMENTATION
All requests for time off, records of extra hours worked, and
master time sheets of personnel are maintained in the Nursing
Division. In addition, records of payroll including hours worked,
dollars paid and utilization of benefit time is available on our
Information Services System.
In compliance with the New York State Labor Law, Columbia
Memorial Hospital has developed this plan to restrict mandatory
overtime for licensed nursing staff except in situations where there
is an emergency and it is necessary to mandate staff to provide
safe patient care. Columbia Memorial Hospital will make a good
faith effort to have overtime covered on a voluntary basis and will
institute other options prior to requiring an on-duty employee to
remain on duty. Columbia Memorial Hospital will comply with New
York State Labor Law, Part 177, Section 167.
B. The Requests for Information, their Asserted Relevance.
and the Employer’s Responses
1. The March 19 Request
Nurses complained to nurse Kimberly Bishop, a Union delegate, that they had been
asked to work mandatory overtime on March 6, 7, and 18, 2014. She testified that between
June, 2013 and March, 2014, more than five nurses complained to her that they had been
improperly mandated, in other words, required to work overtime before the Respondent took the
necessary steps to find a replacement. 4
On March 19, Bishop addressed a request to Kelly Sweeney, the Respondent’s Human
Resources Director for certain information “for the purpose of filing a grievance.” The documents
were asked to be provided by March 21.
The request contained nine demands for information. However, only three are before
me. Accordingly, evidence concerning the other documents requested but not at issue will not
be discussed. The three areas of information sought, as numbered in the original request, are:
7. Copies of contracts of any and all agencies used by the Employer to
cover vacancies in order to avoid the use of mandatory overtime.
8. Dates and times of all calls made to agencies over the last 12 months to
avoid the use of mandatory overtime.
9. Number of agency nurses used by the hospital over the past 12 months,
to include date, shift, and unit worked.
Bishop testified that the information in paragraph 7 was requested in order to determine
if the Employer had contracts with nursing employment agencies so that she could investigate
the grievance. She explained that the Employer represents in the collective-bargaining
agreement, Article 12, Section 5, above, that it operates in accordance with the New York State
Law which requires that a Nurse Coverage Plan include a provision for contracts with nursing

4 Between August, 2013 and March, 2014, there were several grievances as to mandating, all of
which were resolved.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
agencies.
Further, Bishop stated that she needed the contracts for the grievance so that she could
determine whether nurses provided by the agencies had been properly oriented at the Employer
– given training in the use of the Employer’s computerized medication administration and other
Employer policies – before beginning their employment.
Bishop stated that she needed the entire contract so that she could confirm the names of
the agencies. She did not need the pricing information set forth in the contracts, but needed the
“method and means” by which the Employer obtained nurses.
Bishop stated that she needed the information in paragraph 8 in order to process the
grievance she filed. She also noted that such information was required by Section 177 of the
New York State law, which states that the Nurse Coverage Plan requires documentation of all
attempts to avoid the use of mandatory overtime, and such documentation shall be made
available, upon request, to the Union. Bishop believed that asking for documents for the past
year was reasonable.
Regarding the information requested in paragraph 9, the Union sought this information in
order to aid in the processing of the grievance, and because such information is required
according to the New York State Law. Bishop also stated that the information was necessary
because the Employer’s Nurse Coverage Plan provides that it has contracts with nursing
agencies. Sweeney first claimed that this information was irrelevant, but then notified the Union
that it used 14 agency nurses in the past year.
Bishop further stated that she needed the information set forth in paragraphs 8 and 9,
above, because neither she nor any other nurse at the Employer had seen an agency nurse
work at the Employer on a per diem basis in order to avoid the use of mandatory overtime. That
is why she questioned whether the Employer, in fact, had contracts with nursing agencies.
The following day, March 20, Sweeney sent an email to Bishop which stated that “the
Employer has begun to compile the information that you requested. However, as the request is
voluminous, it will be available by the close of business on March 21. I will make every effort to
have it to you in the early part of next week.”
On March 20, Bishop submitted the following grievance entitled “Class Action” because
“multiple employees” were required to perform mandatory overtime work:
The Employer has violated the CBA including, but not limited to
Article12, Sect. 3, Article 12, Sect. 5, and Article 19 by mandating
employees before attempting alternative staffing identified in the
Nurse Coverage Plan.
The parties’ contract provides that a grievance shall be filed within 10 days of the event
giving rise to the grievance, or within 10 days after the employee knew of that event, and that a
failure to abide by such time limit constitutes a waiver of the grievance. Sweeney stated that the
three dates in March came within the 10 day time limitation of the grievance filed on March 20.5

5 The grievance was timely since Saturdays and Sundays are not included in the computation of the
time required to file the grievance.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
On March 31, Sweeney provided certain documents to Bishop. She testified that the
information provided was voluminous, taking 10 days to compile. The documents provided
included the Nurse Coverage Plan, and the vacancy call lists for March 6, 7, and 18. The call
lists set forth the names of the two nurse employment agencies the Employer called on the
three dates in March. The call lists also included the names of the nurses who were absent, and
the calls made to nurses to attempt to fill the shifts.
Although testifying that the information requested was “extremely voluminous,” Sweeney
did not know if her request for the number of nurses mandated required the nursing department
to review voluminous documents. Nor did she know what records that department had to review
to report that 14 agency nurses were used in the past year.
Regarding the information requested in paragraph 8, the Respondent provided data for
March 6, 7, and 18 only, despite the fact that the request sought information for the past 12
months.
Upon receiving this limited information, on the same day, March 31, Bishop wrote to
Sweeney advising that the documents provided did not contain all the information requested in
paragraphs 7 through 9, above. Bishop testified that although the names of the two agencies
were set forth in the call lists, she needed the contracts themselves to determine if they
provided that per diem agency nurses would fill the shifts open due to nurse absences.6
Bishop asked that the information be provided by April 2 so that the Union could accept
the April 3 date offered by the Employer for a Step 3 grievance meeting.
Bishop testified that although her initial March 19 request for information specified three
specific dates, March 6, 7, and 18, on which nurses were mandated, her request, in its entirety,
was not limited to those three dates since other information was demanded. Such requested
data included the Respondent’s calls to nursing agencies and the use of agency nurses in the
past 12 months.
Sweeney testified, in contrast, that she believed that the Union was simply questioning
the Employer’s mandating nurses on the three dates in March. She agreed that the grievance
does not mention the three dates, but nevertheless believed that it was concerned with those
dates because Bishop’s March 19 request specified the three dates and requested certain
information regarding those dates. Accordingly, Sweeney stated that her responses to some
requests were based on the three dates provided by Bishop, being aware of the 10 day limit on
filing grievances. Other responses were based on her belief that the documents sought were
irrelevant. Still other responses were based on her belief that the collection of the information
would be voluminous and burdensome, requiring the Employer to seek such data “across many
departments.”
Sweeney conceded, however, that certain items requested sought information beyond
the three dates, including those which sought 12 months of data. Nevertheless, she did not ask
Bishop why she needed one year’s documentation.

6 I reject the Respondent’s argument, on brief, that the Union could have objected to the Employer’s
responses and submissions, but did not do so. Bishop’s complaint to Sweeney on March 31 that not all
the requested documents had been supplied constitutes the Union’s objection.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
On April 1, Sweeney wrote to Bishop, referencing “Grievance No. 112 – Mandating:
Information Request.” Sweeney apologized for not including the information omitted, and further
responded to the March 19 request, as follows:
7. Copies of contracts with Agencies is proprietary and will not be
provided.
8. Agencies that were called was attached to call list.
9. Number of agency nurses used over the last 12 months is
irrelevant, and will not be provided.
As to paragraph 7, Sweeney testified that the contracting agencies expected the
Employer to keep the contents of the contracts confidential. She regarded the rates paid and
length of the contract to be particularly private information. However, she changed her testimony
on cross examination to state that the length of the contract was not confidential. Bishop
testified that the rates paid the agencies did not have to be provided.
Sweeney conceded that she could have redacted the objectionable information, but did
not do so or offer to do so. She further stated that she did not offer the Union an
accommodation to the Employer’s concerns as to the proprietary nature of the contracts
because the Union “was clear that they wanted the entire contracts.” She stated that she, too,
was clear in her position that the contracts were proprietary.
As to paragraphs 8 and 9, Sweeney testified that inasmuch as Bishop asked for the
information for three specific dates only, information requested for 12 months is irrelevant and is
also outside the 10 day period within which a grievance may be filed. In addition, such a
voluminous amount of documents would be “burdensome,” involving the human resources and
nursing departments.
Sweeney stated that after she provided the information to Bishop on March 31, the
Union made no complaints regarding her submission. However, this ignores the fact that on
March 31, the same day she received the documents, Bishop wrote to Sweeney advising that
the documents provided did not contain the information requested in paragraphs 7 through 9,
above.
2. The April 1 Request
Union organizer Timothy Rodgers became aware that the Employer did not provide
some of the information requested by Bishop. On April 1, he requested certain information,
advising that if the information was received by April 2, he would be available on April 3 for the
Step 3 grievance, but if the information was not received by that time, the grievance meeting
would have to be rescheduled:
The requested documents at issue here, as numbered in Rodgers’ original demand, are
as follows:
1. Copies of any and all nursing agency contracts utilized by the
employer over the last 12 months.
2. Number of times the employer used and/or attempted to use
agency nurses over the last 12 months, including dates and
agencies.
4. Name, shift, and detailed explanation of emergency for each
time a nurse was mandated over the last 12 months.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
5. Any and all documentation showing the employer’s attempt to
prevent mandating over the last 12 months.
Rodgers testified that the information in paragraph 1, above, was needed because unit
employees were not aware that the Employer had used an agency nurse. He asked for the
contracts because the Employer stated, in the Nurse Coverage Plan, that it has contracts with
nursing agencies.
Rodgers requested the information in paragraph 2 because Labor Law section 167
requires that the Employer keep an accurate record of which agencies it contracts with, and
what methods it uses to prevent mandatory overtime. The information was relevant because the
Union would be able to assess whether the Employer obtained nurses from the agencies for the
three dates requested, and thereby possibly resolve the grievance. Rodgers added that the
Union was unable to properly prepare for the grievance because the Employer did not provide
the information.
Rodgers testified that the data requested in paragraph 4 was needed because the Union
had an obligation to represent the employees. The information would permit the Union to
determine whether there was a staffing issue, and to prepare the grievance. The documents
would permit the Union to determine what emergency, as defined in Labor Law 177.3(a)(3), the
Employer believed existed, which permitted it to mandate the nurses.
Rodgers requested the information in paragraph 5 because Labor Law Section 167 is
referenced in the collective-bargaining agreement and that law stated that the Employer must
document all attempts to prevent mandatory overtime. Rodgers stated that he needed the data
to fully and fairly represent employees. He initially believed that mandation had occurred on only
three days but later learned through employees that it had occurred more often, which caused
him to ask for this information for a 12 month period. He was not satisfied with Sweeney’s
response that the Employer follows the Nurse Coverage Plan. The Union wanted to see the
documents and assess them so that it could properly prepare for the grievance. Further, Section
167 states that the Employer must keep the documents and provide them to the Union.
On April 3, Rodgers advised Sweeney that the Union had not received the information or
any response to its April 1 request, and that it had to cancel the April 3 meeting. Rodgers asked
that the documents be sent “in order for the Union to properly prepare for this grievance,” asking
that the information be sent by April 7.
On April 4, Sweeney wrote to Rodgers, responding to his April 1 request, as follows:
1. Copies of contracts with Agencies is proprietary and will not be
provided.
2. Number of agency nurses used over the last 12 months is
irrelevant, and will not be provided.
4 and 5. This request is irrelevant to the dates in question.
Sweeney testified that the information in paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 was irrelevant because
the information requested, for the past 12 months, was outside the 10 day period for grievance
filing inasmuch as the grievance was limited to three dates. Sweeney added that the Union did
not claim that any specific instance of mandating was improper during that 12 month period, nor
did the Union claim that the information was necessary to investigate “ongoing conduct” which
violated the parties’ contract. She did not ask Rodgers why he believed the data was relevant.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
Moreover, Sweeney testified that the documents requested were “extremely
voluminous,” and their collection was burdensome since it involved many departments.
Sweeney further explained that she and her staff would have to review all the documentation
and paper call lists. They would have to determine why and when employees were on leaves of
absence and when they returned from such leaves.
On April 7, Rodgers wrote to Sweeney, informing her that it was not the Employer’s
prerogative to determine the relevance of the Union’s information request, noting that the Union
had previously informed her that the information was needed to prepare for its grievance. He
again requested that the Employer provide the requested information.
On April 16, Rodgers again wrote to Sweeney, repeating his request for all the
information contained in his April 1 letter, noting that such information was needed so that the
Union could “prepare for its grievance.”
On April 21, Sweeney responded to Rodgers, as follows:
1. The Employer’s contention remains that the nursing agency
contracts are proprietary and will not be provided. However,
the Employer does use two agencies that meet the Employer’s
standards.
2. The Employer attempts to use agency nurses prior to each
mandation.
4. The Employer follows the Nurse Coverage Plan.
Sweeney stated that she provided the information, above, in order to “get the process
moving,” believing that such information would “satisfy what he needed.” Regarding the
contracts with the nursing agencies, Sweeney believed that the important fact was that the
Employer had such contracts, not their contents, which she believed were proprietary. Sweeney
stated that after sending her response, the Union did not attempt to discuss with her such
response, or clarify what it sought in its various requests. In fact, no discussions at all were held
since the grievance was filed regarding her responses or why the Union sought 12 months of
documentation, or the relevance of the requested data.
It is undisputed that there was no offer at any time by the Employer or the Union, and no
discussion between them in which either party sought an accommodation or sought to negotiate
any compromise in the information demanded. Nor did the Union attempt to clarify or discuss
with Sweeney her objections to the various items she refused to provide, such as the nursing
agency contracts.
Sweeney testified that she was “open” to a conversation with the Union concerning why
it believed the documents were relevant and as to how she could accommodate her demand for
confidentiality. However, as she received no request for such a discussion, none took place.
Analysis and Discussion
The documents requested by the Union are as follows:
1. Copies of contracts of any and all agencies used by the
Employer to cover vacancies in order to avoid the use of
mandatory overtime.
2. Dates and times of all calls made to agencies over the last 12
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
months to avoid the use of mandatory overtime.
3. Number of agency nurses used by the hospital over the past 12
months, to include date, shift, and unit worked.
4. Copies of any and all nursing agency contracts utilized by the
Employer over the last 12 months.
5. Number of times the Employer used and/or attempted to use
agency nurses over the last 12 months, including dates and
agencies. Name, shift, and detailed explanation of emergency for
each time a nurse was mandated over the last 12 months.
6. Any and all documentation showing the employer’s attempt to
prevent mandating over the last 12 months.
I. The Applicable Law
The general principles regarding the obligation of an employer to submit information to a
union are clear and not in dispute. An employer, on request, must provide a union with
information that is relevant to its carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities in
representing employees. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). The duty to
provide information includes information relevant to contract administration. Barnard
Engineering Co., 282 NLRB 617, 619 ((1987); Leland Stanford Junior University, 262 NLRB
136, 139 (1982). The information is necessary to the union’s role in administering and enforcing
its collective-bargaining agreement. Shoppers Food Warehouse, 315 NLRB 258, 260 (1994).
Where the requested information concerns terms and conditions of employment of
employees within the bargaining unit, the information is presumptively relevant, and must be
provided on request, without need by the requesting party to establish specific relevance or
particular necessity. In those cases, the employer has the burden of proving lack of relevance.
Where the information sought concerns persons outside the bargaining unit, the union must
make a special demonstration of relevance. Iron Workers Local 207 (Steel Erecting
Contractors), 319 NLRB 87, 90-91 (1995). A union has satisfied its burden when it
demonstrates a reasonable belief supported by objective evidence for requesting the
information. Shoppers Food Warehouse, above, at 259 (1994).
The Board uses a broad, discovery-type standard in determining the relevance of
requested information. Shoppers Food Warehouse, above. A showing of possible or potential
relevance is sufficient to establish the employer’s duty to provide the information. In determining
whether information is relevant to the processing of a grievance the Board does not pass on the
merits of a union’s claim that the employer has breached the collective-bargaining agreement.
Certco Distribution Centers, 346 NLRB 1214, 1215 (2006).
The Union asserts that it needed the requested information in order to prepare for
meetings with the Employer concerning the grievance it filed. It also needed the information in
furtherance of its obligation to represent the unit employees. The grievance called into question
the Respondent’s requirement that on-duty nurses work overtime on three dates in March,
2014.
The requests for information must be viewed in the context of the clear interest by the
state in avoiding mandatory overtime. The statutory imperative unmistakenly disfavors overtime
work for on-duty nurses and requires specific steps a hospital must take to avoid the use of
mandatory overtime.
In addition, the statute significantly requires that, when the hospital mandates nurses, its
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
documentation of efforts to avoid mandatory overtime “shall be made available, upon request …
to the nurse’s collective bargaining representative….” Accordingly, the state statute requires the
Employer to furnish to the Union precisely the type of information sought in the complaint.
Therefore, in addition to Board law which supports a finding that the information must be
provided, the New York statute demands it.
II. Contracts with Nursing Employment Agencies used in the past 12 months
The contracts the Respondent has with nursing employment agencies are relevant. The
Union needed the contracts to confirm that it has such contracts.
The Union need not have taken at face value the Employer’s statement that it had such
contracts. I reject the Employer’s argument that the appearance of the names of the two
agencies in the call lists was sufficient. Although the call lists identified the names of two
agencies the Employer used in requesting nurses, only the contracts themselves would prove
their existence. Further, Bishop testified that she needed to see if the contracts provided that the
agency nurses would fill the vacant shifts.
The state statute requires that the Nurse Coverage Plan identify and describe as many
alternative staffing methods as are available to it, including contracts with such agencies.
In making this finding I do not imply that the Employer would list agencies that it did not
call and does not have contracts with. However, proof of the actual contracts is essential.
Among the steps listed by the statute which an employer can take to avoid mandatory overtime
are “contracts with per diem nurses, [and] contracts with nurse registries and employment
agencies for nursing services….” The emphasis by the State on such contracts firmly shows
that such agreements are an important avenue to obtain “staffing through means other than use
of mandatory overtime….” Bishop’s reasoning that the contracts would supply the “method and
means” by which the Employer obtained nurses from the agencies are certainly relevant to its
understanding of how the agency nurses were obtained and how they were utilized by the
Employer.
The contracts could also provide information concerning the orientation of the agency
nurses to the Employer’s operations. That is of importance, as testified by Bishop, since the
agency nurses would be working alongside the unit nurses whose overwhelming concern is the
welfare of the Employer’s patients. The unit nurses, naturally, had an interest in determining
whether the agency nurses became familiar with the Respondent’s policies and practices
involving patient care.
In addition, the nursing agency contracts would be useful in the prosecution of the
Union’s grievance which claimed that employees were improperly mandated to work overtime in
violation of the parties’ contract. The collective-bargaining agreement provides that prior to
requiring overtime, the Employer “will exhaust all efforts to obtain needed staff as set forth in the
contract and in the State Labor Law” which includes having contracts with nursing employment
agencies. As to the three dates in question, the Union needed the contracts, as set forth in
Bishop’s and Rodgers’ letters, for the grievance – to see if the Respondent could have and
should have used agency nurses, as required in the statute and in the Nurse Coverage Plan,
prior to mandating the three nurses.
In Monmouth HealthCare Center, 354 NLRB 11, 37, 51 (2009) and Milford Manor
Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, 346 NLRB 50, 51 (2005), the Board directed the employers to
furnish to the Union the contracts and pricing information for the nursing agencies they used. In
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
those cases, the unions claimed that the agency nurses were used too often, thereby diluting
the unit. Here, the Union makes the opposite claim – that agency nurses were used too
infrequently – that the Respondent should have utilized agency nurses more often rather than
mandating the unit nurses.
Regardless of whether the claim is that agency nurses should have been used more or
less often, the principle is the same. That information regarding the use of agency nurses is
relevant and must be provided to the Union. See also, St. George Warehouse, Inc., 341 NLRB
904, 910 (2004), where the Board found a violation in the employer’s refusal to provide the
union with the names of temporary agencies supplying workers to the employer, and the
contracts setting forth the terms and conditions which applied to those employees.
Sweeney objected to producing the contracts because they were proprietary and
contained confidential information, especially pricing. Where a party claims confidentiality it has
an obligation to seek to bargain or seek an accommodation in order to satisfy its privacy claims.
Here, the Respondent did not do so.
The Board has defined the term “confidential information” which could, in certain
circumstances, justify an employer’s refusal to turn over information:
Confidential information is limited to a few general categories: that
which would reveal, contrary to promises or reasonable
expectations, highly personal information, such as individual
medical records or psychological test results; that which would
reveal substantial proprietary information, such as trade secrets;
that which could reasonably be expected to lead to harassment or
retaliation, such as the identity of witnesses; and that which is
traditionally privileged, such as memoranda prepared for pending
lawsuits. Detroit Newspaper Agency, 317 NLRB 1071, 1073
(1995).
The Respondent has not shown why its contracts with the nursing agencies are
confidential. Nor do its unexpressed concerns establish that it met the strict requirements set
forth above. Sweeney’s testimony that the agencies expected that their contracts would be kept
confidential was not proven. Medstar Washington Hospital Center, 360 NLRB No. 103, slip op.
at 1, fn. 1, slip op. at 4 (2014).
When raising confidentiality as a justification for non-disclosure,
the employer has the burden of establishing a legitimate claim of
confidentiality. The party making a claim of confidentiality has the
burden of providing that such interests are in fact present. By
asserting confidentiality, the respondent assumed the burden of
coming forward with evidence to back its position, and it has not
done so. Accordingly, the respondent has not established its
confidentiality claim.” Lasher Service Corp., 332 NLRB 834, 834
(2000).
In Monmouth HealthCare Center, and Milford Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center,
above, the Board directed that pricing information in the nursing agency contracts be provided
to the union. Here, however, Bishop testified that she did not seek pricing data. Accordingly, I
will order that any pricing information in the contracts the Respondent had with nursing
employment agencies be redacted before they are submitted to the Union.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
III. Other Requests for Information
The other information requested by the Union were documents specifying (a) the dates
and times of all calls made to agencies in the past 12 months to avoid the use of mandatory
overtime (b) the number of agency nurses used by the Employer in the past 12 months
including date, shift and unit worked (c) the number of times the Employer used and/or
attempted to use agency nurses in the last 12 months including dates and agencies, and the
name, shift, and detailed explanation of the emergency for each time a nurse was mandated
over the past 12 months and (d) any and all documentation showing the Employer’s attempt to
prevent mandating over the past 12 months.
All the Union’s requests meet the broad definition of relevance, utilized by the Board,
that such information would be “of use” to the Union in carrying out its statutory responsibilities.
Wisconsin Bell, 346 NLRB 62, 64-65 (2005). As the Supreme Court stated in Acme Industrial,
above at 437, the union’s request may be based “upon the probability that the desired
information was relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory
duties and responsibilities.”
All of the documents requested are directly related to, and can reasonably be construed
as potentially being of use to the Union in determining whether the Respondent had not been
using agency nurses to avoid the use of mandatory overtime. The Union reasonably needed this
information to determine, as part of its grievance, whether the Respondent violated its contract
by its alleged failure to use agency nurses as an alternative to requiring on-duty nurses to work
overtime.
In that regard, the Union had a reasonable belief based on anecdotal evidence from
Bishop that neither she nor any other nurse had seen an agency nurse work at the Employer on
a per diem basis in order to avoid the use of mandatory overtime. All the documents sought
evidence, in aid of its grievance, as to whether the Employer had used agency nurses. The
information sought specific, precise data which would tend to prove or disprove the Union’s
claim in its grievance that nurses had been improperly mandated. Thus, the Union sought the
dates and times of calls to the agencies, the number of agency nurses used and where they
worked, and the number of times agency nurses were used.
Of course, this data would be of use to the Union in meeting its responsibility as the
employees’ bargaining representative in policing the contract to ensure that the Respondent
complied with its contractual and statutory duty to take appropriate steps to avoid mandating
overtime. One of those steps included using agency nurses before mandating unit nurses to
work overtime.
The other items requested, an explanation of the emergency for which nurses were
mandated, and documents showing the Employer’s attempts to prevent mandating, are each
well within the Union’s responsibility to police its contract. By asking for the emergency for which
nurses were mandated, the Union was asking for an explanation why an employee was
mandated, clearly a relevant inquiry concerning the nurse’s working conditions. Documents
showing the Employer’s attempts to prevent mandating is required by the state statute and also
seeks relevant information.
Thus, I find that the Union had a reasonable belief that its contract had been violated.
That belief justified its request for the information. Shoppers Food Warehouse, above. I
emphasize in this regard that I need not and do not decide whether in fact, the Respondent
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
violated its contract. Rather, I conclude only that the Union has established a reasonable belief
that the contract may have been violated by the Employer’s failure to use agency nurses, and
that the information sought may be of use to the Union in ascertaining whether the contract had
been breached. The issue of whether the Respondent violated the contract is for the arbitrator
to decide.
In Monmouth HealthCare Center and Milford Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center,
above, the Board held that documents relating to a nursing agency’s providing nurses was
relevant to the union’s grievance that too many agency nurses had been used. Such information
deemed relevant included the names of the agencies, the amount paid by the employer to the
agency, the compensation paid to agency nurses, a list of each occasion in which the employer
used agency personnel, the reasons why unit employees were not used, and information
concerning the agency nurses used.
Similarly, in Castle Hill Healthcare Center, 355 NLRB 1156, 1181-1182 (2010) the
Board held that the employer was required to furnish information to the union which included the
names of agencies used by it to provide temporary staff, and the names, number of hours
worked, rates billed and job title for each agency employee. In St. George Warehouse, 341
NLRB 904, 910 (2004), and United Graphics, 281 NLRB 463, 465 (1986), the Board found that
information relating to temporary workers who performed unit work was relevant to the unions’
role as bargaining agent.
All the information sought by the Union in the present case was either presumptively
relevant or the Union met its burden of establishing some relevance with respect to the
information sought. I find that all the documents requested by the Union are relevant to the
Union’s grievance and to its fiduciary obligation to represent unit employees.
Rodgers appropriately answered Sweeney’s replies to the Union’s requests that its
demands for information were irrelevant. He responded that Sweeney could not determine the
relevance of the Union’s requests. In Castle Hill, above, at 1181, the Board affirmed the judge’s
decision which stated that “Respondent is not empowered to make a unilateral determination
that presumptively or otherwise relevant information sought by the Union is unnecessary or
irrelevant to … the performance of the Union’s statutory duties.”
Accordingly, all the information requested by the Union, except the pricing information in
the contracts, must be provided to the Union.
IV.The Employer’s Affirmative Defenses
The Respondent correctly argues that the statute’s provision that it does not “diminish or
waive any rights or obligations” of an employer pursuant to any other law, regulation, or
collective bargaining agreement means that its arguments concerning confidentiality,
burdensomeness and irrelevance of one year’s documentation are properly considered. I have
rejected the Employer’s confidentiality argument, above. I will now discuss the Employer’s other
assertions.
A. The Allegedly Burdensome Requests
The Union requested that certain information be provided for the past 12 months. Such
annual data included dates and times calls were made to nursing agencies, the number of
agency nurses used, the number of times the Employer used agency nurses, and
documentation showing the Employer’s attempts to prevent mandating over the last 12 months.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
The Respondent argued that the requests for information for the past 12 months was
burdensome. Sweeney testified that it took the nursing department 10 days to gather the
documents that she provided relating to the three dates in which the Employer mandated
nurses. However, she did not know if her request for the number of nurses mandated required
the nursing department to review voluminous documents. Nor did she know what records that
department reviewed to report that number. Based on this I cannot find that the Respondent
credibly supported its claim of burdensomeness in the Union’s request for 12 months of
documents.
Sweeney did advise Bishop that the request was “voluminous,” but did not say that it
was unduly burdensome to produce. In fact, she said that it would be available the following
week, and it was provided to Bishop on March 31, 10 days after it was requested.
“If an employer declines to supply relevant information on the grounds that it would be
unduly burdensome to do so, the employer must not only timely raise this objection with the
union, but also must substantiate its defense. Respondent has done neither. Respondent never
advised the union that its request was unduly burdensome, and never sought clarification from
the union in order to narrow the request.” Pulaski Construction Co., 345 NLRB 931, 937 (2005).
“There is no doubt that production of the information may impose strains on an employer, but
that consideration does not outweigh the union's right to the information requested. H.J.
Scheirich Co., 300 NLRB 687, 689 (1990).” Conditioned Air Systems, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 97,
slip op. at 4 (2014).
The Respondent has not introduced any evidence to show that this information was
particularly complex, voluminous or burdensome to provide. Comar, Inc., 349 NLRB 352, 353-
354 (2007). I therefore cannot find that the Respondent was justified in failing to produce the
information for that reason.
B. The Grievance Filing Requirements
As noted above, the Union requested documents relating to the mandation of unit nurses
for a period of 12 months. The Respondent asserts that, inasmuch as a grievance must be filed
within 10 days of the event giving rise to the grievance, the documents were irrelevant and
untimely as to the grievance which had been filed.
The contract’s grievance procedure requires that the Union file a grievance within 10
days of the event giving rise to the grievance, or when the employee becomes aware of the
event. Bishop conceded that if a grievance is not filed within that period of time it is waived, and
also admitted that she could not file a grievance for information she requested for a one year
period. Thus, when she learned from Sweeney that there were 14 occasions in the past year in
which nurses were mandated, she chose to file the charge in the instant matter, and not a
grievance.
The Employer argues that since the employees knew immediately when they were
mandated, the 10 day grievance filing period began when they were required to work overtime.
Accordingly, the 10 day grievance period started to run at the time of mandation for the 14
nurses who were mandated in the prior year. The Employer concluded that, inasmuch as the
time for filling a grievance as to those mandations had expired, the documents sought for one
year were irrelevant and untimely.
Although a grievance claiming a contractual violation 1 year after a mandation could not
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
be filed because it was untimely, that does not preclude a charge from being filed asserting the
Employer’s failure to furnish information covering that period of time. Separate rights are
vindicated in the two proceedings. “While it is true that a breach of contract is not ipso facto an
unfair labor practice, it does not follow from this that where given conduct is of a kind otherwise
condemned by the Act, it must be ruled out as an unfair labor practice simply because it
happens also to be a breach of contract.” C & S Industries, Inc., 158 NLRB 454, 458 (1966). In
addition, the Board affirmed the judge’s statement that “if the information is relevant, disclosure
should not depend on the procedural state of the grievance arbitration process.” National
Broadcasting Co., 352 NLRB 90, 101 (2008).
In seeking the documents for a 1 year period, the Union properly sought to investigate
whether the contract was violated by the Employer in mandating nurses in the prior year. Bishop
knew that the Employer had required overtime for several nurses in a 7 month period. However,
until Sweeney advised it, the Union was apparently unaware that such mandations had
occurred 14 times in the previous year.
Accordingly, the Union sought to police and enforce its contract which requires the
Employer to exhaust all efforts to obtain needed staff before requiring its nurses to work
overtime. Although a grievance may not have been timely filed based on its discovery of
instances of mandating, such information may be of help to the Union in discovering evidence of
a pattern of conduct which would cause it to monitor more carefully the Employer’s practice of
mandating the nurses.
In requesting the information, having been advised by the Employer that it mandated its
nurses 14 times in the past year, the Union possessed a reasonable belief that the Employer
had not used agency nurses as much as was required. That belief certainly supported its
request for one year’s documentation of such efforts to obtain alternate sources of nurses
before requiring mandation.
Part of that effort required the Union to obtain the facts concerning whether the
Employer satisfied its obligation to use all means to supply replacement nurses. The data
sought specific details directly related to the use of agency nurses by the Employer – the dates
the agencies were called, the number of agency nurses used, the number of times the Employer
used agency nurses, and the documentation showing the Employer’s attempt to prevent
mandating over the last 12 months.
I therefore reject the Respondent’s contention that because the Union could not file a
grievance as to mandations which occurred in the prior 1 year period, it was not entitled to such
documents. The information requested was related to its obligation to represent the unit
employees and to police its contract.
Conclusions of Law
1. Columbia Memorial Hospital is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act, and has been a health care institution within the meaning
of Section 2(14) of the Act.
2.1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective-
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
All full-time and regular part-time Registered Professional Nurses
licensed to practice in the State of New York including per diem
Registered Professional Nurses, Pharmacists, Physical
Therapists, Medical Technologists, Histology Technologist
employed by the Employer at Columbia Division of Columbia
Memorial Hospital located at 71 Prospect Avenue, Hudson, NY
and its surrounding clinics in accordance with the National Labor
Relations Board Certification of Representative, Case No. 3-RC-
8323, dated December 9, 1982.
4. At all times material herein the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the above unit.
5. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing
to supply the following information:
1. Copies of contracts of any and all agencies used by the
Employer to cover vacancies in order to avoid the use of
mandatory overtime.
2. Dates and times of all calls made to agencies over the last 12
months to avoid the use of mandatory overtime.
3. Number of agency nurses used by the hospital over the past 12
months, to include date, shift, and unit worked.
4. Copies of any and all nursing agency contracts utilized by the
Employer over the last 12 months.
5. Number of times the Employer used and/or attempted to use
agency nurses over the last 12 months, including dates and
agencies. Name, shift, and detailed explanation of emergency for
each time a nurse was mandated over the last 12 months.
6. Any and all documentation showing the employer’s attempt to prevent mandating over
the last 12 months
7. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent, found above affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall recommend that the Respondent supply the requested information, set forth
above, to the Union. However, any pricing information set forth in the contracts with the nursing
agencies the Respondent has used in the prior 1 year period shall be redacted from such
contracts.
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended7
ORDER
The Respondent, Columbia Memorial Hospital, Hudson, New York, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1.Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to timely and completely supply information to the Union that is
relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its unit employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to the Union, in a timely and complete manner, the following information:
1. Copies of contracts of any and all agencies used by the
Employer to cover vacancies in order to avoid the use of
mandatory overtime. However, any pricing information set forth in
the contracts with the nursing employment agencies the
Respondent has used in the prior 1 year period shall be redacted
from the contracts.
2. Dates and times of all calls made to agencies over the last 12
months to avoid the use of mandatory overtime.
3. Number of agency nurses used by the hospital over the past 12
months, to include date, shift, and unit worked.
4. Copies of any and all nursing agency contracts utilized by the
Employer over the last 12 months. However, any pricing
information set forth in the contracts with the nursing employment
agencies the Respondent has used in the prior 1 year period shall
be redacted from the contracts.
5. Number of times the Employer used and/or attempted to use
agency nurses over the last 12 months, including dates and
agencies. Name, shift, and detailed explanation of emergency for
each time a nurse was mandated over the last 12 months.
6. Any and all documentation showing the employer’s attempt to
prevent mandating over the last 12 months.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Hudson, New York,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by

7 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.
8 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
Continued
JD(NY)–10–15
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
the Regional Director for Region 3, 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.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
March 19, 2014.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 20, 2015
____________________
Steven Davis
Administrative Law Judge
_________________________
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD(NY)–10–15
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 fail or refuse to timely and completely supply information to 1199 SEIU United
Healthcare Workers East (the Union) that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance
of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of those of you in the following
unit:
All full-time and regular part-time Registered Professional Nurses
licensed to practice in the State of New York including per diem
Registered Professional Nurses, Pharmacists, Physical
Therapists, Medical Technologists, Histology Technologist
employed by the Employer at Columbia Division of Columbia
Memorial Hospital located at 71 Prospect Avenue, Hudson, NY
and its surrounding clinics in accordance with the National Labor
Relations Board Certification of Representative, Case No. 3-RC-
8323, dated December 9, 1982.
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 furnish to the Union, in a timely and complete manner, the following information:
1. Copies of contracts of any and all agencies used by the
Employer to cover vacancies in order to avoid the use of
mandatory overtime. However, any pricing information set forth in
the contracts with the nursing employment agencies the
Respondent has used in the prior 1 year period shall be redacted
from the contracts.
2. Dates and times of all calls made to agencies over the last 12
months to avoid the use of mandatory overtime.
3. Number of agency nurses used by the hospital over the past 12
months, to include date, shift, and unit worked.
4. Copies of any and all nursing agency contracts utilized by the
Employer over the last 12 months. However, any pricing
information set forth in the contracts with the nursing employment
JD(NY)–10–15
agencies the Respondent has used in the prior 1 year period shall
be redacted from the contracts.
5. Number of times the Employer used and/or attempted to use
agency nurses over the last 12 months, including dates and
agencies. Name, shift, and detailed explanation of emergency for
each time a nurse was mandated over the last 12 months.
6. Any and all documentation showing the employer’s attempt to
prevent mandating over the last 12 months.
COLUMBIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
(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.
130 S. Elmwood Avenue
Suite 630
Buffalo, New York 14202
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
716-551-4931.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-132367 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., 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, 716-551-4946.