Liberty Retirement Community of Lima, Inc., Liberty Healthcare Corp., Liberty Retirement Properties

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 2019

368 NLRB No. 37 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 37
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Liberty Retirement Community of Lima, Inc., Liberty
Healthcare Corp., Liberty Retirement Properties
of Lima, Ltd., Liberty Villas of Lima, Inc. and
Liberty Nursing Properties of Woodland Manor,
Ltd., a single employer and Plus Management
Services, Inc. d/b/a/ Baton Rouge Medical & Re-
hab Center of Lima, Joint Employers and Ohio
Council 8, American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees, AFL–CIO. Cases 08–
CA–198572 and 08–CA–201287
August 1, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND KAPLAN
Upon charges filed on various dates by Ohio Council 8,
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, AFL–CIO (the Union) against Liberty Retire-
ment Community of Lima, Inc., Liberty Health Care Cor-
poration, Liberty Retirement Properties of Lima, Ltd.,
Liberty Villas of Lima, Inc., and Liberty Nursing Proper-
ties of Woodland Manor, Ltd. (collectively Respondent
Liberty), a single employer, and against Plus Management
Services, Inc. d/b/a Baton Rouge Medical & Rehab Center
of Lima (Respondent Plus Management) (collectively,
Respondents),1 the General Counsel issued an order con-
solidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing (complaint) on May 31, 2018, against the Re-
spondents. The complaint alleges that the Respondents
operated as a joint employer from about January 11 until
about April 21, 2017, on which date Respondent Liberty
purchased Respondent Plus Management’s facility and
continued on as a successor employer. The complaint fur-
ther alleges that Respondent Liberty engaged in unfair

1 The complaint alleges that in Case 08–CA–198572, the Union filed
a charge against Respondent Liberty Retirement Community of Lima,
Inc., Respondent Liberty Health Care Corp., and Respondent Plus Man-
agement on May 11, 2017; a first amended charge against Respondent
Liberty Nursing Properties of Woodland Manor, Ltd., Respondent Lib-
erty Retirement Community of Lima, Inc., and Respondent Plus Man-
agement on July 28, 2017; and a second amended charge against Re-
spondent Liberty Retirement Community of Lima, Inc., Respondent Lib-
erty Health Care Corp., Respondent Liberty Retirement Properties of
Lima, Ltd., Respondent Liberty Villas of Lima, Inc., Respondent Liberty
Nursing Properties of Woodland Manor, Ltd., and Respondent Plus Man-
agement on April 30, 2018. The complaint also alleges that in Case 08–
CA–201287, the Union filed a charge against Respondent Liberty Re-
tirement Community of Lima, Inc., Respondent Liberty Health Care
Corp., and Respondent Plus Management on June 26, 2017; a first
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5), (4), (3), and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.2
Both Respondents filed answers to the complaint, and
Respondent Liberty filed an amended answer and a second
amended answer. In its second amended answer, Re-
spondent Liberty admitted the allegations in the complaint
that relate to Respondent Liberty, and to certain allega-
tions involving Respondent Plus Management. With re-
spect to the remaining paragraphs that relate to Respond-
ent Plus Management, Respondent Liberty stated that it is
without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny those alle-
gations. On January 8, 2019, the Regional Director for
Region 8 issued an order severing those allegations from
the complaint, as they pertain to Respondent Plus Man-
agement.
In its second amended answer, Respondent Liberty also
withdrew its previously asserted affirmative defenses to
the alleged violations but maintained two affirmative de-
fenses limited to mitigation and damages. Those affirma-
tive defenses do not implicate any material facts alleged
in the complaint and can be addressed in a compliance
proceeding, if necessary. Additionally, the General Coun-
sel, Respondent Liberty, and the Union stipulated that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
On March 6, 2019, the General Counsel and Respond-
ent Liberty filed with the Board a Joint Motion to Transfer
Case to the National Labor Relations Board for Summary
Judgment against Respondent Liberty. Thereafter, on
May 30, 2019, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. No party filed a re-
sponse. The allegations in the motion are therefore undis-
puted.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its second amended answer, Respondent Liberty ad-
mitted the substantive allegations of the complaint that
amended charge against Respondent Liberty Nursing Properties of
Woodland Manor, Ltd., Respondent Liberty Retirement Community of
Lima, Inc., and Respondent Plus Management on July 28, 2017; and a
second amended charge against Liberty Retirement Community of Lima,
Inc., Respondent Liberty Health Care Corp., Respondent Liberty Retire-
ment Properties of Lima, Ltd., Respondent Liberty Villas of Lima, Inc.,
Respondent Liberty Nursing Properties of Woodland Manor, Ltd., and
Respondent Plus Management on April 30, 2018. In its second amended
answer to the complaint, Respondent Liberty admitted to service of the
charges. We make no findings regarding service of the charges on Re-
spondent Plus Management, as those complaint allegations have been
severed.
2 Only one of the alleged unfair labor practices—Respondent Lib-
erty’s oral announcement of a new attendance policy—occurred during
the time the Respondents were purportedly joint employers.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
relate to Respondent Liberty. Although Respondent Lib-
erty denied sufficient knowledge to admit or deny certain
allegations relating to Respondent Plus Management,
those allegations have been severed. Therefore, the alle-
gations against Respondent Liberty in the complaint are
undisputed.3 Accordingly, we grant the Joint Motion for
Summary Judgment Against Respondent Liberty.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
1. At all material times, Respondent Liberty Retirement
Community of Lima, Inc., has been a corporation with an
office and place of business in Lima, Ohio (Lima facility)
and has been engaged in the operation of a skilled nursing
home and residential care facility providing inpatient
medical care.
2. At all material times, Respondent Liberty Health
Care Corp. has been a corporation with an office and place
of business in Bellbrook, Ohio (Bellbrook facility) and has
been engaged in the operation and management of skilled
nursing home and residential care facilities at various lo-
cations within the State of Ohio, including Cincinnati,
Mansfield and the Lima facility described above.
3. At all material times, Respondent Liberty Retirement
Properties of Lima, Ltd., formerly known as Liberty Nurs-
ing Properties of Woodland Manor, Ltd., has been a lim-
ited partnership with an office and place of business in
Bellbrook, Ohio, (Bellbrook facility) and has been en-
gaged in the acquisition of real property, including the real
property located at 2440 Baton Rouge Ave., Lima, Ohio.
4. At all material times, Respondent Liberty Villas of
Lima, Inc., formerly known as The Villa at Baton Rouge,
has been a corporation with an office and place of business
in Lima, Ohio (Lima facility) and has been engaged in the
operation of an assisted living facility offering assistance
to residents with day-to-day living.
5. At all material times, Respondent Liberty Retirement
Community of Lima, Inc., and Respondents Liberty
Health Care Corp., Liberty Retirement Properties of Lima
Ltd., Liberty Villas of Lima, Inc., and Liberty Nursing
Properties of Woodland Manor, Ltd., have been affiliated
business enterprises with common officers, ownership, di-
rectors, management, and supervision; have formulated
and administered a common labor policy; have shared
common premises and facilities; have provided services
for and made sales to each other; have interchanged per-
sonnel with each other; have interrelated operations with
common purchasing, sales and provision of services; and

3 In its answer to the complaint, Respondent Plus Management denies
that it was a joint employer with Respondent Liberty from January 11 to
April 21, 2017. We find it unnecessary to pass on the complaint’s joint
have held themselves out to the public as a single-inte-
grated business enterprise.
6. Based on its operations described above in paragraph
5, we find that Respondents Liberty Retirement Commu-
nity of Lima, Inc., Liberty HealthCare Corp., Liberty Re-
tirement Properties of Lima Ltd., Liberty Villas of Lima,
Inc., and Liberty Nursing Properties of Woodland Manor,
Ltd. constitute a single-integrated business enterprise and
a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
7. Since about January 11, 2017, Respondent Plus Man-
agement and Respondent Liberty Health Care Corp. have
been parties to a sales and interim operating contract
providing that Respondent Liberty Health Care Corp. is
the agent for Respondent Plus Management in connection
with the operation of the Lima facility. Since that same
date, Respondent Liberty Health Care Corp. has operated
the Lima facility as Liberty Retirement Community of
Lima, Inc.
8. Since about January 11, and after April 21, 2017,
Respondent Liberty has continued to operate the business
of Respondent Plus Management described above in basi-
cally unchanged form and has employed as a majority of
its employees, individuals who were previously employ-
ees of Respondent Plus Management. About April 21,
2017, Respondent Liberty purchased the business con-
ducted at the Lima facility and its real property from Re-
spondent Plus Management, and since then has continued
to operate the business of Respondent Plus Management.
9. Based on its operations described above in paragraph
8, and since about January 11, 2017, we find that Respond-
ent Liberty has continued to be the employing entity and
is a successor to Respondent Plus Management.
10. During the 12-month period ending July 11, 2017,
Respondent Liberty, in conducting its business operations
described above, derived gross revenues in excess of $1
million from all sales or performance of services at its
Lima, Bellbrook, and other facilities located in the State
of Ohio.
11. During that same period of time, Respondent Lib-
erty purchased and received at its Lima, Ohio facility
products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $5000
directly from points located outside the State of Ohio.
12. We find that Respondent Liberty is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act, and is a health care institution
within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
13. We further find that the Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
employer allegation, as summary judgment against Respondent Liberty,
as successor to Respondent Plus Management, remedies all alleged vio-
lations of the Act.
LIBERTY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF LIMA INC. 3
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
14. At all material times, Linda Black-Kurek held the
positions in the entities set forth below and has been a su-
pervisor of each entity within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act and an agent of each entity within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Liberty Retirement Community President
of Lima, Inc.
Liberty Health Care Corp. President
Liberty Retirement Properties Managing Member
of Lima Ltd.
Liberty Villas of Lima, Inc. President
15. At all material times the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names and
have been supervisors of Respondent Liberty Retirement
Community of Lima, Inc. within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act and/or agents of Respondent Liberty Re-
tirement Community of Lima, Inc. within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act:
Sandra McClellan Registered Nurse Consultant
Lance Nickles Administrator
Jeremy Kindle Former Director of Nursing
Ashli Gatchell Clinical Manager/Assistant Di-
rector of Nursing
Ashley Wagner Assistant Director of Nursing
Georgiana Saffle Vice President of Operations
Heather Fogle Human Resources Manager
Linda Miles Office Manager
Margaret Gwen Former Dietary Department
Manager (until about April 24,
2017)
Melissa Schmidt Former Administrator (until
about May 2017)
Timothy Storer Former Administrator
(until about May 2017)
Amber Addair Office Manager
Kurt Lucas Maintenance Director
16. At all material times the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names and
have been supervisors of Respondent Liberty Health Care
Corp. within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
and/or agents of Respondent Liberty Health Care Corp.
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Chris Behm Building Project Manager
Tim Murphy Maintenance
Chris Theile Maintenance
17. About April 24, 2017, Respondent Liberty termi-
nated the following employees:
(1) Megon Amstutz (Twining);
(2) Karen Arnett;
(3) Sharon Bruce;
(4) April Burden;
(5) Felicia Forrest (King);
(6) U'Hura George;
(7) LaShawnda Gibson;
(8) Tia Macklin;
(9) Michael Miller;
(10) Janice Newland;
(11) Aneta Shorter;
(12) Kelly Stevens;
(13) Diann Williams.
18. Respondent Liberty engaged in the conduct de-
scribed above in paragraphs 17(1)-(13) because the named
employees were members of the Union and engaged in
concerted activities, and to discourage employees from
engaging in these activities.
19. Respondent Liberty engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 17(1) because Amstutz (Twining)
gave testimony to the Board in the form of an affidavit in
connection with the investigation of Case 08–CA–
180445.
20. Respondent Liberty engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraph 17(2) because Arnett filed a charge
with the Board in Case 08–CA–180445.
21. About April 21, 2017, Respondent Liberty pur-
chased the business of Respondent Plus Management. But
for the conduct described above in paragraph 17, Re-
spondent Liberty would have employed, as a majority of
its employees, individuals who were previously employ-
ees of Respondent Plus Management. Based on the con-
duct described above in paragraph 17 and below in para-
graph 23, and the operations described above in para-
graphs 8–9, Respondent Liberty has continued to be the
employing entity and is a successor to Respondent Plus
Management.
22. About May 10, 2017, Respondent Liberty’s em-
ployee Laquanna Watkins concertedly complained to Re-
spondent Liberty regarding the wages, hours, and working
conditions of Respondent Liberty’s employees by inform-
ing Heather Fogle and Jeremy Kindle that she filed a
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
complaint with the Lima Health Department and Re-
spondent Liberty's compliance line.
23. About May 11, 2017, Respondent Liberty termi-
nated employee Laquanna Watkins.
24. Respondent Liberty engaged in the conduct de-
scribed above in paragraph 23 because Watkins engaged
in the conduct described above in paragraph 22, and to
discourage employees from engaging in these or other
concerted activities.
25. The following employees of the Respondents (the
unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time, and occasional part-
time associates of [Liberty] at its care facility located in
Lima, Ohio, in the following classifications: Cook,
Maintenance Worker, Dietary Crew Leader, Food Ser-
vice Worker, and State Tested Nursing Assistant
(STNA).
26. From about 2007 until about April 21, 2017, the
Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employed by Respondent Plus Man-
agement and during that time this recognition was embod-
ied in the successive collective-bargaining agreements the
most recent of which is effective from January 1, 2016
through December 31, 2018.
27. Since about January 11, 2017, based on the facts
described above in paragraphs 8–9, the Union has been the
designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit.
28. About January 11, 2017, Respondent Liberty, by
Linda Black-Kurek, orally announced a new attendance
policy. About April 25, 2017, Respondent Liberty, by
Black-Kurek, distributed and implemented the attendance
policy and a new employee handbook containing work-
place policies, rules, wages, benefits and other terms and
conditions of employment.
29. The subjects set forth above in paragraph 28 relate
to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
30. Respondent Liberty engaged in the conduct de-
scribed above in paragraph 28 without prior notice to the
Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain with Respondent Liberty with respect to this con-
duct.
31. By letters dated April 25, May 2, 8, 16, 25, June 8,
June 26, July 5, and 11, 2017, the Union requested that
Respondent Liberty recognize it as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit and to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
32. Since about April 25, 2017, Respondent Liberty has
failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit.
33. On or about April 25, 2017, Respondent Liberty
withdrew its recognition of the Union as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit.
34. Since about June 8, 2017, the Union has requested
in writing that Respondent Liberty furnish the Union with
the following information:
(1) A copy of the sales agreement between Lib-
erty and Jerome O'Neal;
(2) Personnel policies that have come into effect
since February 1, 2017;
(3) A list of all employees, including job classifi-
cation, date of hire and salary information; and
(4) A list of all employees terminated on or after
the signing of the sales agreement, and the reason for
termination.
35. The information requested by the Union, as de-
scribed in paragraph 34, is necessary for, and relevant to,
the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit.
36. Since about June 8, 2017, Respondent Liberty has
failed and refused to furnish the Union with the infor-
mation requested by it as described above in paragraph 34.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 23–
24, Respondent Liberty has been interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 17–
18, Respondent Liberty has been discriminating in regard
to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment
of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
3. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 17(1),
(2), 19, and 20, Respondent Liberty has been discriminat-
ing against employees for filing charges or giving testi-
mony under the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1)
of the Act.
4. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 28–
36, Respondent Liberty has been failing and refusing to
bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees
LIBERTY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF LIMA INC. 5
within the meaning of Section 8(d) of the Act in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices of Respondent Liberty de-
scribed above affect commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Liberty has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that Respondent Liberty violated Section 8(a)(4),
(3), and/or (1) by discharging Megon Amstutz (Twining),
Karen Arnett, Sharon Bruce, April Burden, Felicia Forrest
(King), U'Hura George, LaShawnda Gibson, Tia Macklin,
Michael Miller, Janice Newland, Aneta Shorter, Kelly
Stevens, Diann Williams, and Laquanna Watkins, we shall
order Respondent Liberty to make the above-named dis-
criminatees whole for any loss of earnings and other ben-
efits suffered as a result of the unlawful discrimination
against them.4 Backpay shall be computed in accordance
with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in-
terest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky
River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). In accordance
with our decision in King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No.
93 (2016), enfd. in relevant part 859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir.
2017), we shall also order Respondent Liberty to compen-
sate the employees for their search-for-work and interim
employment expenses regardless of whether those ex-
penses exceed interim earnings. Search-for-work and in-
terim employment expenses shall be calculated separately
from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate pre-
scribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as pre-
scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. In ad-
dition, we shall order the Respondent to compensate the
named employees for any adverse tax consequences of re-
ceiving a lump-sum backpay award and to file a report
with the Regional Director for Region 8 allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar years. Ad-
voServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
Respondent Liberty shall also be required to remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges and
to notify the discriminatees in writing that this has been
done and that the unlawful discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
Further, having found that Respondent Liberty has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition

4 According to the joint motion for summary judgment, all of the
above-named discriminatees have signed waivers of their right to rein-
statement to their former positions.
5 In the complaint the General Counsel requests a notice-reading rem-
edy. The parties do not address this request in their joint motion. In any
and by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
the Union since about April 25, 2017, we shall order Re-
spondent Liberty to recognize and, on request, bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit employees with respect to wages,
hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, to embody the
understanding in a signed agreement.
In addition, having found that Respondent Liberty vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally
changing terms and conditions of employment of its unit
employees, including by implementing a new attendance
policy and employee handbook, without prior notice to the
Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain, we shall order Respondent Liberty to rescind the
changes and retroactively restore the status quo, until Re-
spondent Liberty negotiates in good faith with the Union
to agreement or to impasse.
Finally, having found that Respondent Liberty violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with relevant and necessary information, we
shall order Respondent Liberty to furnish the Union with
the information it requested on June 8, 2017.5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that Re-
spondent Liberty Retirement Community of Lima, Inc.,
Liberty Health Care Corp., Liberty Retirement Properties
of Lima, Ltd., Liberty Villas of Lima, Inc., and Liberty
Nursing Properties of Woodland Manor, Ltd., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its
employees because they engage in protected concerted ac-
tivities.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its
employees because they engage in union activity on behalf
of, or otherwise supporting Ohio Council 8, American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL–CIO (the Union), or any other labor organization.
(c) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its
employees because they file charges or give testimony un-
der the National Labor Relations Act.
(d) Withdrawing recognition from the Union and fail-
ing and refusing to recognize and bargain collectively and
in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees.
event, we find that the Board’s standard remedies are sufficient to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act, and accordingly we decline to order a notice-
reading remedy.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
(e) Changing the terms and conditions of employment
of unit employees without first notifying the Union and
giving it an opportunity to bargain.
(f) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by
failing and refusing to furnish it with requested infor-
mation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s per-
formance of its functions as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of its unit employees.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, 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) Make Megon Amstutz (Twining), Karen Arnett,
Sharon Bruce, April Burden, Felicia Forrest (King),
U'Hura George, LaShawnda Gibson, Tia Macklin, Mi-
chael Miller, Janice Newland, Aneta Shorter, Kelly Ste-
vens, Diann Williams, and Laquanna Watkins whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth
in the remedy section of this decision, plus reasonable
search-for-work and interim employment expenses.
(b) Compensate Megon Amstutz (Twining), Karen
Arnett, Sharon Bruce, April Burden, Felicia Forrest
(King), U’Hura George, LaShawnda Gibson, Tia Macklin,
Michael Miller, Janice Newland, Aneta Shorter, Kelly
Stevens, Diann Williams, and Laquanna Watkins for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum
backpay award, and file with the Regional Director for Re-
gion 8, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay
is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
years.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of
Megon Amstutz (Twining), Karen Arnett, Sharon Bruce,
April Burden, Felicia Forrest (King), U’Hura George,
LaShawnda Gibson, Tia Macklin, Michael Miller, Janice
Newland, Aneta Shorter, Kelly Stevens, Diann Williams,
and Laquanna Watkins, and within 3 days thereafter, no-
tify them in writing that this has been done and that the
discharge will not be used against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic
copy of such records if stored in electronic form,

6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(e) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appropri-
ate bargaining unit concerning terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time, and occasional part-
time associates of [Liberty] at its care facility located in
Lima, Ohio, in the following classifications: Cook,
Maintenance Worker, Dietary Crew Leader, Food Ser-
vice Worker, and State Tested Nursing Assistant
(STNA).
(f) Before implementing any changes in the bargaining
unit employees’ wages, hours, or other terms and condi-
tions of employment, notify and, on request, bargain with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of employees in the bargaining unit described
above.
(g) Rescind the changes in the terms and conditions of
employment for its unit employees that were implemented
on April 25, 2017.
(h) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested on June 8, 2017.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Lima, Ohio, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being
signed by Respondent Liberty’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent Liberty and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other elec-
tronic means, if Respondent Liberty customarily com-
municates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent Liberty to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. If Respondent Liberty has gone out of busi-
ness or closed the facility involved in these proceedings,
Respondent Liberty shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by Respondent Liberty at
any time since January 11, 2017.
(j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 8 a sworn certification
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
LIBERTY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF LIMA INC. 7
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that Respondent Liberty has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 1, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you for engaging in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you for engaging in union activity on behalf of, or
otherwise supporting Ohio Council 8, American Federa-
tion of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL–
CIO (the Union), or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you for filing charges or giving testimony under
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from the Union and
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain col-
lectively and in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our employees.
WE WILL NOT change the terms and conditions of em-
ployment of unit employees without first notifying the Un-
ion and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Un-
ion by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested in-
formation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
performance of its functions as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL make Megon Amstutz (Twining), Karen
Arnett, Sharon Bruce, April Burden, Felicia Forrest
(King), U'Hura George, LaShawnda Gibson, Tia Macklin,
Michael Miller, Janice Newland, Aneta Shorter, Kelly
Stevens, Diann Williams, and Laquanna Watkins whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest,
and WE WILL also make them whole for reasonable search-
for-work and interim employment expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Megon Amstutz (Twining), Ka-
ren Arnett, Sharon Bruce, April Burden, Felicia Forrest
(King), U'Hura George, LaShawnda Gibson, Tia Macklin,
Michael Miller, Janice Newland, Aneta Shorter, Kelly
Stevens, Diann Williams, and Laquanna Watkins for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum
backpay award, and WE WILL file with the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 8, within 21 days of the date the amount of
backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate cal-
endar years.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the date of the Board’s Or-
der, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Megon Amstutz (Twining), Karen Arnett,
Sharon Bruce, April Burden, Felicia Forrest (King),
U'Hura George, LaShawnda Gibson, Tia Macklin, Mi-
chael Miller, Janice Newland, Aneta Shorter, Kelly Ste-
vens, Diann Williams, and Laquanna Watkins, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that
this has been done and that the unlawful discharge will not
be used against them in any way.
WE WILL on request, bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of em-
ployment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement.
All full-time and regular part-time, and occasional part-
time associates of [the Employer] at its care facility lo-
cated in Lima, Ohio, in the following classifications:
Cook, Maintenance Worker, Dietary Crew Leader, Food
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
Service Worker, and State Tested Nursing Assistant
(STNA).
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our employees in the bargaining unit described
above.
WE WILL rescind the changes in the terms and condi-
tions of employment for our unit employees that were uni-
laterally implemented on April 25, 2017.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested on June 8, 2017.
LIBERTY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF LIMA,
INC., LIBERTY HEALTH CARE CORP., LIBERTY
RETIREMENT PROPERTIES OF LIMA, LTD.,
LIBERTY VILLAS OF LIMA, INC. AND LIBERTY
NURSING PROPERTIES OF WOODLAND MANOR,
LTD.
The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/08-
CA-198572 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively,
you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Sec-
retary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street,
S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.