Lutheran Hospital of Milwaukee, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 176 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lutheran Hospital of Milwaukee , Inc and National
Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees Lo-
cal 1199W RWDSU-AFL-CIO. Cases 30-CA-
3082 and 30-CA-3267
May 27, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On February 27, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Paul Bisgyer issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,[ and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Lutheran Hospital of
Milwaukee, Inc, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order
Subsequent to the Administrative Law Judge s Decision in this case the
Board, in St John's Hospital and School of Nursing Inc, 222 NLRB 1150
(1976), held that a no-solicitation, no-distribution rule which prohibits all
solicitation and distribution in all areas to which patients and visitors have
access, other than immediate patient care areas, is unlawful Accordingly
we find, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that the Respon
dent herein violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an overly broad
no-solicitation, no-distribution rule which prohibits all solicitation and dis-
tribution during an employee's nonworking time in all nonwork areas where
visitors or the public might be present
of Lutheran Hospital of Milwaukee, Inc, herein called the
Respondent In issue is the question whether the Respon-
dent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their self-organizational rights and there-
by violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended,2 by various acts of interrogation concern-
ing employee union activities and sympathies, by distribut-
ing a letter among the employees soliciting information re-
garding the identity of other employees engaged in union
activity, by discriminatorily implementing and enforcing a
no-solicitation, no-distribution rule because of the advent
of the Union, and by threatening an employee with dis-
charge for distributing union literature and authorization
cards in violation of that rule At the close of the hearing,
the General Counsel and the Respondent argued their po-
sitions orally and subsequently filed supporting briefs
On August 12, 1975, the Union filed another unfair labor
practice against the Respondent in Case 30-CA-3267 3 and
a complaint based thereon was issued by the General
Counsel on September 30, 1975, alleging that on or about
April 25, 1975, the Respondent, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, promulgated and maintained in force
and effect an invalid no-solicitation, no-distribution rule to
replace the rule involved in Case 30-CA-3082, in that the
revised rule prohibits employees from participating in
union activities on nonworking time in nonworking areas
In its answer, the Respondent admits the promulgation
and maintenance of the revised rule but denies its illegality
under the Act On motion of the General Counsel, opposed
by the Respondent, the Administrative Law Judge issued a
telegraphic order on October 24, 1975, reopening the rec-
ord in Case 30-CA-3082 and consolidating that proceed-
ing and Case 30-CA-32671 On January 5, 1976, the par-
ties, in lieu of a further hearing on the newly created issue,
executed a stipulation which provides that the stipulation,
the record in Case 30-CA-3082, the pleadings in Case 30-
CA-3267, and the stipulated exhibits shall constitute the
entire record in the consolidated cases The stipulation is
approved, the stipulated exhibits are received in evidence,
and the consolidated record is closed On January 30, 1976,
the General Counsel and the Respondent filed additional
briefs in support of their respective positions regarding the
validity of the revised rule
Upon the entire consolidated record, from my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, and with due consid-
eration being given to the arguments advanced by the par-
ties, I make the following
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL BISGYER, Administrative Law Judge Case 30-CA-
3082, with all the parties represented, was heard on June
19, 1975, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on the complaint of the
General Counsel issued on April 29, 1975,1 and the answer
i The complaint in Case 30-CA-3082 is based on a charge filed on March
18, 1975, by National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees Local
1199W RWDSU-AFL-CIO, herein called the Union A copy of this
charge was duly served on the Respondent the next day by registered mail
2 Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7 Insofar as pertinent, Sec 7 provides that `[e]m-
ployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection '
3 A copy of this charge was served on the Respondent by registered mail
on August 13 1975
° On the same date, the General Counsel s motion for judgment on the
pleadings was denied
224 NLRB No 36
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF MILWAUKEE 177
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a nonprofit 5 Wisconsin corporation
engaged in the operation of a hospital at Milwaukee, Wis-
consin, and as such is and has been at all material times a
"health care institution" as defined in Section 2(14) of the
Act Its annual gross revenue from its Milwaukee opera-
tion exceeds $100,000 In the conduct of its hospital, the
Respondent purchases goods and supplies valued in excess
of $25,000 which are shipped directly to the hospital from
points outside Wisconsin
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It was stipulated, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Introduction, the Advent of the Union
The Respondent employs approximately 850 employees
at its 425-bed hospital which occupies two and a half
square blocks About September 30, 1974, the Union
launched a drive to organize some 450 to 500 of the
Respondent's employees by distributing among them on
the sidewalk in front of the entrances to the hospital during
shift changes leaflets to which were attached cards to be
filled out and returned to the Union if they were interested
in further information As a result of the employee re-
sponse, the Union held its first organizational meeting on
October 17, 1974, at its offices where the employees were
informed of the benefits of unionization to be achieved
through contract negotiations with the Respondent Mem-
bership dues were also discussed and additional union lit-
erature was passed out Another meeting was held a few
weeks later at the Union's office at which an employee
organizing committee was formed to assist in the Union's
drive and the employees were instructed with respect to
their statutory rights and the distribution of organizational
material in the hospital during nonworking time and in
nonwork areas In furtherance of this effort, employee or-
ganizers were given at this meeting union authorization
cards, fact sheets, magazines, and other campaign material,
which they thereafter distributed among their coworkers
Other employee meetings were subsequently held by the
Union Apparently, as of the time of the hearing in this
case, the Union's campaign did not generate sufficient sup-
port to warrant filing a petition for a representation elec-
tion However, an unfair labor ractice charge was filed by
the Union on March 18, 1975,r charging the Respondent,
5 In accordance with the Respondent s request, unopposed by the Gener-
al Counsel, the record is corrected to show that the Respondent is a nonpro-
fit institution
6 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 1975
which admittedly has been aware of the Union's drive
since its inception, with engaging in unlawful conduct to
impede the Union's organizational effort We turn to a
consideration of these alleged unlawful acts and the con-
clusions to be derived
B The Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1 Interrogation of Employee Krenke by Housekeeping
Supervisor Fisher
In the early part of December 1974, Maryanne Krenke,
a surgical technician and a member of the Union's organiz-
ing committee, was on a break in the coffee room, drinking
coffee with Housekeeping Supervisor William Fisher, as
she frequently did Another female technician, Sidney
Rose, was also present In the course of a social conversa-
tion, Fisher, who was not Krenke's supervisor, asked her
whether she had attended a union meeting held earlier that
day or whether a union meeting had been held that day
Krenke replied that she did not know if there had been
such a meeting, although one had actually been held Con-
tinuing with his inquiries, Fisher then asked Krenke how
many cards were signed, how many employees were in-
volved in the Union, and when an election would be held
When Krenke replied that she did not know the answers to
those questions, Fisher remarked that it couldn't be a good
union if she did not know anything about it This evoked
Krenke's response that, as he was a supervisor, she could
not discuss union matters with him, and that the Federal
law prohibited him from questioning her about the Union
Fisher thereafter refrained from such conduct 7
I find that Fisher's interrogation of Krenke, no matter
how well intentioned, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Not only did Fisher fail to explain the need for such infor-
mation to Krenke or Rose, the other employee who was
present, but also he gave no assurance that reprisals would
not be taken for employee involvement or interest in the
Union so as to minimize the necessary coercive impact of
such questioning Indeed, Fisher himself understood how
information regarding union activity could be misused by
management Thus, he testified that, when he witnessed
Krenke solicit an employee to sign a union card a few
weeks before and he criticized her for doing so, he never-
theless did not report her to management lest she "get into
trouble," despite the fact that the solicitation had actually
occurred on her free time in a nonwork area, the coffee
shop, and therefore was permissible activity Nor does the
7 The foregoing findings are based on Krenke s credible testimony which
Fisher agreed reflected basically' what had occurred on this occasion
although he thought the incident occurred in January 1975 Fisher further
testified that he asked those questions because he was `Just inquisitive as a
friend Fisher also testified to an earlier episode in the coffee room in the
first part of December 1974 when Krenke in his presence handed an em
ployee a union card to fill out At that time a nonemployee stranger told
Krenke that it was not right for her to solicit on ` company time ' Krenke
however replied that she was on a break and that therefore her solicitation
was permissible Fisher thereupon expressed his agreement with the stranger
that Krenke should not be doing this He further testified that he, neverthe-
less did not report this card incident to management because he `didn t
want Mary [Krenke] to get into trouble Clearly the Act sanctions union
solicitation on an employee's nonworking and free time in a nonwork area
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fact that the inquiries were made in the course of a friendly
conversation sanitize interrogation 8 which is otherwise
prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 9
2 Interrogation of employee Jackson by Nursing
Supervisor Krupo
In December 1974, while Marion Jackson, a ward clerk,
was bringing some papers to the labor and delivery room,
she met Nursing Supervisor Francis Krupo who asked her
who was the head of the committee, apparently referring to
the Union's organizing committee Jackson answered that
she did not know what committee Krupo was talking
about Krupo, in turn, stated that he thought she knew and
on this note the conversation ended with both going their
separate ways 10 Although other employees were in this
area, the conversation was evidently not overheard
Such an attempt to learn the identity of the leader of the
organizing committee might well suggest that the inquiry
was prompted by more than idle curiosity and that the
information thus obtained would be improperly used to
undermine the lawful exercise by employees of their orga-
nizational rights This is particularly so here where Krupo
gave no reason to Jackson why the information was sought
and no evidence appears demonstrating a legitimate need
for it Accordingly, I find that Krupo's inquiry was a form
of interference, restraint, and coercion of an employee pro-
scribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 11
3 The Respondent 's January 30, 1975 , letter
On January 30, the Respondent distributed to employees
along with their paychecks the following letter prepared
and signed by Personnel Director Richard J Torstenson
TO ALL EMPLOYEES
A number of employees have reported that they are
being pressured to sign Union cards Some are told
that they will have to join a Union if they want to
continue to work here
You should know that-
No one will have to join a Union as a condition
of employment at the Hospital
No one will have to pay dues to a Union as a
condition of employment at the Hospital
The Hospital will continue to pay wages and ben-
efits that compare favorably with those of any other
hospital in the Milwaukee area, regardless of Union
or non-Union affiliation
You don't have to put up with pestering or pres-
sure to join
Please let me know if you are bothered I will do my
best to see that the law is observed
Explaining the circumstances surrounding the issuance
8 Rex Disposables, Division of DHJ Industries, Inc, 201 NLRB 727 730
(1973), Monroe Manufacturing Co, Inc 200 NLRB 62 (1972)
9 C & E Stores, Inc, 221 NLRB 1321 (1976), John H Swisher & Son Inc
211 NLRB 777 (1974), cf Murcole Inc, 204 NLRB 228 234 (1973)
10 Jackson subsequently joined the Union and the organizing committee
becoming active on its behalf
11 Rex Disposables, supra at 729
of this letter, Torstenson testified that some 15 or 20 em-
ployees stopped him in the hallway and complained that
"people out on the sidewalk," whom they did not identify
by name, were forcing union literature and cards on them
and that they resented being pressured Torstenson further
testified that, although he suggested to the complaining
employees that they tell those "people" to leave them
alone, the employees insisted that the Respondent reply to
the Union's leaflets, take a position with respect to the
Union, tell those "people" to leave them alone and not
bother them, and advise the employees of their rights
However, no complaining employee furnished testimony at
the hearing regarding their alleged unhappy experience
with these "people "
There can be little doubt that in the closing paragraph of
the letter the Respondent, in effect, invited employees to
report to Personnel Director Torstenson union solicitation
by fellow employees and their related activities, whether or
not these activities occurred during their free or working
time or in work or nonwork areas Indeed, as Torstenson
himself testified, this letter was prompted by employee
complaints of union solicitation and distribution of union
literature which union supporters engaged in on the public
sidewalk in front of the hospital Certainly, the information
sought by the Respondent was broad enough to encompass
employee organizational activities protected by Section 7
of the Act Moreover, the Respondent's declared interest in
being informed of the identity of union solicitors can rea-
sonably be expected to instill fear in employees of the con-
sequences of union advocacy and thereby deter and re-
strain them from exercising their statutory rights Contrary
to the Respondent's contention, the fact that the Respon-
dent euphemistically couched the conduct of union advo-
cates in terms of pressuring, pestering, and bothering em-
ployees does not render the invitation to inform on union
solicitors any less coercive Nor has the Respondent dem-
onstrated, injustification of its action, a legitimate need for
the information to prevent a disruption of hospital opera-
tions
Accordingly, I conclude that the invitation to inform on
employees indicated in the Respondent's letter to employ-
ees violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 12
4 The Respondent's alleged discriminatory enforcement
of its no-solicitation, no-distribution rule, the alleged
discharge threat to employee Jackson if she
violated the rule
From 1967 until about April 25, 1975, when its rule was
revised,13 the Respondent had the following posted no-so-
licitation, no-distribution rule in effect at its hospital
Unauthorized distribution of literature, written or
printed matter of any description in working areas on
hospital premises during working time and the unau-
thorized solicitation or collecting of contributions for
12 Bank of St Louis, 191 NLRB 669 673 enfd 456 F 2d 1234 (C A 8
1971) Poloron Products of Mississippi Inc 217 N LRB 704 (1975)
13 The validity of the revised rule is the subject of the subsequent com
plaint issued in Case 30-CA-3267 and consolidated with the earlier pro-
ceeding which will be later discussed
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF MILWAUKEE 179
any purpose whatsoever is strictly prohibited accord-
ing to Lutheran Hospital policy
The complaint acknowledges the existence of that rule but
does not challenge its validity 14 Instead, it alleges that on
March 14 the rule was discriminatorily implemented and
enforced "because of the advent of union organizational
activities," and that on that date employee Jackson was
threatened with discharge if she violated the rule Essen-
tially, it is the General Counsel's position that the discrimi-
natory application of enforcement of the rule is established
by the fact that acts of nonunion-related solicitation and
distribution of literature were tolerated at the hospital,
while the rule was strictly enforced against union activity,
citing only the Jackson episode
In support of this theory, the General Counsel presented
the following testimony during both working and break
time, employees have taken up money collections among
themselves for employees who were sick or hospitalized or
suffered a death in the family 15 There is no evidence, how-
ever, that these collections were made in the presence of
supervisors or with their knowledge or consent In the past
spring, a Sunshine Club was also formed at a unit staff
meeting, chaired by Supervisor La Rose,16 for the purpose
of creating a fund derived from employee contributions to
be used for birthday, marriage, and other gifts for employ-
ees in that unit A notice was subsequently posted on a
bulletin board to alert employees whether they were cur-
rent in their contributions
Testimony was further adduced to the effect that several
employees had engaged in commercial activities Thus, one
or two employees had been taking orders for Avon prod-
ucts during working and free time However, the testimony
does not indicate that any supervisors were present on
these occasions There is testimony, on the other hand, that
Avon catalogs were available for such purposes at various
places in the hospital, including nurses' stations, and thus
presumably within the knowledge of supervisory nurses
stationed there An employee testified that the last time she
had seen an Avon catalog in the hospital was about 1-1/2
months before the hearing, while another employee testi-
fied that she had noticed such booklets around the hospital
between 1972 and 1974 but that she had never been asked
14 Because the validity of the rule is not in issue in this case I make no
comment in that regard Also concededly not in issue in this case is the
version of the rule, as set forth in the Respondent's Employment Relations
Policy Manual," a copy of which is customarily given to employees at the
time of their hiring The manual makes it an offense, subject to discipline
and ultimate discharge, for an employee to engage in
7 Soliciting or collecting contributions for any purpose whatsoever
on Hospital time
10 Distribution of literature, written or printed matter of any de
scription on Hospital property without permission from the Personnel
Director
According to the testimony of Personnel Director Richard Torstenson the
phrase "Hospital time" means working time and the phrase "Hospital prop
ertly' refers to the Hospital building itself
5 Employee Jackson testified to an occasion 3 or 4 years ago when a
collection was taken up by employees in her section for a gift for a supervi
sor who was leaving to get married
i6 However other than her title, no evidence of La Rose s supervisory
authority or duties was presented at the hearing
by anyone to buy Avon products According to Personnel
Director Torstenson, when he recently learned that em-
ployee Vrtalie was engaged in promoting Avon products at
the hospital he directed her to stop it
In addition, there is testimony by employee Jackson that
certain unidentified kitchen workers have offered for sale
to employees small dolls and purses and that this witness
herself had sold nuts in the hospital Here, too, the evi-
dence does not indicate whether this activity was observed
by supervisors or whether it was engaged in during working
time Employee Krenke, a union activist, testified that dur-
ing the past March she had taken orders from her cowork-
ers for Coventry Jewelry and in that connection had placed
brochures and order forms in the coffee shop where she
told the girls to fill out the order forms Krenke further
testified that she would pick the orders up before work or
during lunch time
Moreover, Irene Milass, a switchboard operator, whose
work area is in the lowest level in the hospital building gave
testimony that Beth Fohr, who had since left the
Respondent's employ, had taken orders from employees
for Vanda cosmetic products However, Milass did not in-
dicate where this occurred and whether it was on working
or free time She also testified that Vanda booklets were on
a table at Milass' work location "off and on" until January
or February 1975 and that, although her supervisor, Joan
Moore,17 had a desk in that area, Moore never directed the
removal of those booklets However, it appears that the
Vanda booklets were removed under unspecified circum-
stances at least a month after they were placed there Mi-
lass also credibly testified that on one occasion in February
or March 1975 Moore brought into the hospital some bars
of candy which her son was selling in connection with a
high school promotion drive for funds to purchase sports
equipment and that she sold the candy to several employ-
ees However, Milass did not observe Moore enter any
other areas in the hospital to sell the candy
Another employee, Rex Hutchinson, testified to a dem-
onstration of Amway products which a nurse conducted in
March or April 1975 during working time for two or three
employees in a small room used for staff conferences This
room was about 15 to 20 feet from the nurses' station
where Supervisor La Rose had her desk At the time of the
demonstration, the door to the room was closed and no
evidence was adduced that any supervisor was aware of it
Other testimony was adduced that Supervisor Grobe
once a year has displayed for sale on her desk several cans
of candy in connection with a fund drive for American
Operating Room Nurses' Association 18 Finally, there is
testimony that the Respondent itself posted a notice on the
bulletin board, with copies distributed among the employ-
ees, offering used hospital furniture and other items for
sale to employees
Personnel Director Torstenson, whose function it is to
enforce the no-solicitation, no-distribution rule, testified
17 However , no testimony concerning Moore 's duties or supervisory au
thority was furnished
18 Testimony was also adduced that about 3 years ago an employee sold
Girl Scout cookies in the coffee shop , lockerroom and cafeteria during
breaktime and that another employee at one time had brought into the
coffee shop a fashion catalog and solicited orders from employees
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that, whenever a violation of the rule is called to the atten-
tion of the Personnel Department, the employee guilty of
such conduct is directed to refrain from that activity How-
ever, since complainants are usually reluctant to identify
the violators, there have been few instances when the viola-
tor has been spoken to One of the instances where he had
spoken to an offender of the rule involved Vitalie, men-
tioned above Torstenson also testified that, whenever liter-
ature not pertaining to the hospital is found in the building,
it is removed In addition, Torstenson alluded to occasions
when insurance agents, merchandising outlets, and real es-
tate companies have been denied lists of, and access to,
employees at the hospital for solicitation purposes More-
over, he testified to a recent incident in which he ordered
an employee to remove petitions she had placed at various
work stations to allow the astronauts to carry a Bible with
them on their mission Similar treatment was accorded to
religious literature which was brought into the hospital by
Seventh Day Adventists and other individuals Torstenson
also testified that he had put a halt to the sale in the hospi-
tal of tickets to charities and other events However, he
testified, the hospital permits United Fund pledge cards to
be distributed among the employees once a year, and the
Women's Auxiliary to post a notice on the bulletin board
announcing a benefit event it was running for the hospital
According to Torstenson, the foregoing policy has been
uniformly pursued since prior to the appearance of the
Union and supervisors have been under instruction to see
that the rule is observed In answer to specific questions
put to him on the witness stand, he credibly testified with-
out contradiction that he had never heard of the Sunshine
Club or the Amway demonstration until the hearing in this
case, nor was he aware that any supervisor had ever violat-
ed the rule
Except for the Jackson episode presently to be discussed,
there is no evidence that the Respondent ever talked to,
reprimanded, or otherwise disciplined any employee for
engaging in union organizational activity in violation of the
hospital's no-solicitation, no-distribution rule, although it
is clear that union supporters have conducted such activity
during their free nonworking time in nonwork areas such
as the cafeteria, coffee shop, and other places where em-
ployees take their breaks Indeed, Jackson, who was a
member of the Union's organizing committee, admitted
that on occasions other than the one in question, she also
discussed the Union with employees while she and they
were working under the belief that it was not against hospi-
tal policy to do so The events leading up to the
Torstenson's interview of Jackson, which is alleged to con-
stitute a discriminatory application of the rule, are these
On March 5, while Helen Daniels, a pharmacy techni-
cian, was stocking medical supplies in a utility room away
from her regular pharmacy station, a registered nurse, Ec-
kert, who was also performing one of her duties there,
asked Daniels when she had come back to her job, which
she had left several years ago Eckert then informed her of
the employees' efforts to bring a union into the hospital to
help them secure better working conditions In the course
of this conversation, Jackson entered the room, made some
remarks which Daniels did not hear, and departed Shortly
thereafter, Jackson returned and, as Daniels was reaching
into a cabinet, Jackson put two union cards in Daniels'
pocket, requesting her not to say anything about this oc-
currence as she (Jackson) was not supposed to engage in
such activity while working Jackson thereupon left 19
When Daniels returned to the pharmacy, which was her
official station, she reported this incident to Sister Gladys,
her supervisor and director of pharmacy services, and, at
the latter's request, handed over the union cards she had
received from Jackson However, Daniels did not tell Sister
Gladys that Jackson had put pressure on her to join the
Union, nor that Jackson had warned her that she was re-
quired to join the Union to work there, which Jackson
manifestly did not do Daniels also mentioned the Eckert
conversation but did not identify Eckert by name since she
did not know it at the time Subsequently, Sister Gladys
relayed Daniels' report to Personnel Director Torstenson,
who did not act on this information at that time
The next day, March 6, while on her lunch hour, Jackson
entered a small room in the pharmacy section of the hospi-
tal and, in the presence of Patricia Brusky, a staff pharma-
cist, handed Daniels a rolled-up union magazine contain-
ing a union card and other pieces of union literature for
her to read and departed The entire incident lasted a sec-
ond or two Clearly, the room was a work area, and wheth-
er or not Daniels was actually working at this time or only
talking to Brusky,20 Daniels was on duty and not on her
own free time After Jackson left the room, Daniels report-
ed this incident to Sister Gladys and again, at Sister
Gladys' request, gave her the union material she had re-
ceived from Jackson Daniels did not inform Sister Gladys
that Jackson had forced her to take the union material
About a week later, Torstenson, who had also been ap-
prised by Sister Gladys of the latter incident, interviewed
Daniels and Brusky concerning that occurrence and the
one on March 5 Acting on the advice of the Respondent's
attorney, Torstenson on or about March 14 summoned
Jackson to his office 21 He opened the interview by inform-
ing her that he had received reports that she had passed out
leaflets and cards to an employee and that he did not know
whether or not she was then on duty or whether this con-
duct occurred in a work or nonwork area or whether the
employee who was given the material was working at the
time Torstenson then reminded Jackson of the Re-
spondent's rule or policy concerning the distribution of
literature of any type and solicitation which was designed
19 The foregoing findings reflect Daniels testimony, which I credit Jack-
son testified to a conversation she had had prior to the pharmacy incident
which will be presently discussed It is not clear whether or not Jackson s
testimony relates to the event recited in the text above According to Jack-
son at one time when Daniels came to Jackson 's work area and both were
working Jackson asked her if she was interested in the Union but, as she
recalled no union literature was handed out
20 In view of my disposition of the issues in this case it is unnecessary to
resolve the conflicting testimony in this respect
21 Torstenson testified that for several months he had been aware of
Jackson s involvement in the Union s organizational campaign as well as
the involvement of other employees and that it is not his practice to prevent
such activity so long as it is not conducted in work areas and employees are
not bothered while they are working Jackson admitted discussing the union
with employees not only in the cafeteria, snackbar coffee shop and class
room but also while employees were working She however denied distrib
uting union literature to employees while they were engaged in the perfor
mance of their duties
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF MILWAUKEE 181
to protect employees, patients, and visitors from being "un-
duly pestered " Jackson readily admitted that she had
passed out union literature but added that it was done on
her own time during breaks and her lunch hour, as well as
before and after work, and that she was fully aware that
she was not supposed to engage in such activity during
working time or in work areas Torstenson expressed his
gratitude for her comments since he had conflicting reports
and he preferred giving her the benefit of any doubt The
interview ended with Torstenson pointing out that, under
the Respondent's rule, the distribution of literature on an
employee's working time or hours 22 could possibly result
in discharge 23 However, Jackson was not personally repri-
manded for violating the rule
The General Counsel contends that the foregoing evi-
dence establishes that on March 14 the Respondent dis-
criminatorily enforced and applied its no-solicitation, no-
distribution rule because of the advent of the Union and
on that occasion unlawfully threatened employee Jackson
with discharge if she violated the rule I do not agree
As noted above, the Union initiated its organizational
campaign approximately 6 months before March 14 at a
time when the no-solicitation, no-distribution rule had
been in existence for 7 years During the 6-month period,
supporters of the Union freely and generally in a manner
not prohibited by the rule engaged in union solicitation
and the distribution of union literature inside and outside
the hospital Indeed, although Personnel Director Torsten-
son learned that Jackson had given employee Daniels
union cards in a work area and the next day had handed
her union material in another work area, in violation of the
rule, he simply discussed the matter with her in his office,
accepted her assertion that she customarily confined her
union activity in the hospital to her own nonworking time
and in nonwork areas, and only reminded her that a viola-
tion of the rule could lead to discharge Clearly, Jackson
was not reprimanded for her conduct In these circum-
stances, it can hardly be inferred that the Respondent was
prompted discriminatorily to enforce the rule because of
the appearance of the Union at the hospital or that it dis-
parately applied the rule to Jackson,24 particularly since the
record is absolutely devoid of any evidence that employees
were permitted to engage in antiunion activity in the hospi-
tal in disregard of the rule 25
22 The terms ' working time ' and "working hours were used interchange-
ably by the witnesses in their testimony However, viewing Torstenson s
conversation with Jackson in its entirety, I find that Torstenson 's remarks
were not intended to, and did not, convey the idea that the Respondents
then current rule prohibited union solicitation during an employees free
time or that it barred the distribution of union literature in nonwork areas
during nonworking time Cf Essex Inte-national Inc 211 NLRB 749
(1974), and The Contract Knitter, Inc, 220 NLRB 558 (1975)
23 The foregoing findings are based on a composite of Jackson s and
Torstenson s testimony , which I find reflect what probably occurred at the
interview During this interview, Torstenson also mentioned his experiences
with unions It is unimportant to the issues here presented to determine
whether Torstenson stated to Jackson that he had "come up against twelve
unions since his association with the hospital and that the unions were
unable to get in, as Jackson testified , or whether Torstenson told her that he
had had a good relationship with them , as he testified
24 Luxuray of New York Division of Beaunit Corporation 185 NLRB 100
(1970)
25 See The Contract Knitter, Inc supra
The General Counsel, nevertheless, cites various instanc-
es of employee solicitation and collection of funds for non-
union-related purposes which had taken place in the hos-
pital, as described above, to support his claim of
discriminatory enforcement of the rule However, many of
these episodes of solicitation and collection occurred dur-
ing the employees' free time and in nonwork areas More-
over, with respect to other instances of such conduct, it was
not shown that supervisors were present or were aware that
such activity was going on during working time or in work
areas 26 or that the activity otherwise interfered with hospi-
tal routine In the two instances where supervisors sold
candy, the sales were isolated acts which were made in
conjunction with an annual fund raising drive for the bene-
fit of a high school's athletic program and a professional
nurses' organization As for the formation of the Sunshine
Club in the course of a staff meeting and the subsequent
posting of a notice on a bulletin board regarding the em-
ployees' dues standing in that club, they certainly cannot
be viewed as violations of the no-solicitation rule Nor is it
evidence of discriminatory enforcement of the Re-
spondent's rule the fact that the Respondent itself had
the occasion to post and circulate in the hospital a notice
offering for sale to its employees used hospital furniture
and related items Undeniably, a no-solicitation rule, as a
general proposition, is not intended to, nor does it restrict
the employer from engaging in the activity encompassed
by the rule 27 Also of dubious value as evidence of discrimi-
natory application of the rule is the fact that Respondent
permitted United Fund pledge cards to be distributed
among the employees once a year and the Women's Auxili-
ary of the hospital to post on bulletin boards an announce-
ment of a forthcoming event being run for the benefit of
the hospital 28 Such "beneficent acts fall far short of estab-
lishing forbidden discrimination " 29
In short, all things being considered, including the size of
the hospital and its employee staff, management's efforts
to enforce its rule, and the absence of sufficient proof of
management's deliberate toleration of nonunion-related
solicitations and collections on working time and in work
areas, I find that the General Counsel failed to sustain his
burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Respondent's no-solicitation, no-distribution rule
was discriminatorily enforced and applied against union
adherents, particularly employee Jackson, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 3 Accordingly, the relevant alle-
26 Serv Air, Inc 175 NLRB 801 (1969) on remand from 395 F 2d 557
(C A 10 1968) where the Board noted that "even if we were persuaded that
the solicitation occurred on work time, there is no evidence that this inci-
dent came to the attention of management, and hence it is no basis for a
finding that Respondent permitted it without retaliatory action "
27 See N L R B v United Steelworkers of America, CIO [Nutone Inc ] 357
U S 357 (1958), where the Supreme Court held that it was not an unfair
labor practice for an employer to enforce against employees a no-solicita-
tion rule in itself concededly valid, while the employer engages in coercive
antiunion solicitation
28 Serv Air supra, Astronautics Corporation of America 164 NLRB 623
627 (1967)
29 Serv-Air, Inc v N L R B, 395 F 2d 557 560 (C A 10, 1968)
30 Cf Serv-Air, Inc 175 NLRB 801 (1969), Astronautics supra at 625, The
Seng Company 210 NLRB 936 (1974) The cases relied upon by the General
Counsel for a contrary result, such as, Montgomery Ward & Co 202 NLRB
Continued
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gations of the complaint in Case 30-CA-3082 will be dis-
missed
5 The alleged illegality of the revised rule (Case
30-CA-3267)
The no-solicitation, no-distribution rule, which is the
subject of the complaint in Case 30-CA-3267, was first
posted on April 25, 1975 The rule reflects a revision of an
earlier rule , whose enforcement is considered in the preced-
ing section of this Decision , and is the result of a program
to revise the employee handbook entitled "Working To-
gether" begun in July 1974 The new rule was drafted by
the Respondent 's counsel on the basis of his views regard-
ing legal developments in the area of no-solicitation, no-
distribution rules in the health care field As embodied in
the employee handbook, the challenged rule reads , as fol-
lows
Solicitation & Distribution of Material
We receive numerous requests from various persons,
groups and organizations to be allowed to solicit pa-
tients or employees for various causes, or be allowed
to distribute books , pamphlets , etc , throughout the
hospital These are a source of annoyance to the pa-
tients , as well as disruptive to our routines This has
led us to adopt a rule prohibiting members of the pub-
lic from doing any soliciting or any distributing of ma-
terial on hospital premises at any time Outside of
working hours an employee becomes a member of the
public , and the foregoing rules will apply
During working hours , employees should not solicit or
distribute written matter for any purpose in any part
of the hospital during working time ("Working time"
applies not only to the employee doing the soliciting,
but includes the person being solicited) During the
non-working time of employees ' working hours, solicita-
tion is permitted only in non patient and in non-public
areas of the hospital, and distribution of written material
is limited to non-work areas and non patient areas and
non-public areas [Emphasis supplied ]
Included in the record pursuant to the parties ' stipulation
are 11 large blueprints of the Respondent's facilities on
which are designated by color code the areas where em-
ployees are allowed or not allowed, to engage in solicita-
tion and distribution in accordance with the rule 31
978, 979 (1973), and Daylin, Inc Discount Division d/b/a Millers Discount
Dept Stores, 198 NLRB 281 ( 1972), are distinguishable from the present
case in that management in those cases permitted more extensive nonunion
related activities to be conducted in violation of the rule while it prohibited
union solicitation in order to impede and discourage the employees organs
zational effort
3i Specifically , the stipulation provides
4 Areas on the Plans which are shaded with red lines are nonwork
nonpatient and nonpublic areas in which employees are allowed to
engaged (sic) in solicitation and distribution in accordance with the
Rule Patients and members of the public (including persons visiting
patients) are not allowed in these areas Areas shaded in green are work
areas in which neither the public nor patients are allowed and in which
employees may engage in solicitation in accordance with the Rule Un-
shaded areas are either areas in which the public and/or patients are
Quoting only the italicized portion of the rule, the com-
plaint alleges that since April 25, 1975, the Respondent
interfered with the employees ' statutory rights in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act "by promulgating and main-
taining in force and effect an invalid no -solicitation and
distribution rule which prohibits employees from partici-
pating in union organizing activities on nonworking time in
nonworking areas " 32 The General Counsel contends that
the rule is on its face ambiguous and overly broad and
therefore infringes upon the employees ' organizational
rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The Re-
spondent , on the other hand , urges that the validity of its
revised rule may not properly be judged by the legal princi-
ples normally applicable to industrial plants Instead, it ar-
gues that special consideration should be given to the na-
ture of its hospital operations , its concern with the health
and welfare of its patients , and the presence of the public
visiting the patients , and that the Board should therefore
find, as it has done in the case of retail establishments and
other health care institutions , that these factors outweigh
the employees ' organizational rights and justify the broad
scope of the rule
The Supreme Court has observed that the "place of work
is a place uniquely appropriate for dissemination of views
concerning the bargaining representative and the various
options open to the employees " 33 In recognition of this
truism , the Board with court approval , after striking a bal-
ance between the employees ' organizational rights and the
employer's interest in maintaining production , discipline,
and safety ,34 has evolved a set of principles to govern union
solicitation and the distribution of union literature by em-
ployees on their employer 's premises Thus , an employer
rule prohibiting union solicitation b employees during
working time is presumptively valid,3 as is a rule prohib-
iting the distribution of union literature in work areas,
whether or not it occurs on working time 36 If the rules go
beyond these limitations and ban union solicitation by the
employees during their free time or prohibit their distribu-
tion of union literature in nonwork areas during their non-
working time, these rules are invalid and constitute an un-
reasonable impediment to the employees ' exercise of their
Section 7 rights violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, un-
less the employer can demonstrate exceptional circum-
stances justifying such broader restrictions
present or are unoccupied No solicitation or distribution is allowed in
the occupied areas which are unshaded
32 Although the complaint thus challenges only a part of the rule the
General Counsel nevertheless argues in his brief that the first paragraph of
the rule dealing with the rights of off duty employees is also unlawful Man
ifestly that issue is not before me under the complaint and the stipulation
In any event the General Counsels position is of doubtful validity GTE
Lenkurt incorporated 204 NLRB 921 (1973)
33 N L R B v Magnavox Company of Tennessee 415 U S 322 325 (1974)
34 Republic Aviation Corporation v N L R B 324 U S 793 797-798
(1945)
35 Id at 803 See Essex International, Inc 211 NLRB 749 (1974) where
the Board clarified the distinction between working time or worktime
and working hours It held that a prohibition of solicitation or distribu-
tion during ` working ame or `worktime ' is valid on its face since it con-
notes the time spent in the actual performance of fob duties and excludes
the lunch and break periods while working hours conveys the idea of
business hours which includes the employees free time and therefore the
prohibition is presumptively invalid
36 Stoddard Quirk Manufacturing Co 138 NLRB 615 (1962)
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF MILWAUKEE 183
In applying the foregoing principles, the Board has been
confronted with the special problems that employers oper-
ating retail enterprises experience as a result of employees
coming in contact with the public in the course of their
work To avoid a possible disruption of business if employ-
ees engage in union activity in the presence of customers,
the Board has sanctioned employer rules which proscribe
union activity in selling areas whether or not employees are
on their own free time 37 However, the Board has declined
to extend the prohibition against union solicitation by em-
ployees during their nonworking time to nonselling areas,
even though customers may be present, where convincing
evidence justifying such extension is not adduced 38 In the
case of hospitals and other health care institutions, the
Board has similarly indicated an inclination not to apply
the above principles mechanically but to approve no solici-
tation and distribution rules which impose additional re-
strictions on employees' organizational rights where unusu-
al circumstances and special needs are shown to warrant
them 39
As noted previously, the Respondent's revised rule pro-
vides that "[d]uring the nonworking time of employees'
working hours, solicitation is permitted only in non-patient
and in non-public areas of the hospital, and distribution of
written material is limited to non-work areas and non-pa-
tient areas and non-public areas " Manifestly, the rule does
not describe with sufficient clarity the particular areas
where employees may or may not engage in union solicita-
tion and distribution during their nonworking time There
is no reliable indication in the rule whether, for example,
employees are permitted to engage in this activity in the
cafeteria, refreshment places, restrooms, or lounges where
they might be during their free time if a visitor or other
member of the public happened to be present Indeed, to
define the specific areas where union solicitation and dis-
tribution are permitted or forbidden under the rule, the
Respondent made part of the record in this case 11 blue-
prints of the hospital facilities on which numerous areas
are designated However, there is absolutely no evidence
that this information was ever conveyed to employees or
that they were otherwise aware of it Such vagueness and
ambiguity in the Respondent's newly adopted rule can
have no other than a deterrent effect on employees who
might otherwise desire to exercise their organizational
rights lest they risk discipline for unwittingly violating the
rule Yet, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had the
occasion to observe in a comparable situation, "The true
meaning of the rule might be the subject of grammatical
controversy However, the employees of respondent are
not grammarians The rule is at best ambiguous and the
risk of ambiguity must be held against the promulgator of
the rule rather than against the employees who are sup-
posed to abide by it " 40 Nor is the ambiguity weakness in
the rule eliminated by the Respondent's suggestion in its
brief that, if the employees have any questions concerning
the scope of the rule, they could seek clarification from
their department head or the personnel department Cer-
tainly, such inquiries would reveal the employees' union
involvement or sympathies which they are undeniably priv-
ileged not to disclose to their employer
Apart from the ambiguous nature of the rule, there can
be no doubt that the rule imposes restrictions on union
solicitation and distribution during an employee's non-
working time and in nonwork areas beyond those normally
permissible under established law 41 While the Board rec-
ognizes that a broad no-solicitation, no-distribution rule
may be valid under special circumstances, the record con-
tains no evidence demonstrating the need for prohibiting
such activity in the specific areas claimed by the Respon-
dent For example, no evidence was adduced to show a
reasonable probability of interference with hospital opera-
tions or efficiency or that the health and care of patients
would be adversely affected if union solicitation or distri-
bution occurred during an employee's nonworking time in
nonwork areas where visitors or the public might be pre-
sent In fact, as previously discussed, nonunion related so-
licitation has taken place in the hospital in the past without
any apparent serious disruption of hospital routine Plain-
ly, the mere assertion that broad restrictions on union so-
licitation and distribution in the hospital are required can
hardly prove the need or justification for them
In view of the absence of special circumstances shown
by the Respondent to warrant the restrictions imposed by
the quoted portion of the revised rule and in view of its
ambiguity, I find that the rule to that extent is invalid and
constitutes an infringement of the employees' Section 7
rights and therefore violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
IV THE REMEDY
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is
recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices
found and like and related conduct and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in the case , I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
37 The May Department Stores Company, et al 59 NLRB 976 981 (1944)
Marshall Field & Company, 98 NLRB 88, 92 (1952), Two Wheel Corp d/b/a
Honda of Mineola, 218 NLRB 486 (1975)
38 Marshall Field & Co, supra, 93-95, see also The May Department Stores
Company supra
39 Summit Nursing Convalescent Home, 196 NLRB 769, 770 enforcement
denied 472 F 2d 1380 (C A 6, 1973), Guyan Valley Hospital Inc 198 NLRB
107 (1972), Cedar Corp d/b/a West Side Manor Nursing Home 203 NLRB
100, 103-104 (1973), Harold R Bursten and Dr Robert Bursten, A Partner
ship, d/b/a Shorewood Manor Nursing Home & Rehabilitation Center, 217
NLRB 331 (1975), Member Penello's separate concurring and dissenting
opinion
I The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By coercively interrogating employees concerning a
union meeting, the number of union cards signed by em-
40 N L R B v Harold Miller et al d/b/a Miller Charles & Co 341 F 2d
870, 874 (C A 2, 1975)
41 See for example Summit Nursing Convalescent Home supra Cedar
Corp, supra at 104
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, the number of employees involved in the Union,
and the identity of the employee head of the Union's orga-
nizing committee, by inviting employees to report to the
personnel director union solicitation by fellow employees
and their other organizational activities, and by promul-
gating and maintaining in effect an invalid no-solicitation,
no-distribution rule which unduly limits such activity by
employees on behalf of the Union during their nonworking
time in nonwork areas, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
5 The Respondent did not engage in other conduct vio-
lative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in the com-
plaint in Case 30-CA-3082
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed
ORDER 42
The Respondent, Lutheran Hospital of Milwaukee, Inc,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively questioning employees concerning em-
ployees' union sympathies and activities, meetings held by
National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees
Local 1199W, RWDSU-AFL-CIO, the number of cards
signed by employees for the named Union, the number of
employees involved in that Union, and the identity of the
employee head of that Union's organizing committee
(b) Inviting and requesting employees to report to it
union solicitation by fellow employees or their other orga-
nizational activities
(c) Promulgating, maintaining in effect, and enforcing
any rule or regulation which prohibits employees from en-
gaging in union solicitation in the hospital during non-
working time and from engaging in the distribution of
union literature in nonwork areas in the hospital, unless
special circumstances and needs of the hospital require
such restrictions
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist National
Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees Local
1199W, RWDSU-AFL-CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
42 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Forthwith rescind its rule promulgated on or about
April 25, 1975, to the extent that it prohibits its employees
during their nonworking time from soliciting in its hospital
on behalf of a labor organization or from distributing
union literature in the nonwork areas in the hospital
(b) Post at its hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 43 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 30, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, particularly where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case 30-
CA-3082 be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act other than those
found herein
43 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading ' Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees con-
cerning employees' union sympathies and activities,
meetings held by National Union of Hospital
and Health Care Employees Local 1199W,
RWDSU-AFL-CIO, the number of cards signed by
employees for the named Union, the number of em-
ployees involved in that Union, and the identity of the
head of that Union's organizing committee
WE WILL NOT invite or request employees to report to
us union solicitation by fellow employees or their
other organizational activities
WE WILL NOT promulgate, maintain in effect, nor en-
force any rule or regulation which prohibits employees
from engaging in union solicitation in the hospital
during nonworking time or from engaging in the dis-
tribution of union literature in nonwork areas in the
hospital, unless special circumstances and needs of the
hospital require such restrictions
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form, tom, or assist
the above-named Union or any other labor organiza-
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF MILWAUKEE 185
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutu-
al aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all
such activities except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
WE WILL forthwith rescind our rule promulgated on
or about April 25, 1975, to the extent that it prohibits
our employees during their nonworking time from so-
liciting in our hospital on behalf of a labor organiza-
tion or from distributing union literature in the non-
work areas in the hospital
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL OF MILWAUKEE, INC