Valley Health System LLC, d/b/a Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center, and Valley Hospital Medical

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 16
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.
Valley Health System, LLC d/b/a Desert Springs Hos-
pital Medical Center, and Valley Hospital Medi-
cal Center, Inc. d/b/a Valley Hospital Medical
Center and Service Employees International Un-
ion, Local 1107. Case Nos. 28–CA–184993, 28–
CA–185013, 28–CA–189709, 28–CA–189730, 28–
CA–192354, 28–CA–193581, 28–CA–194185, 28–
CA–194194, 28–CA–194450, 28–CA–194471, 28–
CA–194790, 28–CA–195235, 28–CA–197426, and
28–CA–201519.
January 30, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
On September 28, 2018, Administrative Law Judge
Dickie Montemayor issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel and the Charging Party each filed an an-
swering brief, and the Respondents and the Charging
Party each filed a reply brief. The Charging Party also
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered the
decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings,1 and conclusions only to the extent consistent with
this Decision and Order.2
I. INTRODUCTION
Respondents Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center
(Desert Springs Hospital) and Valley Hospital Medical

1 The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Stand-
ard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d
Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing the findings.
2 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to our
findings and to the Board’s standard remedial language, and we shall
substitute new notices to conform to the Order as modified.
3 The collective-bargaining agreement for the Desert Springs Hospital
RN unit expired April 30, 2016. The collective-bargaining agreements
for the Valley Hospital RN unit and the Desert Springs Hospital techni-
cian and LPN unit expired May 31, 2016.
4 The Respondents assert that the email submissions complied with
General Counsel Memorandum 15-08, which provides guidance to the
Regional Offices on accepting submissions of electronic signatures to
support a showing of interest for an election. Although General Counsel
memoranda are not binding on the Board, we believe that electronic sub-
missions that comply with General Counsel Memorandum 15-08 can
demonstrate good-faith uncertainty as to whether a union enjoys majority
Center (Valley Hospital) (collectively, the Respondents or
the Hospitals) are acute care hospitals in Las Vegas, Ne-
vada, owned and operated by Valley Health System, a sub-
sidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS). Service
Employees International Union, Local 1107 (the Union)
represents the registered nurses (RNs) at Desert Springs
Hospital and Valley Hospital in separate bargaining units,
as well as a third bargaining unit of the technicians and
licensed practical nurses (LPNs) at Desert Springs Hospi-
tal. The issues in this case arose after the collective-bar-
gaining agreements for each of the three bargaining units
expired in spring 2016.3 Over the succeeding months, the
parties engaged in unsuccessful negotiations for successor
collective-bargaining agreements.
We agree with the judge that, in February and March
2017, the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by withdraw-
ing recognition from the Union in all three bargaining
units. The Respondents failed to prove an actual loss of
majority support for the Union in any of the three bargain-
ing units as required by Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific,
333 NLRB 717 (2001). In withdrawing recognition, the
Respondents relied in part on unauthenticated email sub-
missions for which they could not show that the purported
email submitters actually supported decertifying the Un-
ion. As the judge found, “there is no real evidence to es-
tablish that the emails that were counted were in fact sub-
mitted by the employees listed on the emails.”4 Without
the email submissions, the Respondents fall well short of
establishing a lack of majority support for the Union in
any of the three bargaining units.5 Accordingly, the with-
drawal of recognition as to each unit was unlawful.6 Be-
cause the withdrawals of recognition were unlawful, we
agree with the judge that the Respondents also violated
support, and can therefore support the filing of an RM petition. Here,
however, the Respondents did not seek an election, but rather withdrew
recognition, so the question is whether the Respondents had objective
evidence of actual loss of majority status, which they did not. See Levitz,
333 NLRB at 725. In any event, the Respondents’ assertion that its email
submissions complied with General Counsel Memorandum 15-08 is in-
correct. The submissions were created via an online form that did not
utilize digital signature technology. There is also no documentary evi-
dence of the purported signers receiving an email Confirmation Trans-
mission, as described in General Counsel Memorandum 15-08. In fact,
the confirmation emails the Respondents offered into evidence were sent
only to the employee who created the online form, not to any of the pur-
ported signers who the Respondents claim filled out the form and sub-
mitted it.
5 We therefore find it unnecessary to rely on the judge’s determina-
tion that he could not authenticate the signatures on some of the em-
ployee decertification cards that the Respondents also relied on in with-
drawing recognition.
6 We therefore find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s additional
finding that the Respondents could not lawfully withdraw recognition
because their unremedied unfair labor practices tended to cause
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by granting wage increases to the
employees in all three bargaining units immediately after
withdrawing recognition.
We also adopt the judge’s findings that Respondent De-
sert Springs Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) by confis-
cating union literature from breakroom tables,7 soliciting
bargaining unit employees to support decertification of the
Union,8 and surveilling bargaining unit employees’ union
activity.9 And we adopt the judge’s finding that Respond-
ent Desert Springs Hospital violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) by implementing a unilateral change to union repre-
sentatives’ access to bargaining unit employees by prohib-
iting them from meeting with bargaining unit employees
in an employee breakroom while nonbargaining unit em-
ployees were present.

bargaining unit employees to become disaffected from the Union and
thus, under Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78 (1984), tainted the evi-
dence the Respondents relied on in withdrawing recognition.
7 We find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s additional finding that
the confiscation of union literature violated Sec. 8(a)(5) because such a
finding would not materially affect the remedy that Desert Springs Hos-
pital cease and desist from confiscating union literature. Moreover, no
8(a)(5) confiscation issue was before the judge for decision. The com-
plaint did not allege that the confiscation violated the Act in any way.
Although the judge granted the General Counsel’s motion at the hearing
to amend the complaint to allege that Desert Springs Hospital’s Director
of Nursing of the Intermediate Care Unit “Carol Dugan on about October
11th, [2016,] confiscated Union literature at Respondent’s facility in vi-
olation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,” the General Counsel did not allege
that this conduct violated Sec. 8(a)(5).
Member Emanuel recognizes that confiscating from nonworking ar-
eas union literature that is not strewn about in an unsightly or hazardous
manner violates Sec. 8(a)(1) under extant Board precedent. Although he
applies that precedent here for institutional reasons, he believes it should
be reconsidered in a future appropriate case.
8 In agreeing with the judge that Corona Regional Medical Center
employee Mark Smith was an agent of Desert Springs Hospital when he
unlawfully solicited employees to decertify the Union, we reject Desert
Springs Hospital’s contention that Smith was an offsite employee and
that its practice is to permit offsite employees to solicit and distribute
literature in public areas of its hospital. Smith was not an offsite em-
ployee of Desert Springs Hospital. The judge found, without exception,
that Desert Springs Hospital is owned and operated by Valley Health
System (VHS), which is a subsidiary of UHS. Although Corona Re-
gional Medical Center is also owned and operated by a subsidiary of
UHS, it is not a part of VHS. Thus, Smith’s employment by Corona
Regional Medical Center does not make him an employee of Desert
Springs Hospital or its parent company, VHS.
9 We disavow the judge’s reliance on Kingsbridge Heights Rehabili-
tation Care Center, 352 NLRB 6 (2008), a two-member Board case, and
rely instead on National Steel & Shipbuilding Co., 324 NLRB 499, 499
& fn. 4 (1997), enfd. 156 F.3d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1998), to support the prin-
ciple that “the employer must show that it had a reasonable, objective
basis for anticipating misconduct” to justify recording of protected activ-
ity, not a “subjective, honest belief that unprotected conduct may occur.”
10 In finding that Valley Hospital unlawfully promised bargaining unit
employees wage increases if they decertified the Union, we rely on the
credited testimony of employee Sue Komeda that UHS Staff Vice Pres-
ident of Labor Relations Jeanne Schmid told bargaining unit employees
Similarly, we adopt the judge’s findings that Respond-
ent Valley Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) by promising
bargaining unit employees wage increases if they decerti-
fied the Union10 and conveying to employees the futility
of union representation.11 Additionally, we adopt the
judge’s findings that Respondent Valley Hospital violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by implementing unilateral
changes to union representatives’ access to bargaining
unit employees by (i) prohibiting them from meeting with
more than two bargaining unit employees at a time12 and
(ii) preventing them from speaking at new employee ori-
entations;13 and failing and refusing to provide the Union
with requested information regarding bargaining unit em-
ployees.14
Lastly, we adopt the judge’s dismissal of the 8(a)(1) al-
legation that Respondent Desert Springs Hospital, through
that, with respect to market raises, “if we didn’t have a union, we would
get them,” and that the purpose of the meeting was to inform employees
about “what benefits we would receive from getting rid of the Union.”
See Westminster Community Hospital, Inc., 221 NLRB 185, 185 (1975)
(employer unlawfully depicted union as a barrier to increased benefits
and implied that additional benefits would have been granted but for the
union), enfd. 566 F.2d 1186 (9th Cir. 1977).
11 In finding that Valley Hospital unlawfully conveyed to employees
the futility of union representation, we rely on the judge’s crediting of
Komeda’s testimony that Schmid did, in fact, make the alleged state-
ments conveying that representation would be futile. Valley Hospital
admits that the statements, if Schmid made them, violated the Act.
12 Member Emanuel agrees that Valley Hospital violated Sec. 8(a)(5)
and (1) by preventing union organizers from meeting with more than two
bargaining unit employees at a time on its premises. However, he does
so only because Valley Hospital acted contrary to its practice of permit-
ting union organizers to speak with more than two bargaining unit em-
ployees at a time on its premises. Union organizer Romina Loreto testi-
fied that she knew she was not prohibited from speaking with more than
two bargaining unit employees at a time because she had done so rou-
tinely without incident in the past. He does not rely on the language in
the expired collective-bargaining agreement that granted union repre-
sentatives access to Valley Hospital “to confer with individual bargain-
ing unit employees” (emphasis added).
13 We agree with the judge that Valley Hospital failed to maintain the
status quo after the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement,
which provided that “[t]he Union will be granted access to new employee
orientations” to discuss the Union and distribute union materials. How-
ever, in finding the violation, we do not rely on the judge’s statements
about Nursing Project Manager Kimberly Crocker’s motive or subjective
intent in ending an orientation without affording union representatives
the opportunity to give their presentation, which is not relevant to
whether Valley Hospital made an unlawful unilateral change. See BASF
Wyandotte Corp., 274 NLRB 978, 978 (1985) (“[T]he question of motive
is not relevant to the allegation of unilateral changes in this case.”), enfd.
798 F.2d 849 (5th Cir. 1986).
14 Valley Hospital’s only defense to the allegation that it unlawfully
refused to provide the information is that it had no duty to do so follow-
ing its withdrawal of recognition. We have found Valley Hospital’s
withdrawal of recognition unlawful, so we necessarily reject that de-
fense. Because we are finding the violation for that reason, we find it
unnecessary to rely on the judge’s finding that Valley Hospital “slow
walked” the Union’s information request for 17 days before it withdrew
recognition.
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 3
Security Guard Hank Castro, created an impression of sur-
veillance of employees’ union activity.
However, as discussed below, we find, contrary to the
judge, that (1) the Respondents did not violate Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by ceasing to deduct union dues from bar-
gaining unit employees’ wages after the collective-bar-
gaining agreements expired; (2) Respondent Desert
Springs Hospital did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
removing union flyers from its bulletin boards in em-
ployee breakrooms; and (3) Respondent Valley Hospital
did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by promising bargaining
unit employees better working conditions if they decerti-
fied the Union.
II. CESSATION OF DUES-CHECKOFF DEDUCTIONS
The parties’ expired collective-bargaining agreements
contained a dues-checkoff provision requiring the Re-
spondents to deduct union dues from the wages of each
bargaining unit employee who submitted a signed dues-
checkoff authorization form. The dues-checkoff authori-
zation form stated that it was revocable only upon an em-
ployee “sending written notice to both the Employer and
the Union by registered mail during a period from October
1-15 on [sic] each year of the agreement and shall be au-
tomatically renewed as an irrevocable check-off from year
to year unless revoked as hereinabove provided.”15
For several months after the expiration of the collective-
bargaining agreements, the Respondents continued remit-
ting payroll dues deductions to the Union. On September
14, 2016, the Respondents notified the Union that they
would cease the dues deductions on September 23, 2016,
because the Union’s dues-checkoff authorization form did
not permit an employee to revoke his or her authorization
after the termination of the applicable collective-bargain-
ing agreement as required by federal law. On September
19, 2016, after the Union challenged the Respondents’
stated revocations as an unlawful unilateral change, the
Respondents asserted that a refusal to deduct dues “based
on an invalid authorization is not a unilateral change.”
On September 20, 2016, the Respondents notified all
unit employees that the Respondents were ceasing dues
deductions because “the authorization lacks specifically
required language from the law.” The Respondents also
informed employees that they would resume deducting
union dues from their paychecks “upon receipt of a valid
union dues deduction authorization.” On September 22,
2016, the Union asserted that the Respondents were

15 Sec. 302(c)(4) of the Labor-Management Relations Act permits
payroll dues deductions from bargaining unit employees’ wages pro-
vided that the employee has provided the employer “a written assignment
which shall not be irrevocable for a period of more than one year, or
beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agreement,
whichever occurs sooner.” 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(4).
implementing a unilateral change and demanded bargain-
ing. On September 23, 2016, the Respondents unilaterally
ceased the dues deductions. In a letter to the Union’s
counsel dated September 23, 2016, Respondents’ Counsel
Thomas Keim wrote: “As stated multiple times, [the Re-
spondents] are prepared to deduct dues when presented
with a validly executed and statutorily compliant authori-
zation.”
The judge found that the Respondent’s cessation of dues
deductions violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), relying heav-
ily on Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB 1655
(2015), which overruled Bethlehem Steel, 136 NLRB
1500 (1962), remanded on other grounds sub nom. Marine
& Shipbuilding Workers v. NLRB, 320 F.2d 615 (3d Cir.
1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 984 (1964), and required em-
ployers to continue to honor dues-checkoff authorizations
after the expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement
that established such an arrangement.
Recently, in Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a
Valley Hospital Medical Center, we overruled Lincoln Lu-
theran and returned to the longstanding rule, first an-
nounced in Bethlehem Steel, that an employer’s statutory
obligation to check off union dues ends when its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement containing a checkoff provi-
sion expires. 368 NLRB No. 139 (2019). We also decided
to apply the rule of Valley Hospital Medical Center retro-
actively in all pending cases. Id., slip op. at 8. Accord-
ingly, the Respondents had no obligation under the Act to
continue dues checkoff after the collective-bargaining
agreements expired, and therefore they did not violate
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally ceasing to do so.16
III. POSTING OF UNION FLYERS ON RESPONDENTS’
BULLETIN BOARDS
The expired collective-bargaining agreements between
the Respondents and the Union granted the Union access
to the bulletin boards within employee break rooms regu-
larly utilized by bargaining unit employees, provided that
“[n]o material which contains personal attacks upon any
other member or any other employee or which is critical
of the hospital, its management, or its policies or practices,
will be posted.”
On August 8, 2016, Union Representative Lanita
Troyano emailed Respondents’ System Director for Hu-
man Resources Wayne Cassard a bargaining update flyer
titled “VHS Fiction vs. Union Facts,” which the Union
was posting later that day at the Hospitals. The flyer
16 Notwithstanding the Board’s decision in Valley Hospital Medical
Center, Food & Commercial Workers Local One (Big V Supermarkets),
304 NLRB 952, 953 (1991), enfd. 975 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1992), relied on
by the judge, is inapplicable here. The issue in that case was revocability
of dues-checkoff authorizations by employees; the issue here is discon-
tinuation of dues-checkoff deductions by an employer.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concluded, “VHS seems to care more about money than
its own employees at Desert Springs and Valley Hospi-
tals.” On August 9, Cassard responded that the flyer vio-
lated the language in the expired collective-bargaining
agreements providing that materials “critical” of the Re-
spondents could not be posted and that the flyer, if posted,
would be removed. On October 3, Troyano emailed Cas-
sard another bargaining update flyer that the Union in-
tended to post at the Hospitals. The flyer stated, in part:
“UHS Walks Out! ASK YOURSELF WHY?” and “Don’t
be Fooled! UHS want [sic] to get rid of our Union.” It
also listed several of the Respondents’ bargaining pro-
posals and asserted that “[w]e can’t believe” the Respond-
ents want to implement them. Cassard responded to
Troyano that the flyer “violates the contract” by mischar-
acterizing the Respondents’ conduct as “walk[ing] out” of
a bargaining session. On October 7, Troyano emailed a
third flyer the Union intended to post that stated, in part:
“UHS IS DICTATING YOUR RIGHTS!” Cassard re-
sponded by stating, “Same position as the last postings.
We do not authorize and will remove them.”
On October 11, two union representatives posted the
October 7 bargaining update and a second flyer about a
fall festival on the bulletin board in Desert Springs Hospi-
tal’s intermediate care unit breakroom. Desert Springs
Hospital’s Director of Nursing of the Intermediate Care
Unit Carol Dugan was immediately notified. She and De-
sert Springs Hospital’s Chief Nursing Officer Ellie
McNutt went to investigate. Soon thereafter, McNutt con-
tacted Cassard. Before leaving the breakroom to speak
privately with Cassard, Dugan removed the flyers from
the bulletin board. After discussing the matter with
Dugan, Cassard told the two union representatives that
they could post the fall festival flyer on the bulletin board
but not the October 7 bargaining update. On October 20,
Cassard notified the Union that another bargaining update
flyer posted on bulletin boards in employee break rooms
violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements and
stated that “we will remove any and all that are posted.”
The October 20 flyer was titled “VHS WALKS AGAIN!”
and claimed, “VHS is dragging its feet, forwarding unac-
ceptable contract proposals in an effort to draw out bar-
gaining and bust the Union. You deserve better.”
The judge found that the Respondents violated Section
8(a)(1) by requiring preapproval of, and denying the Un-
ion authorization to post, its August 9, October 3, October
7, and October 20 bargaining updates, and by removing
the October 7 bargaining update from the bulletin board at
Desert Springs Hospital on October 11. We reverse.
In the absence of discriminatory treatment, which has
not been alleged, the Union had no statutory right to use
the Respondents’ bulletin boards. See Honeywell, Inc.,
262 NLRB 1402, 1402 (1982), enfd. 722 F.2d 405 (8th
Cir. 1983); Container Corporation of America, 244
NLRB 318, 318 fn. 2 (1979). Even in the absence of a
statutory right, however, the Respondents were required
to maintain the status quo following the expiration of their
collective-bargaining agreements, under which the Union
possessed a right to post materials on the Respondents’
bulletin boards, subject to certain conditions. See Triple
A Fire Protection, Inc., 315 NLRB 409, 414 (1994)
(“When a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) expires,
an employer must maintain the status quo on all manda-
tory subjects of bargaining until the parties either agree on
a new contract or reach a good-faith impasse in negotia-
tions.”), enfd. 136 F.3d 727 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied
525 U.S. 1067 (1999). That is, the post-contract status quo
included both the right and the conditions limiting the
right.
In finding the violation, the judge relied on the Union’s
right of access to the bulletin boards in the employee break
rooms under the bulletin board provisions in the parties’
expired collective-bargaining agreements. He found that
this right of access privileged the Union to post its bar-
gaining updates. He deemed unpersuasive the Respond-
ents’ reliance on the portion of the bulletin board provi-
sions specifying that any union posting could not be “crit-
ical of the hospital.” The judge reasoned that, if read lit-
erally, the prohibition against union postings “critical” of
the Respondents could include “nearly any pro-union
posting” and would have “the practical result of giving the
[Respondents] unfettered censorship of the [U]nion’s
message.” The judge found that this would tend to have a
“chilling and coercive effect” on employees’ exercise of
their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
We disagree with the judge’s analysis and 8(a)(1) find-
ing. The status quo was defined by the terms of the now-
expired contracts, and the judge abandoned the parties’
agreed-upon contractual terms as to what materials the
Union would be allowed to post on the Respondents’ bul-
letin boards. Here, the parties agreed that the Union could
not post materials “critical” of the Respondents, and the
Respondents reasonably interpreted the Union’s August 9,
October 3, October 7, and October 20 bargaining updates
as being exactly that. Accordingly, because there was no
discriminatory treatment and the Union never had a con-
tractual right to post its bargaining updates, the
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 5
Respondents did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by barring the
Union from posting them on their bulletin boards.17
IV. ALLEGED PROMISE OF BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS
In late January or early February 2017, after an em-
ployee filed a petition with Region 28 to decertify the Un-
ion as the representative of the Valley Hospital bargaining
unit, UHS Staff Vice President Schmid and Corona Re-
gional Medical Center Progressive Care Unit Director
Wendi Reyes held a mandatory meeting with bargaining
unit employees at Valley Hospital. Reyes told the em-
ployees that Corona Regional Medical Center employees
“voted the union out and then they got a better administra-
tion because better administrators only go to nonunion
hospital[s]” and that “union hospitals were restricted in
getting good administrators because those administrators
could not do what they wanted to do.”
The judge found that Reyes’ statement, viewed in the
context of Schmid’s unlawful statements made at the same
meeting promising bargaining unit employees wage in-
creases if they decertified the Union and conveying to
them the futility of union representation, violated Section
8(a)(1) because it had the “intended effect” of discourag-
ing employees from supporting the Union by directly
promising better working conditions if they withdrew
their support. We disagree that the Respondent, by Reyes’
statement, violated Section 8(a)(1).
First, the judge inappropriately relied on what he as-
sumed was Reyes’ intention in making the statement. See
Webasto Sunroofs, Inc., 342 NLRB 1222, 1223 (2004)
(“The basic test for an 8(a)(1) violation is whether the em-
ployer engaged in conduct, regardless of intent, which rea-
sonably tends to interfere with the free exercise of em-
ployee rights under the Act.”). Second, Reyes may law-
fully express her opinion as to the advantages and disad-
vantages of union representation so long as those com-
ments “contain[] no threat of reprisal or force or promise
of benefit.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(c); see also NLRB v. Gissel
Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969) (“[A]n employer
is free to communicate to his employees any of his general
views about unionism or any of his specific views about a
particular union, so long as the communications do not
contain a ‘threat of reprisal or force or promise of bene-
fit.’”). That is what occurred here.

17 The judge relied on Roll & Hold Warehouse & Distribution Corp.,
in which the Board adopted the finding that “employees have no statu-
tory right to use an employer’s bulletin boards but that if permission is
granted, it must not be accorded selectively and disparately to prevent
union postings whereas other nonbusiness postings are permitted.” 325
NLRB 41, 51 (1997). However, that case is inapposite because the par-
ties in that case had not contractually agreed to limit the type of materials
the union could post.
The General Counsel alleged in the complaint that the Respondents’
refusal to permit the Union to post its bargaining updates on their bulletin
Reyes communicated to employees her opinion that, at
a hospital where she used to work, the quality of adminis-
trators improved after employees there decertified a union.
Reyes also offered her opinion that better administrators
prefer nonunion hospitals because, in that environment,
they have a freer hand to do what they want. Reyes did
not threaten employees with worse administrators if they
continued supporting the Union or promise them better ad-
ministrators if they decertified the Union. Indeed, no rea-
sonable employee would have understood Reyes to prom-
ise anything. She was expressing an opinion about where
good administrators choose to go, not promising that Val-
ley Hospital would recruit better administrators if em-
ployees decertified the Union. Accordingly, we find that
Reyes’ statements did not constitute a promise of better
working conditions should employees decertify the Un-
ion.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 2:
“2. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section
8(a)(1) by confiscating union literature.”
2. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 4:
“4. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) by unilaterally changing its practice of allowing union
representatives to speak to more than two bargaining unit
employees at a time.”
3. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 5:
“5. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) by unilaterally changing when union representatives
could address new employees at their orientation.”
4. Insert the following for Conclusion of Law 20:
“20. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by 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 collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the Respondent Valley’s unit employees.”
5. Delete Conclusions of Law 1, 3, 7, 10, and 19 and
renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
boards also violated Sec. 8(a)(5). The judge did not pass on that allega-
tion, and no party excepted to the absence of a finding. Had this allega-
tion been before us, we would have dismissed it for the same reasons
explained above. Namely, the parties agreed that the Respondents could
unilaterally prohibit the posting of materials “critical” of the Respond-
ents, this agreed-upon contractual term continued as part of the status
quo following expiration of the collective-bargaining agreements, and
the Respondents’ post-expiration conduct was consistent with that status
quo.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and (1) of the Act, we shall order the Respondents to cease
and desist from engaging in such conduct and to take cer-
tain steps to effectuate the policies of the Act.
To remedy their unlawful withdrawal of recognition
from the Union, the Respondents must bargain on request
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of employees in the appropriate bargaining
units and embody any understanding reached in signed
agreements.18 The Respondents are required to meet to
negotiate with the Union at reasonable times and reasona-
ble places. The Respondents must also rescind their uni-
lateral changes to unit employees’ terms and conditions of
employment. In accordance with Board practice and eq-
uitable considerations, however, we will condition rescis-
sion of the unlawful unilateral wage increases on a request
from the Union that they do so. The Respondents shall
also post appropriate informational notices, as described
in the attached appendices.
We find merit in the Union’s exception to the judge’s
failure to order the Respondents to read the remedial no-
tice aloud to employees. Although notice reading is an
extraordinary remedy, we believe it is warranted here.
Based on unsubstantiated evidence obtained from an un-
secure website, the Respondents withdrew recognition
from the Union, and then immediately granted employees
a wage increase, which would predictably undermine un-
ion support. Further demonstrating disdain of employees’
Section 7 rights, Respondent Desert Springs permitted a
nonemployee to sit inside the hospital as its apparent agent
and solicit employees to decertify the Union. In addition,
the Respondents committed a number of other violations
of the Act, including additional unilateral changes and in-
dependent 8(a)(1) violations. In these circumstances, we
find that a public reading of the remedial notice is an “‘ef-
fective but moderate way to let in a warming wind of in-
formation and, more important, reassurance’” to the

18 Although the Respondents have excepted generally to the judge’s
recommended Order, they have not specifically excepted to the para-
graphs requiring the Respondents to “bargain in good faith with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative” of the employ-
ees in each of the three bargaining units. Accordingly, we find it unnec-
essary to provide a justification for that remedy. See Scepter, Inc. v.
NLRB, 280 F.3d 1053, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Exxel/Atmos, Inc. v. NLRB,
147 F.3d 972, 978 (D.C. Cir. 1998); SKC Electric, Inc., 350 NLRB 857,
862 fn. 15 (2007); Heritage Container, Inc., 334 NLRB 455, 455 fn. 4
(2001).
The Respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(5) not only by withdrawing
recognition from the Union, but also by unilaterally changing unit em-
ployees’ terms and conditions of employment. To remedy the latter
8(a)(5) violation, the Board typically issues a so-called limited bargain-
ing order requiring the employer, before making any further changes in
employment terms, to give the union notice and opportunity to bargain.
See American Security Programs, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 151 (2019).
Here, however, to remedy the withdrawal of recognition, we are issuing
an affirmative bargaining order, which will require the Respondents to
bargaining unit employees that their rights under the Act
will not be violated in the future. See United States Ser-
vice Industries, 319 NLRB 231, 232 (1995) (quoting J.P.
Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 417 F.2d 533, 540 (5th Cir.
1969)), enfd. 107 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1997). We shall
accordingly order the Respondents to hold a meeting or
meetings during working hours at their Las Vegas, Ne-
vada facilities, scheduled to ensure the widest possible at-
tendance of bargaining unit employees, at which the ap-
propriate notice is to be read to unit employees by a high-
ranking responsible management official of the Respond-
ents in the presence of a Board agent and a union repre-
sentative if the Region or the Union so desires, or, at the
Respondents’ option, by a Board agent in the presence of
a high-ranking responsible management official and, if the
Union so desires, a union representative.19
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that Re-
spondent Valley Health System, LLC d/b/a Desert Springs
Hospital Medical Center, Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Withdrawing recognition from Service Employees
International Union, Local 1107 (the Union) and failing
and refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its bargaining unit
employees.
(b) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its bargaining unit employees by granting
them wage increases without first notifying the Union and
giving it an opportunity to bargain.
(c) Confiscating union literature from breakroom ta-
bles.
(d) Soliciting bargaining unit employees to support de-
certification of the Union.
resume bargaining for agreements to succeed those that expired in 2016.
And
when . . . the parties are engaged in negotiations, an employer’s obli-
gation to refrain from unilateral changes extends beyond the mere
duty to give notice and an opportunity to bargain; it encompasses a
duty to refrain from implementation at all, unless and until an overall
impasse has been reached on bargaining for the agreement as a whole.
Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373, 374 (1991), enfd. mem. sub
nom. Master Window Cleaning, Inc. v. NLRB, 15 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.
1994). In these circumstances, a limited bargaining order would imply a
right of unilateral action—once notice and opportunity to bargain have
been given—inconsistent with Bottom Line Enterprises. Accordingly,
we will dispense with that remedy here.
19 Member Emanuel would find that a notice-reading remedy is un-
warranted in this case. He does not believe the Respondents’ violations
are “so numerous and serious” as to render the Board’s standard notice-
posting remedy insufficient to dissipate their effects, nor do they rise to
an “egregious” level of misconduct. See Postal Service, 339 NLRB
1162, 1163 (2003).
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 7
(e) Placing bargaining unit employees under surveil-
lance while they engage in union or other protected con-
certed activities.
(f) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its bargaining unit employees by prohibit-
ing union representatives from meeting with them while
nonbargaining unit employees are present.
(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 ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request by the Union, bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit concerning
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement:
[A]ll Registered Nurses employed by the hospital, in-
cluding all relief charge nurses, but excluding all other
employees, guards and supervisors, including all charge
nurses, as defined in the Act.
(b) On request by the Union, bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit concerning
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement:
[A]ll technicians and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN)
employed by the hospital; but excluding all other em-
ployees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
(c) On request by the Union, rescind the changes in the
terms and conditions of employment for its bargaining
unit employees that were unilaterally implemented.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Las Vegas, Nevada facility copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix A.”20 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily

20 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
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business
or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former em-
ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since
October 11, 2016.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, hold a
meeting or meetings during working hours at the Desert
Springs Hospital Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada,
scheduled to ensure the widest possible attendance of bar-
gaining unit employees, at which the attached notice
marked “Appendix A” will be read to the employees by a
high-ranking responsible management official of the Re-
spondent in the presence of a Board agent and a union rep-
resentative or, at the Respondent’s option, by a Board
agent in the presence of a high-ranking responsible man-
agement official of the Respondent and, if the Union so
desires, a union representative.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 28 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that Re-
spondent Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Val-
ley Hospital Medical Center, Las Vegas, Nevada, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Withdrawing recognition from Service Employees
International Union, Local 1107 (the Union) and failing
and refusing to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its bargaining unit
employees.
(b) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its bargaining unit employees by granting
them wage increases without first notifying the Union and
giving it an opportunity to bargain.
(c) Promising bargaining unit employees wage in-
creases if they decertified the Union.
(d) Threatening bargaining unit employees that retain-
ing their union representation would be futile.
(e) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its bargaining unit employees by prohibit-
ing union representatives from meeting with more than
two bargaining unit employees at a time.
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(f) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its bargaining unit employees by prevent-
ing union representatives from speaking at new employee
orientations.
(g) 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 collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the Respondent’s bargaining unit employ-
ees.
(h) 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) On request by the Union, bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit concerning
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a signed
agreement:
[A]ll Registered Nurses (RNs) employed by the hospi-
tal, but excluding all other employees, guards and super-
visors, as defined in the Act.
(b) On request by the Union, rescind the changes in the
terms and conditions of employment for its bargaining
unit employees that were unilaterally implemented.
(c) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on January 31, 2017.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Las Vegas, Nevada facility copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix B.”21 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business
or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a

21 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
copy of the notice to all current employees and former em-
ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since
January 27, 2017.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, hold a
meeting or meetings during working hours at the Valley
Hospital Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, scheduled
to ensure the widest possible attendance of bargaining unit
employees, at which the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix B” will be read to the employees by a high-ranking
responsible management official of the Respondent in the
presence of a Board agent and a union representative or,
at the Respondent’s option, by a Board agent in the pres-
ence of a high-ranking responsible management official of
the Respondent and, if the Union so desires, a union rep-
resentative.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 28 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 30, 2020
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
_____________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
_____________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
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 vi-
olated 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
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 9
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 withdraw recognition from Service Em-
ployees International Union, Local 1107 (the Union) and
fail and refuse to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our bargaining unit
employees.
WE WILL NOT change our bargaining unit employees’
terms and conditions of employment by granting them
wage increases without first notifying the Union and giv-
ing it an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT confiscate union literature from break-
room tables.
WE WILL NOT solicit you to support decertification of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT place you under surveillance while you
engage in union or other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change our bargaining unit
employees’ terms and conditions of employment by pro-
hibiting union representatives from meeting with them
while nonbargaining unit employees are present.
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, on request by the Union, bargain with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the following appropriate unit con-
cerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement:
[A]ll Registered Nurses employed by the hospital, in-
cluding all relief charge nurses, but excluding all other
employees, guards and. supervisors, including all charge
nurses, as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, bargain with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the following appropriate unit con-
cerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement:
[A]ll technicians and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN)
employed by the hospital; but excluding all other em-
ployees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, rescind the changes
in the terms and conditions of employment for our bar-
gaining unit employees that were unilaterally imple-
mented.
DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-184993 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
APPENDIX B
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 vi-
olated 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 withdraw recognition from Service Em-
ployees International Union, Local 1107 (the Union) and
fail and refuse to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our bargaining unit
employees.
WE WILL NOT change our bargaining unit employees’
terms and conditions of employment by granting them
wage increases without first notifying the Union and giv-
ing it an opportunity to bargain.
10 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT promise you wage increases if you decer-
tify the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that retaining your union
representation would be futile.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change our bargaining unit
employees’ terms and conditions of employment by pro-
hibiting union representatives from meeting with more
than two of them at a time.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change our bargaining unit
employees’ terms and conditions of employment by pre-
venting union representatives from speaking at new em-
ployee orientations.
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 collective-bargaining
representative of our bargaining 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, on request by the Union, bargain with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the following appropriate unit con-
cerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement:
[A]ll Registered Nurses (RNs) employed by the hospi-
tal, but excluding all other employees, guards and super-
visors, as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, rescind the changes
in the terms and conditions of employment for our bar-
gaining unit employees that were unilaterally imple-
mented.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by the Union on January 31, 2017.
VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-184993 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Sara Demirok Esq., and Stephen Kopstein, Esq., for the General
Counsel.
Jonathan Cohen, Esq. (Rothner, Segall & Greenstone), for the
Charging Party.
Thomas H. Keim, Jr., Esq., and Henry F. Warnock Esq. (Ford
Harrison LLP), for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DICKIE MONTEMAYOR, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried before me over a 9-day period between July 3, 2017,
and September 26, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Charging Party
(Union) filed charges on September 23, 2016, December 12,
2016, December 22, 2016, January 6, 2017, February 2, 2017,
February 21, 2017, March 2, 2017, March 3, 2017, March 7,
2107, March 14, 2017, March 21, 2017, April 24, 2017, May 18,
2017. October 20, 2014, and April 3, 2015, and an amended
charge dated May 5, 2015, alleging violations by Respondents,
Valley Health System LLC, d/b/a Desert Springs Hospital Med-
ical Center, and Valley Hospital Medical Center Inc., d/b/a Val-
ley Hospital Medical Center (Respondents) of Section 8(a) (5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the
Act). A consolidated complaint was issued on March 7, 2017.
Respondents on March 20, 2017, filed an answer to the consoli-
dated complaint denying that they violated the Act. A second
consolidated complaint issued on June 5, 2017. Respondents
filed an answer on June 19, 2017. At the hearing, counsel for the
General Counsel’s motion to amend the second consolidated
complaint to add other allegations was granted. Similarly, the
General Counsel’s motion to consolidate 28–CA–201519 was
granted. (CG Exh. 1 (ccc), and 1 (fff). Respondents filed an
answer on September 6, 2017. Respondents denied that they vi-
olated the Act in any respect. I find that Respondents violated
the Act regarding some but not all of the allegations alleged.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The complaints allege, and I find that
1.(a) At all material times, Respondent Desert Springs has
been a limited liability company with a place of business in Las
Vegas, Nevada, and has been operating a hospital and medical
center providing medical care.
(b) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period
ending September 23, 2106, Respondent purchased and re-
ceived at Respondent Desert Springs facility goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the state of Ne-
vada.
(c) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 11
ending September 23, 2106, Respondent Desert derived gross
revenues in excess of $250,000.
(d) At all material times, Respondent has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act and has been a health care institution within
the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
(e) At all material times, Respondent Valley Hospital has been
a corporation with a place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and has been operating a hospital and medical center providing
medical care.
(f) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period
ending September 23, 2106, Respondent purchased and re-
ceived at Respondent Valley Hospital’s facility goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the state of
Nevada.
(g) In conducting its operations during the 12-month period
ending September 23, 2106, Respondent Valley Hospital de-
rived gross revenues in excess of $250,000.
(h) At all material times, Respondent has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act and has been a health care institution within
the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
2. At all material times, the Union has been a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all material times, Wayne Cassard held the position of
System Director, Human Resources for Respondents and has
been a supervisor of Respondents within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(11) of the Act and an agent of Respondents within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
4. At all material times, the following individuals held the po-
sitions set forth opposite their respective names and have been
supervisors of Respondent Desert Springs within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent Desert
Springs within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Carol Dugan - Director of Nursing
Ellie McNutt - Chief Nursing Officer
Lori Reynolds- Director of Surgical Services
5. At all material times, the following individuals held the po-
sitions set forth opposite their respective names and have been
supervisors of Respondent Valley within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent Valley within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Shawn Melly - Clinical Supervisor
Kim Crocker - Nurse Manager
Victoria Barnthouse - Chief Nursing Officer
Dana Thorne - Human Resource Director
6. At all material times, Jeanne Schmid held the position of
Staff Vice President of Labor Relations and has been a super-
visor of Respondent Valley within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act and an agent of Respondent Valley within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
7. At all material times, Wendi Reyes held the position of Pro-
gressive Care Unit Director at Corona Regional Medical Cen-
ter and has been an agent of Respondent Valley within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
8.(a) The following employees of Respondent Desert Springs
(the Desert Springs RN Unit) constituted a unit appropriate for
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act prior to the withdrawal of recognition the validity of which
is contested and the subject of this litigation:
All Registered Nurses employed by the hospital, includ-
ing all relief charge nurses, but excluding all other em-
ployees, guards and supervisors, including all charge
nurses, as defined in the Act.
(b) On October 3, 1994, the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Desert
Springs RN Unit.
(c) Since about October 3, 1994, and at all material times, Re-
spondent Desert Springs has recognized the Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the Desert
Springs RN Unit. This recognition has been embodied in suc-
cessive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of
which was effective from May 1, 2013, to April 30, 2016 (the
Desert Springs RN Agreement).
(d) At all times since about October 3, 1994, based on Section
9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Desert Springs RN Unit.
(e) The following employees of Respondent Desert Springs
(the Desert Springs Technical Unit) constituted a unit appropri-
ate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act prior to the withdrawal of recognition the validity of
which is contested and the subject of this litigation:
All technicians and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN)
employed by the hospital, but excluding all other em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(f) On October 3, 1994, the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Desert
Springs Technical Unit.
(g) Since about October 3, 1994, and at all material times, Re-
spondent Desert Springs has recognized the Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the Desert
Springs Technical Unit. This recognition has been embodied
in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most re-
cent of which was effective from June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2016
(the Desert Springs Technical Agreement).
(h) At all times since about October 3, 1994, based on Section
9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Desert Springs Technical Unit.
(i) The following employees of Respondent Valley (the Valley
RN Unit) constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All Registered Nurses (RNs) employed by the hospital,
but excluding all other employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(j) On July 12, 1999, the Board certified the Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the Valley RN
Unit.
(k) Since about July 12, 1999, and at all material times, Re-
spondent Valley recognized the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Valley RN Unit. This
recognition has been embodied in successive collective-
12 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was effective
from June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2016 (the Valley RN Agree-
ment, collectively with the Desert Springs RN Agreement and
the Desert Springs Technical Agreement, the Agreements).
(l) At all times since about July 12, 1999, based on Section 9(a)
of the Act, the Union had been the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the Valley RN Unit.
(m) The Desert Springs RN Agreement and the Desert Springs
Technical Agreement each contained the following provision:
The hospital will provide a 2 foot by 4 foot section of a locked
glass enclosed bulletin board located in the hospital’s cafeteria
and a second bulletin board at least 18 inches by 24 inches lo-
cated in the immediate vicinity of the time clock near the main
entrance to the facility for the Union’s use in posting of mate-
rials related to Union business. The hospital will also provide
the Union access to a portion of the bulletin boards in employee
break rooms regularly utilized by bargaining unit employees.
If existing bulletin boards do not have an area that is at least 18
X 24 inches for Union use, the Union can provide 18 X 24 inch
bulletin boards to the hospital, which the hospital will mount
for the Union’s use. The portion of these existing bulletin
boards accessible by the Union will be at least 18 X 24 inches.
Any materials posted must be dated and signed by the Union
representative responsible for the posting and a copy of the ma-
terial being posted will be hand delivered to the Human Re-
source Director, or his/her designee, prior to posting. No mate-
rial which contains personal attacks upon any other member or
any other employee or which is critical of the hospital, its man-
agement, or its policies or practices, will be posted. Employees
will not be precluded from accessing that portion of the bulletin
boards located in break rooms for posting union related mate-
rials as provided above.
(n) The Valley RN Agreement contained the following provi-
sion:
(1) Bulletin Boards
The hospital provides an enclosed bulletin board located in the
hospital’s cafeteria. The hospital will also provide the Union
access to a portion of the bulletin boards in employee break
rooms regularly utilized by bargaining unit employees. If the
existing bulletin boards do not have an area for Union use, the
Union can provide bulletin boards to the Hospital, which the
Hospital will mount for the Union’s use, no larger than 18x24
inches. Any materials being posted must be dated and signed
by the Union representative responsible for the posting and a
copy of the material being posted will be hand delivered to the
Human Resources Administrator or his/her designee, for re-
view, prior to posting. No material which contains personal
attacks upon any other member or any other employee or
which is critical of the hospital, its management, or its policies
or practices, will be posted. Employees will not be precluded
from accessing that portion of the bulletin boards located in
break rooms for posting union related materials as provided
above.
(2) New Employee Orientation
The Union will be granted access to new employee orientations
for the purpose of a fifteen (15) minute talk regarding the Union
and the distribution of a Union information packet to all bar-
gaining unit eligible employees. The packet and orientation
discussion shall not contain any material derogatory towards
the employer or critical of the services the Employer provides.
The Employer will be absent from the room during the Union
portion of new employee orientation. The union will provide
the Employer with a copy of any written materials used or dis-
tributed by the Union during the new employee orientation at
least seven (7) days in advance of their use, including any mod-
ifications to such materials.
(o) The Agreements also contained each of the following pro-
visions:
(1) Union Access
The hospital shall allow duly authorized representatives of the
Union to visit the hospital to ascertain whether a provision of
the Agreement is being observed, to assist in adjusting griev-
ances, to confer with individual bargaining unit employees, to
participate in committees, and to facilitate patient care and
staffing committee studies. Notification of each such visit will
be made at least three (3) hours in advance, unless considered
an emergency. If the lack of a 3 hour notice is deemed an emer-
gency by the Union, the Union will give an explanation to the
hospital as to the reason the notice period could not be given.
The hospital will not unreasonably deny such request. Such no-
tification must be specific as to date and timeframe. Upon arri-
val at the hospital the representative will notify the Human Re-
sources Administrator, or Nursing Supervisor, if such visitation
occurs in the evening or on a weekend, of his/her presence. The
representatives will also notify the Human Resource Adminis-
trator or Nursing Supervisor when he or she departs the facility.
The hospital shall issue two permanent badges to the union.
Union representatives will wear this badge at all times when
conducting union business in the hospital.
Access to the hospital shall be limited to meeting rooms se-
lected by the hospital for grievance meetings or for the Union
Representative’s use in meeting with grievants on their non-
working time. In addition, no more than two Union represent-
atives may meet with individual employee in employee break
rooms regularly utilized by bargaining unit employees’ cafete-
ria, lobby, and other outdoor break areas. If it is necessary for
the Representative to examine a working area of the hospital in
order to investigate a grievance, permission to enter and exam-
ine the area will be granted by the Human Resources Adminis-
trator or Nursing Supervisor, as appropriate. In such cases, a
management representative may accompany the Union Repre-
sentative at all times while in any working area of the Hospital.
There shall be no interference with patient care or the work of
any employee. Union business shall not be conducted in hall-
ways or other work areas. The Hospital will provide the Union
with reasonable access to a conference room, subject to availa-
bility. The above access rights shall be limited to official union
business related to the bargaining unit and shall not be used to
engage in union organizing activity, solicit, or distribute litera-
ture to non-bargaining unit employees.
(2) Enforcement of Access Provisions
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 13
If the Union representatives fail to abide by the provisions of
this Article, the hospital shall notify the Union and the repre-
sentative of the date and nature of the violation. If the Union
disputes the claim of the violation, at the Union’s request, the
parties will meet within forty-eight (48) hours to attempt to dis-
cuss and resolve the issue in good faith. If after the same repre-
sentative has been given notice no less than three times of a
violation and the violations have not been resolved in good
faith to the satisfaction of the Hospital, then the Hospital may
notify the Union that the representative is barred from the fa-
cility for ten (10) days. Immediately upon barring said repre-
sentative, the Union may submit the matter to expedited arbi-
tration. The arbitrator will come from the permanent panel as
described in Article 21 of this agreement. If the arbitration can-
not take place within ten (10) days, the Hospital will permit the
representative into the hospital until such time as the arbitrator
can make an immediate “bench” ruling on themerits of the
complaint; provided, however, that if the representative com-
mits another violation during such time the representative will
be barred until a ruling is obtained from an arbitrator. If the ar-
bitrator determines that a Union representative has repeatedly
violated the limitations on access, the Arbitrator will fashion an
appropriate remedy regarding the limitations or suspension of
access rights for the specific Union representative. If the arbi-
trator determines that Management representatives have re-
peatedly violated the limitations on access, the arbitrator will
fashion an appropriate remedy sufficient to enforce these
rights. The parties will exercise due diligence to conduct the
arbitration within fourteen (14) or less days from the date of the
union request.
The hospital provides an enclosed bulletin board located in the
hospital’s cafeteria. The hospital will also provide the Union
access to a portion of the bulletin boards in employee break
rooms regularly utilized by bargaining unit employees. If the
existing bulletin boards do not have an area for Union use, the
Union can provide bulletin boards to the Hospital, which the
Hospital will mount for the Union’s use, no larger than 18x24
inches. Any materials being posted must be dated and signed
by the Union representative responsible for the posting and a
copy of the material being posted will be hand delivered to the
Human Resources Administrator or his/her designee, for re-
view, prior to posting. No material which contains personal
attacks upon any other member or any other employee or
which is critical of the hospital, its management, or its policies
or practices, will be posted. Employees will not be precluded
from accessing that portion of the bulletin boards located in
break rooms for posting union related materials as provided
above.
9. About the following dates, Respondents, by Wayne Cassard
(Cassard), via email to the Union, informed the Union that bar-
gaining updates provided by the Union to Cassard to be posted
to the Union’s bulletin boards at Respondents’ facilities vio-
lated the Agreements and would be removed:
(1) August 9, 2016;
(2) October 7, 2016; and
(3) October 20, 2016.
10. About October 3, 2016, Respondents, by Cassard, via
email to the Union, informed the Union that bargaining updates
provided by the Union to Cassard to be posted to the Union’s
bulletin boards at Respondents’ facilities violated the Agree-
ments and instructed the Union not to post the updates.
11.(a) About February 19, 2017, Respondent Valley increased
the wages of its employees in the Valley RN Unit.
(b) About March 19, 2017, Respondent Desert Springs in-
creased the wages of its employees in the Desert Springs RN
Unit and the Desert Springs Technical Unit.
(c) Respondents engaged in the conduct described above in
paragraphs 6(a) through 6(h), 6(j)(1), and 7(a) through 7(b)
without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with Re-
spondents with respect to this conduct and the effects of this
conduct and without first bargaining with the Union to an over-
all good-faith impasse for successor collective-bargaining
agreements.
(d) Since about January 31, 2017, the Union has requested, in
writing, that Respondent Valley furnish the Union with the fol-
lowing information pertaining to employees in the Valley RN
Unit: employee job classification, name, address, telephone
number(s), email or other electronic address, and department
where employee works.
(e) Since about January 31, 2017, Respondent Valley failed
and refused to furnish the Union with the information requested
by it as described above in paragraphs 7(f) and 7(g).
(f) About February 17, 2017, Respondent Valley withdrew its
recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Valley RN Unit.
(g) Since about February 17, 2017, Respondent Valley failed
and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the Valley RN
Unit.
(h) About March 12, 2017, Respondent Desert Springs with-
drew its recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Desert Springs RN Unit.
(i) Since about March 12, 2017, Respondent Desert Springs
failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Desert
Springs RN Unit.
(j) About March 18, 2017, Respondent Desert Springs with-
drew its recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Desert Springs Technical Unit.
(k) Since about March 18, 2017, Respondent Desert Springs
failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Desert
Springs Technical Unit.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondents are two acute care hospitals in Las Vegas – Val-
ley Hospital Medical Center (Valley) and Desert Springs Hospi-
tal Medical Center (Desert Springs Springs) (together the “Hos-
pitals” or “Respondents”). They are part of the Valley Health
System which owns and operates the hospitals. Universal Health
Services (UHS) owns and operates Valley Health System (VHS).
Service Employees International Union, Local 1107 (“the Un-
ion”) represented employees in three separate bargaining units
14 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
composed of nurses at Valley (the Valley RN Unit), nurses at
Desert Springs (The Desert Springs RN Unit) and technical em-
ployees at Desert Springs (the Desert Springs Technical Unit).
The Union was certified as the representative of Desert Springs
nurses and technical employees in October 1994, and Valley
nurses in July 1999. On April 30, 2016, the collective-bargain-
ing agreements (CBAs) for the Desert Springs RN Unit expired,
and on May 31, 2016, the CBAs for the Valley RN unit and De-
sert Springs Technical Unit also expired. Upon the expiration of
these agreements the union and the Respondents began successor
negotiations for all three bargaining units.
1. Respondents Unilaterally Stop All Dues Deductions
The parties’ expired CBAs contained provisions for dues de-
ductions if in fact employees authorized such. (GC Ex. 12, 13,
14). Nevertheless, on September 4, 2016, Respondents through
their counsel Thomas Keim (Keim) sent the Union a letter in-
forming it that the Respondents would cease deductions begin-
ning Friday September 23, 2016. The letter citing Section 302
of the “LMRDA” asserted that the form was “missing explicit
language required” by the statute. (Resp. Exh. 22). The letter
further noted:
“Section 302(c)(4) provides that employers are authorized to
make dues deductions as long as the employees authorization
shall not be revocable for a period of more than one year, or
beyond the termination of the applicable collective agreement,
whichever occurs sooner.” Therefore our conclusion is that we
are not properly authorized to make dues deductions for dues
based on the missing language concerning the expiration of the
applicable collective agreement. (Resp. Exh. 22).
The letter advised that Respondents had, “reviewed a sam-
pling of employee dues authorizations submitted over the last 6
months and none of the authorizations contain the statutorily
mandated language and invited the Union to provide it with any
authority to establish that the authorization complied with the
statutory requirements.” (Resp. Exh. 22).
The dues deduction authorization cards referenced in the letter
contained the following language:
This authorization shall remain in effect and shall be irrevoca-
ble unless I revoke it by sending written notice to both the Em-
ployer and the Union by registered mail during a period from
October 1-15 on each year of the agreement and shall be auto-
matically renewed as an irrevocable check-off from year to
year unless revoked as hereinabove provided, irrespective of
whether I am a Union member. (Resp. Exh. 1).
In keeping with Respondents invitation, the Union on Septem-
ber 15, 2016, responded to Keim’s letter. It began by noting that
the “LMRDA” section cited by Respondents did not apply to un-
ion dues deduction. Then citing Section 302(c)(4) of the LMRA
took the position that, “nothing in Section 302(c)(4) of the
LMRA requires that the dues authorization from (sic) expressly
state that the dues deduction shall not be revocable for a period
of more than one year or beyond the termination date of the ap-
plicable collective bargaining agreement, whichever is sooner.
Section 302(c)(4) only requires that the employer (Desert
Springs and Valley) receive a written assignment for dues and
that it not be revocable for a period of more than one year or the
term of the collective bargaining agreement.” (Resp. Ex. 23).
The union further elaborated on its position by noting that, “De-
sert Springs and Valley have received the required written as-
signments signed by bargaining unit employees and they have
the language that it is not revocable for a period of more than 1
year. In addition, each of the collective-bargaining agreements
provide for the payroll deduction or union dues is applicable
“during the life of the Agreement.” (Resp. Exh. 23).
On September 19, 2016, Keim responded to the union by reit-
erating Respondents’ contention that it did not have valid em-
ployee assignments to deduct dues. Keim set forth its position
that refusal to deduct dues, “based on an invalid authorization is
not a unilateral change.” (Resp. Exh. 24). Keim also attached
sample dues assignment forms of other labor organizations
which it viewed as valid. (Resp. Exh. 24).
On September 20, 2016, Dana Thorne sent a letter to all bar-
gaining unit nurses at Valley Hospital advising them that effec-
tive September 23, 2016, union dues would not be deducted un-
less the Hospital received valid dues authorization. (GC Exh.
29). The letter reiterated Keim’s position that the authorizations
were invalid stating, “although you may resign from the union at
any time, the only time you can stop paying dues is within the
once yearly opt out period. Upon review of the SEIU Local 1107
payroll deduction authorization, the Hospital has discovered that
the authorization lacks specifically required language from the
law.” (GC Exh. 29). Attached to the letter was a notice in ques-
tion and answer format advising employees of :1) the purpose of
the notice, 2) why it was happening, and 3) what is a valid au-
thorization for the deduction of union dues. This notice set forth
plainly what Respondents viewed as the defect in the authoriza-
tions namely, “the current authorization does not contain the stat-
utorily required language concerning the ability to revoke the au-
thorization at the termination date of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.” (GC Exh. 29 p. 2). On September 20, 2016, Wayne
Cassard sent the identical letter to all Desert Springs employees
in both the nursing and technical bargaining units. (GC Exh. 16).
On September 22, 2016, the Union responded by asserting that
the Respondents were engaging in a unilateral change and de-
manded that the employer bargain over the change before Re-
spondents stop deducting dues. (Resp. Exh. 25).
On September 23, 2016, Respondents ceased deducting dues
for all bargaining unit members without engaging in any bargain-
ing with the union over the matter.
(a) Respondents Unilateral Action was unlawful.
Section 302 (c)(4) makes it a crime for an employer to give
payments to a union but makes an exception for dues check-off
authorizations. The exception is set forth as follows:
That the employer has received from each employee, on whose
account such deductions are made, a written assignment which
shall not be irrevocable for a period of more than one year, or
beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agree-
ment, whichever occurs sooner. 29 USC Section 186(c)(4).
Respondents rely on a brief submitted by the General Counsel
in Stewart v. NLRB, 851 F. 3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 2017), to support its
position. However, in view of the fact that the court did not
openly adopt the referenced position in that case and instead
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 15
remanded the matter back to the Board, I decline Respondents
invitation to rely upon the brief or its rationale in reaching my
conclusions. (Resp. Br. at 66–70).
While some of the questions in the case remain murky, courts
have provided some useful guidance in addressing the questions
presented. For example, in Local Joint Executive Board of Las
Vegas v. NLRB, 657 F.3d 865 (9th. Cir. 2011), the court specifi-
cally referenced Section 302(c)(4) in finding:
We see nothing in the NLRA that limits the duration of dues-
check offs to the duration of a CBA in the absence of union
security. Moreover, other statutory provisions suggest the op-
posite. For instance, the Labor–Management Relations Act
provides that “a written assignment [for dues-check off] shall
not be irrevocable ... beyond the termination date of the appli-
cable collective agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(4). This pro-
vision would be surplusage if Congress believed that dues-
check off automatically terminated upon the expiration of a
CBA. See Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82
F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir.1996) (“We have long followed the prin-
ciple that ‘[s]tatutes should not be construed to make surplus-
age of any provision.’”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we conclude that in a right-to-work state, where
dues-check off does not exist to implement union security,
dues-check off is akin to any other term of employment that is
a mandatory subject of bargaining. Because each affected em-
ployee individually requested dues-check off, the Employers’
actions in this case were an unlawful termination of a bargained
benefit to employees, not merely the cessation of a provision
that automatically terminated along with the CBA and union
security. The Employers’ unilateral termination of dues-check
off in this case was thus “in effect a refusal to negotiate ... which
reflect[ed] a cast of mind against reaching agreement.” Katz,
369 U.S. at 747, 82 S.Ct. 1107. In ceasing dues-check off with-
out bargaining to impasse, the Employers therefore violated
section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA.
Worth emphasizing in the court’s decision is the important
point that dues authorizations are “individually requested.” In
this case, the evidence is undisputed that no individual requested
termination of dues nor is it disputed that the collective-bargain-
ing agreement’s language afforded them the right to do so after
termination. Respondents merely looked at a sample of authori-
zations and cancelled all “individually requested” authoriza-
tions. Current Board law does not appear to mandate changes in
dues check off forms upon expiration nor do they appear to priv-
ilege Respondents to unilaterally cease dues deductions that are
ambiguous regarding the applicable revocation periods. (Cp. Br.
at 49). In this case, as in Local Joint Executive, the dues author-
izations didn’t automatically terminate upon contract expiration
but remained valid. The only thing that changed upon expiration
is the employees gained a right to terminate dues check off at
will. Big V Supermarkets, 304 NLRB 952 (1991). A right which
they individually, and not the Respondent, acting on their behalf

1 Lincoln Lutheran of Racine unequivocally overruled Bethlehem
Steel, 136 NLRB 1500 (1962), remanded on other grounds sub nom.
Shipbuilding v. NLRB, 320 F.2d 615 (3d Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S.
984 (1964). In doing so, the Board specifically found that, “requiring
could exercise. As noted by the Board in Lincoln Lutheran of
Racine, 362 NLRB 1655 (2015)1:
An employer’s unilateral cancellation of dues check off when
a collective-bargaining agreement expires both undermines the
union’s status as the employees’ collective-bargaining repre-
sentative and creates administrative hurdles that can undermine
employee participation in the collective-bargaining process.
Cancellation of dues check off eliminates the employees’ ex-
isting, voluntarily-chosen mechanism for providing financial
support to the union. By definition, it creates a new obstacle to
employees who wish to maintain their union membership in
good standing. This is significant, because employees who fail
to take proactive steps to maintain their membership in the face
of this new administrative hurdle lose their right to participate
in the union’s internal affairs, including matters directly related
to the negotiations, such as the choice of a bargaining team,
setting bargaining goals, and strike-authorization and contract-
ratification votes. Such a change also interferes with the un-
ion’s ability to focus on bargaining, by forcing it to expend time
and resources creating and implementing an alternate mecha-
nism for dues collection during a critical bargaining period. Fi-
nally, an employer that unilaterally cancels dues check off
sends a powerful message to employees: namely, that the em-
ployer is free to interfere with the financial lifeline between em-
ployees and the union they have chosen to represent them. Be-
cause unilateral changes to dues check off undermine collective
bargaining no less than other unilateral changes, the status quo
rule should apply, unless there is some overriding ground for
an exception. As the Katz Court observed, an employer’s uni-
lateral change “will rarely be justified by any reason of sub-
stance.” 369 U.S. at 747. We see no such reason here.
It is well settled that dues check off relates to wages hours and
terms and conditions of employment and is a mandatory subject
of bargaining. Tribune Publishing Co., 351 NLRB 196 (2007).
It is undisputed that the union demanded that Respondents bar-
gain over the dues cessation, but Respondents refused. Accord-
ingly, I find that this failure to bargain violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
2. The October 11, 2016 Incident in the Desert Springs IMC
Break Room
On October 3, 2016, Lanita Troyano, a union official, sent
Wayne Cassard, the System Director for Human Resources, an
email advising him that the union would post the flyer that was
attached to the email. (GC Exh. 18). Cassard responded by ad-
vising in part that the flyer, “violates the contract you are not to
post at the facilities.” (GC Exh. 18). Troyano responded by ad-
vising, “we respectfully disagree and object to any removal of
the flyers.” On October 7, 2016, Troyano sent another email to
Casard advising him that the union intended to post the flyer at-
tached to the October 7 email at both Desert Springs and Valley
Hospital. (GC. Ex. 19). Cassard responded to the email by stat-
ing, “we do not authorize and will remove them.” (GC 19). On
employers to honor dues-check off arrangements after contract expira-
tion serves the Act’s goal of promoting collective bargaining, consistent
with longstanding Board precedent proscribing post contract unilateral
changes in terms and conditions of employment.” Id. at 188.
16 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
October 11, 2016, Union Representatives Randall Peters and
Amelia Gayton entered the Desert Springs IMC break room for
the purpose of posting flyers. The two flyers included the flyer
referenced in Troyano’s October 7, 2016, email and another re-
lated to the union’s upcoming fall festival. (Tr. 565). Peters ap-
proached the union bulletin board and began posting the flyers.
He and Gayton also placed a stack of flyers on the breakroom
table. After posting the information, he was approached by
Charge Nurse Bill Healy who asked if the flyers were approved.
Peters advised that it was in fact, “fully approved.” (Tr. 370).
Healy thereafter said he would check and left the room. Healy
contacted Desert Springs Nursing Director, Carol Dugan com-
plaining that, “they were laying a bunch of stuff on the table.”
(Tr. 656).
Dugan and Elllie McNutt, the Desert Springs Chief Nursing
Officer together went to investigate. Upon arrival, the conversa-
tion became heated with Duggan telling Peters and Gayton that
there were “too many people in the break room, you shouldn’t
be in here.” Gayton and Peters insisted that they had the right to
post flyers. Dugan advised she was going to call security. Gay-
ton called Toyano on her cell phone and put her on speakerphone
so that Duggan, “could back down a little bit because she was
yelling and screaming.” (Tr. 567). Gayton held the phone while
Troyano and Duggan spoke. McNutt called Cassard who arrived
shortly thereafter with two security guards. Cassard reviewed
the two flyers that were on the table. (Tr. 916). Peters and Gay-
ton were asked to step out of the break room and wait in an office
next door to the break room while Casard and Dugan discussed
the matter. Before leaving Duggan took the flyers off the bulle-
tin board and collected the ones that were on the table. (Tr. 372).
After discussing the matter, Cassard advised Peters and Gayton
that they could post the one flyer but not the other. After being
told that only one of the flyers had been approved, Peters and
Gayton returned to the break room to post the approved flyer and
replaced those flyers that had been removed from the table with
a copy of the one that was approved. (Tr.569, 570). After the
posting of the approved flyer, all of the involved parties left the
break room without further incident.
A few weeks later, Cassard on October 25, 2016, sent an email
to his supervisors advising supervisors to “take down the at-
tached flyer if the (sic) attempt to post or leave in the break
room.” (Resp. Exh. 11). This flyer was different than the flyer
Gayton and Peters attempted to post and dealt with the issue of
raises. At no time did the Hospitals ever file any grievances
related to the union’s literature.
(a) Duggan’s Confiscation of Union Literature
The Board has held that credibility issues may be resolved
with reference to the weight of the respective evidence, estab-
lished or admitted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable
inferences which may be drawn from the record as a whole. RC
Aluminum Industries, 343 NLRB 939 fn. 1 (2004). It is im-
portant to note regarding the October 11, 2016, incident that the
above factual findings involved the analysis and synthesis of
multiple conflicting versions of events. The factual findings and
the crediting of witness testimony related to the events rests upon
the comparison of the various versions of events in an effort to
discern based upon the totality of all of the evidence what actu-
ally transpired.
It is well established that confiscation of union literature can
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Photo Sonics, 254 NLRB
567 (1981), New Processes, 290 NLRB 704 (1988), NCR Corp.,
313 NLRB 574 (1993), and Manor Care of Easton, PA LLC, 356
NLRB 202 (2010). I find that Dugan, one of the Hospital’s high-
est level managers, the Director of Nursing, confiscated union
literature that she knew was union literature and did so because
it concerned union matters. I also find that such conduct was
done not for any general housekeeping reasons but for the ex-
press purpose of precluding employees from receiving the un-
ion’s messaging. Thus, I find that the taking of literature inter-
fered with the employees’ Section 7 rights to be informed of the
union’s message and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See
Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC 357 NLRB 1632 (2011) Health-
bridge Management, LLC, 360 NLRB 937 (2014), holding that
in removing flyers “Respondent improperly acted to censor what
could and could not be told by the union that Represented them.”
I also find that in confiscating the literature, Desert Springs failed
to bargain with the union over this conduct or the effects of the
conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
(b) The Hospitals Prior Approval Requirement and the
Removal of Other Union Literature.
The complaint also alleged that bargaining updates were re-
moved on various dates. (GC Exh. 1. (pp)6(a)-(d)). Respond-
ents admit in their answer that on August 9, 2016, October 3, 7,
and 20, 2016. Wayne Cassard via email informed the union that
bargaining updates provided by the union to Cassard to be posted
to the union’s bulletin boards at Respondent’s facilities violated
the CBA and would be removed. (Resp. Answer p. 5). It is also
undisputed that on various occasions predating the dates of the
allegations in the complaint, the union repeatedly objected to the
hospitals requirement of prior approval. In an email on May 24,
2016, Troyano specifically informed Cassard, “the contract does
not require your approval of this flyer or any other postings made
by the union. The contract only requires that we deliver a signed
copy of the material being posted.” (Resp. Ex. 10). At issue is
the language in the CBA which proved that, “any materials being
posted and signed by the union representative responsible for the
posting and a copy of the material being posted will be hand de-
livered to the Human Resources Administrator prior to posting.
No material which contains personal attacks upon any other
member or any other employee or which is critical of the hospi-
tal, its management, or its policies or practices will be posted.”
(Resp. Ex. 2).
(c) The Removal of Literature and Prior Approval
Requirement Violated the Act.
The contract language did not define the terms “critical of the
hospital, its management or its policies or practices.” The con-
tractual language did not on its face reserve the right of the hos-
pital to make the determination of what could posted on a pre-
approval basis or what could be unilaterally removed. It is not
difficult to imagine that nearly any pro-union posting could be
characterized and viewed as being “critical of the hospital.” In
this regard, the application of the terms of the CBA as license for
the hospital to approve any posting has the practical result of
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 17
giving the hospitals unfettered censorship of the union’s mes-
sage. A telling example of this is the flyer which Cassard in his
email of October 25, 2016, advises all supervisors to remove.
(Resp. Ex. 12 p. 2). The flyer attached and submitted by Troyano
sets forth the union position regarding pay raises. It attempts to
communicate the Union’s position that the Union requested a 4
percent pay raise but that the employer was “dragging its feet.”
(Resp. Ex. 12 p. 5). Wages and communication about wages is
at the heart of the union’s responsibilities in representing em-
ployees and unfettered censorship of those types of communica-
tions violates the Act. The Board has repeatedly held that having
established a bulletin board “the employer is not free to regulate
its use selectively or disparately.” Roll & Hold Warehouse Dis-
tribution Corp. 325 NLRB 41, 51 (1997), see also NLRB v. Mag-
navox, 415 U.S. 322 (1974). Respondent did not otherwise make
a showing that the postings that it required pre-approval for on
the dates in question were “personal attacks.” I am also not per-
suaded by Respondents assertions that past practice gave it li-
cense to require pre-approval when in fact, as noted above, the
union objected to such practices. (Resp. Ex. 11). Accordingly, I
find that the practice of requiring pre-approval and the denial of
the authorization to post union materials on August 9, 2016, Oc-
tober 3, 7, and 20, 2016 tended to have a “chilling and coercive
effect” on the exercise of employee rights under Section 7 and
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2
3. Interference with Union/Employee Contact
In an October 25, 2016, email Cassard advised Supervisors
that the Union would be visiting break rooms and that:
The Union should not have any more than 2 collective bargain-
ing unit employees with them at a time in the break room, caf-
eteria, lobby and other outdoor break areas. If you see more
that 2 collective bargaining employees with the Union, you can
disrupt the meeting and ask the employees to return to work or
if not on break to return to their unit. Also, please note that no
more than 2 Union representatives may meet with individual
nurses. (Resp. Exh. 11).
In January of 2017, Dana Thorne, the Human Resource Direc-
tor of Valley sent similar instructions via email to supervisors
advising them that union representatives were not to be talking
to more than two nurses at a time. (Tr. 256).
On January 27, 2017, Union Representative Romina Loreto
and organizer Gloria Madrid visited Valley Hospital’s emer-
gency room break room prior to the 7 p.m. shift change. While
there, Loretto began discussing the latest bargaining update with
three nurses who were sitting at a table in the break room. When
it was time for the shift change briefing both Loretto and Madrid
stepped out of the break room and waited. The briefing that
evening was conducted by Charge Nurse, Shawn Melley. After
the briefing, and as Loretto and Madrid were leaving, Melley ap-
proached them, identified himself, asked them their identities
and whether they were affiliated with the union. The both

2 General Counsel also alleged in paragraph 6(d) that Lori Reynolds
removed materials. The matter was not actively litigated, not specifically
referenced in General Counsel’s Brief and there is insufficient factual
basis to support the allegations in this paragraph and therefore these al-
legations are dismissed.
identified themselves and acknowledged they were in the break
room on behalf of the union. Melley then advised them both that
they were only allowed in certain places in the hospital and could
only to talk to one or two nurses at a time. (Tr. 281). Lorreto
disputed this asserting that she was entitled to talk to more than
two pursuant to the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement.
Article 14 of, Section C of the CBA provided:
The hospital shall allow duly authorized representative of the
Union to visit the hospital to ascertain whether a provision of
the Agreement is being observed, to assist in adjusting griev-
ances, to confer with individual bargaining unit employees, to
participate in committees and to facilitate patient care and staff-
ing committee studies. (GC Exh. 12, p.22).
(a) Employer Interference Violated the Act
Nowhere in the CBA was there a restriction regarding num-
bers of employees who could be spoken to at any particular time.
There is no dispute that not only did Melley advise union offi-
cials that they could only talk to up to two nurses but Cassard
openly directed supervisors to “disrupt” union employee gather-
ings of more than two bargaining unit employees. (Resp. Exh.
12). This openly stated policy of disruption tended to interfere
with the contractually granted right of access of Article 14. It
was also a unilateral change of a material condition of employ-
ment, and tended to interfere with the representational process.
See Frontier Hotel and Casino, 309 NLRB 761 (1992), also
finding similar conduct, “a direct coercion and restraint of em-
ployees who were engaging in the union activity of conversing
with their bargaining representative.” Applying the reasoning
and rationale of Frontier Hotel, I find that Valley unlawfully re-
stricted union representative access to bargaining unit members
in violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) Act.
4. The February 2, 2017 Orientation
On February 2, 2017, Union Representatives Loretto and Na-
talie Hernandez showed up at Valley Hospital to participate in a
union presentation for new employees. They arrived around
noon but were told upon arrival by Nursing Project Manager,
Kimberly Crocker that the meeting time had been changed and
to return at between 2 and 2:30 p.m. The union presentations
had previously been held at 12 p.m. but all including the Febru-
ary 2, 2017 presentation were changed to 2:15 p.m. by Dana
Thorne in a series of emails sent to Troyano. (Resp. Exh. 13,
14). Around 2:10 p.m. Loretto and Hernandez noticed approxi-
mately 10 people exiting.3 They approached those exiting to in-
quire whether they were on lunch break or whether the orienta-
tion was over. They were told that the orientation was finished.
Loretto thereafter approached Crocker to question her as to why
they were told to return at 2:15 when the orientation finished ear-
lier. (Tr. 284, 814). Crocker responded by telling Loretto that
there were two nurses in the orientation and they didn’t want to
wait around until for the presentation. She also indicated that
there wasn’t anything she could do about it. (Tr. 285).
3 There was some discrepancy in the testimony of all three regarding
the actual time the meeting ended. There is no dispute however regard-
ing the more important fact that the meeting terminated prior to the time
Crocker advised the union officials to return.
18 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Article 14 provided in relevant part that “the Union would be
granted access to new employee orientations for the purpose of
a fifteen (15) minute talk regarding the Union and the distribu-
tion of union information packet to all bargaining unit eligible
employees.” (GC Exh. 12).
(a) The Failure to Grant Union Access to new Employees
Violated the Act.
There is a degree of discourtesy in a person knowing individ-
uals are waiting to present to employees and purposefully termi-
nating a meeting before their return (presumably in the hopes
that the union officials would arrive to an empty room). What
Crocker didn’t factor in her calculation apparently is that the un-
ion officials would wait the entire time nearby within view of the
meeting. A similar discourtesy is evident in Crocker walking out
of the meeting without, on her own initiative, seeking out the
union officials. Instead they had to approach other employees,
and eventually her, to understand what was transpiring. Lastly,
knowing that the union officials had been standing by waiting
and without at least giving the union officials an opportunity to
introduce themselves to employees is evidence that her actions
of dismissing the employees without giving the union officials
any opportunity to even introduce themselves was intentional.
Although Crocker testified that she was told by the employees
that they didn’t want to stay, I find that dismissing the nurses
before the Union had an opportunity to address them was not in
compliance with the hospitals obligations under Article 14 of the
CBA. Given the level of discourtesy in Crocker’s actions, I do
not credit her testimony that new nurses didn’t want to stay as it
appeared to be a convenient and self-serving attempt to justify
her planned and seemingly purposeful attempt to thwart the un-
ion’s contractual right to address the employees and violated
Sections 8(a)5 and (1) of the Act.
5. The February 15, 2017 2-East Break Room Incident
On February 15, 2018, Union Representative Hernandez and
union volunteer and former employee Katrina Alvarez stopped
by the 2-East break room to distribute flyers. While Hernandez
was posting flyers, Alvarez struck up a conversation with three
nurses that were present. Also present were other non-bargain-
ing unit members who were close by and may have been listen-
ing to the conversation. Dugan walked past the break room rec-
ognized Alvarez opened the door and said, “excuse me there are
unrepresented employees in the room. And I request that you
wait until they leave—finish their break and leave.” (Tr. 651).
Dugan testified that she saw Alvarez talking to nonunion
members and as she described “holding court.” I however don’t
credit her testimony. It is logically inconsistent that she would
have seen the conversation but only mentioned that they were
present in the room in her attempt to break the meeting up instead
of confronting Alvarez directly and stating that she was not al-
lowed to speak with unrepresented employees. Nevertheless,
Alvarez responded that they had the right to speak with union
members. After hearing Dugan, two of the nurses involved in
the union conversation abruptly left the room. (Tr. 326, 346,
348). Dugan responded by telling them to get out and threatened
to call security on them. (Tr. 326, 346). Neither Alvarez nor
Hernandez left and continued speaking with a nurse who re-
mained in the break room. (Tr. 327, 346).
(a) Duggan’s Actions Violated the Act
The CBA contained a provision that limited access to union
official business and precluded the union from efforts to “engage
in union organizing activity, solicit, or distribute literature to
non-bargaining unit employees.” (GC Exh. 13). The CBA how-
ever did not specifically limit conversations with bargaining unit
members in the break room when other non-bargaining unit
members happen to be present. Respondent’s implied assertion
that since the conversation was limited to less than a minute and
because no employee was “barred” there was no inherent harm
in Dugan’s actions. I disagree. The actions of Dugan had a real
time chilling effect on the exercise of Section 7 rights of the em-
ployees who abruptly left. Moreover, Dugan’s imposing of this
unilateral change and restriction violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
6. The January 31, 2017 Union Request for Information
On January 31, 2017, the union sent a request for information
to the Respondents asking for the following information:
An updated list of all current employees in each bargaining unit
at Desert Springs Hospital and Valley Medical Center. The list
must contain the employee job classification, name, address,
telephone number(s), email or other electronic address and the
department where the employee works. Please provide this up-
dated information no later than February 6, 2017. (GC Exh.
21).
On February 6, 2017, Respondents counsel Keim responded
by indicating that:
The requests are similar to requests made by the Union on De-
cember 7, 2016, requesting a response by December 30, 2016.
Wayne Cassard timely responded to those requests. The Janu-
ary 31, 2017, requests seek additional information including
employees’ cell telephone numbers and personal e-mail ad-
dresses. Of greater concern is the Union’s requested date for
providing the information which is February 6, 2017. The Hos-
pitals will work on providing the information, but will not meet
the deadline which we believe is unreasonable. (GC Exh. 34)
On February 6, 2017, 36 minutes after receiving Keim’s re-
sponse, the union asked,”what date do you propose to get us the
requested information?” (GC Ex. 34). Keim did not respond to
the union’s inquiry. On February 17, 2017, Valley withdrew
recognition of the union. At no time prior to the withdrawal did
Valley provide the requested information.
(a) The Duty to Provide Information
If an employer fails to provide the union with requested infor-
mation that is relevant to the union’s proper performance of its
collective-bargaining obligations, it violates Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act. Leland Stanford Junior University & Service Em-
ployees Local No. 715, SEIU, 262 NLRB 136, 138 (1982) (citing
Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979)). An em-
ployer is obligated under the Act to provide requested infor-
mation that is relevant to the union’s responsibilities regarding
both administration and enforcement of an existing collective-
bargaining agreement. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149,
152–153 (1956). The relevance of any request is ascertained by
analyzing the information request against a liberal “discovery”
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 19
standard of relevance as distinguished from the standard of rele-
vance in trial proceedings. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385
U.S. 432 fn. 6 (1967). The discovery standard for relevance is
construed “broadly to encompass any matter that bears on or that
reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on, any
issue…” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351
(1978); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). The infor-
mation doesn’t have to be dispositive of the issues between the
parties; it only has to have some bearing on it. Thus, an employer
must furnish information that is of even probable or potential rel-
evance to the union’s duties. Pfizer Inc., 268 NLRB 916 (1984);
Conrock Co., 263 NLRB 1293, 1294 (1982).
(b) Relevance
The evidence of record establishes, and I find, that the contact
information sought by the union including the employee job clas-
sification, name, address, telephone number(s), email or other
electronic address and the department where the employee works
are basic, simple and fundamentally related to the performance
of the union’s statutory duties and thus presumptively relevant.
Harco Laboratories, Inc., 271 NLRB 1397 (1984).
(c) Respondent’s Contentions
There is no dispute that Valley failed to furnish the infor-
mation sought. This is true despite the fact that the information
was readily available to it and could have been compiled with
relative ease. The Respondent’s duty was to provide the infor-
mation sought yet it chose to simply ignore the union’s request.
This is borne out in Keim’s failure to respond to the union’s in-
quiry regarding when it could expect the information and the
failure to engage internal hospital processes to comply with the
request. (GC Exh. 34) (Tr. 694). Where simple, basic and pre-
sumptively relevant information is requested, the employer is re-
quired to furnish it in a timely fashion. U.S. Postal Service, 332
NLRB 635 (2000), Capitol Steel and Iron Co., 317 NLRB 809
(1995). Simply ignoring or “slow walking” the union’s request
at the critical time when a decertification effort was underway
violated the employers duty to engage in “a reasonable good-
faith effort to respond to the request as promptly as circum-
stances allow.” Goodlife Beverage Co., 312 NLRB 1060, 1062
fn. 9 (1993). The duty to act in good faith requires “an honest
effort to provide whatever information is required.” Decker
Coal Co., 301 NLRB 729, 740 (1991). The Respondent’s “slow
walking” and or simply ignoring the union’s request for 17 days
was a breach of its duty. In view of the fact that I have found the
withdrawal of recognition unlawful, Respondent’s is precluded
from reliance upon such to support its contention that it had no
duty to provide the information. See Renal Care of Buffalo Inc.
347 NLRB 1284 (2006). It is undisputed that Respondent failed
to provide the requested information and in doing so its actions
were in direct contravention of and in violation of Sections
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. The Mandatory Meeting with Komeda
On or about January 27, and 31, 2017, petitions to decertify

4 When the meetings were conducted, the Hospital’s goal was to
speak with all eligible voters and to that end the attendees were required
to sign an attendance sheet. The General Counsel via subpoena re-
quested the sign in sheets but Respondent failed to provide the records.
the Union as the representative of the Valley RN Unit were filed
with the board. Valley Hospital Medical Center Inc., 28-RD-
191978, 28-RD-192131. After the petitions were filed, Staff
Vice President of Labor Relations Jeanne Schmid, and Wendi
Reyes, Progressive Care Unit Director at Corona Regional Med-
ical Center began conducting mandatory meetings with Valley
nurses. The meetings were designated as “Act Training” with
the goal of training to convince employees to vote against the
union, communicate the hospital’s “side,” and to have employ-
ees make an “informed decision.” (Tr. 747). Or as more subtly
framed that the hospital “would prefer…welcome the oppor-
tunity to have a direct relationship…” (Tr. 748).4
Sue Komeda, a Valley RN was, in late July or early February
of 2017, notified by her manager Johnny Candari, that she was
required to attend a meeting. When she arrived, there were 10 to
11 other nurses from different floors already at the meeting. Pre-
senting at the meeting were Schmidt and Reyes. The duration of
the meeting was approximately 1-½ hours long. Various topics
were covered in the meeting and described in relevant parts by
Komeda as follows:
Q - Okay. Now, I want to talk about what took place during this
meeting. And you mentioned that Ms. Schmidt was conducting
the meeting. Could you walk us through what it was that she
was -- that she talked about?
A -Well, she talked about how they -- she talked about how the
administration did not want the Union in the Hospital anymore
and that the bargaining was going on and that bargaining would
go on and on and on and that while bargaining was going on,
they would stretch it out to a long length of time and during that
time, we would not get any raises. And that’s about all I recall.
(Tr. 525).
Q - Okay. So when Ms. Schmidt was talking about the bargain-
ing, could you tell us -- run through, to the best you can recall,
exactly what she was saying about the bargaining between the
Hospital and SEIU?
A - She had an erasable board and she drew a line and it said -
- and the line, she wrote next to -- or on the line, “Impasse.”
And then she wrote arrows up and down and she was saying,
you know, that during all bargaining that -- how bargaining
usually goes is that one set -- one side gives their -- what they
want and the other side gives what they want and then they --
then they talk about it until, you know, they decide on -- on
what it is, well, that the administration or the UHS side of it
was not going to give anything unless they got something and
they certainly weren’t going to give anything unless they got
everything that they wanted, and then they would extend this
bargaining. She gave an example of a hospital in Philadelphia
where they bargained and bargained and bargained for years
and no one was getting any raises during all that bargaining and
they would just bargain until impasse and they would eventu-
ally get what they wanted, which was to have no union. (Tr.
526)
Respondent admits that the sign in sheets existed but that after a search
for them was not able to locate them. (Tr. 1115–1116). Counsel for the
General Counsel requested that an adverse inference be drawn based
upon the failure to produce the documents.
20 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q - Did she say anything about the market raises -- did she say
anything else that you recall about that?
A - Just that if we didn’t have a union, we would get them.
Q - Okay. And at the time were you -- did you have market
value raises?
A - No. (Tr. 529).
Q - Okay. And what was it that you asked? What was your
question?
A - Well, I -- I asked her -- what I really asked her was what
the point of the whole meeting was.
Q - And did she respond?
A - Was to inform us on how to get rid of the Union and to --
Q - Okay.
A - inform us what benefits we would receive from getting rid
of the Union. (Tr. 532).
Referring to Wedi Reyes, she testified that she didn’t speak
very much but that she did offer some commentary as follows:
Well, she talked about that her -- the administration at
her hospital wasn’t doing a very good job of helping the
employees out. And so what the hospital employees did
was voted in a union. But then once the union got in
there, they weren’t happy with the union. So she had
told them that they could vote the union out, and they
did. So they voted the union out and then they got a bet-
ter administration because better administrators only go
to nonunion hospital -- yeah, only go to nonunion hos-
pitals,that union hospitals were restricted in getting
good administrators because those administrators could
not do what they wanted to do. They had to go through
the union. (Tr. 530).
(a) Valley’s Mandatory Captive Audience Meeting
was Coercive
At the outset it is important to set forth that I credit the testi-
mony of Komeda as being truthful. I do so for a number of rea-
sons. First, I had the opportunity to personally observe her tes-
timony and although she did not record or videotape the meeting,
she attempted to convey to what appeared to be the best of her
ability the general ideas that were communicated to her in the
meeting. I also credit her testimony because much of which she
testified to was not directly controverted in the record as Schmid
did not directly testify about the specific meeting in issue. Her
testimony about what was generally said in “Act” meetings is
insufficient to rebut Komeda’s testimony about what was said at
that particular meeting. As noted by the General Counsel in their
brief, Schmid never directly denied telling employees at the
Komeda meeting that they would receive wage increase if they
did not have a union, that Valley wouldn’t give up anything in
bargaining unless it got everything it wanted, the hospital would
drag out bargaining until the union relented, and that nonunion
hospitals attract better administrators. (GC Br. 22–23). Thirdly,
Valley’s destruction of sign in sheets and the failure of Reyes to
testify both warrant imposition of the adverse inference rule.
The decision to draw an adverse inference lies within the sound
discretion of the trier of fact. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. v.
NLRB, 147 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 1998). In this instance, it
is appropriate because without the information in the sign in
sheets, the General Counsel was denied the ability to call other
employees to testify not only about the Komeda meeting but
other so called “Act” meetings. Regarding the failure of Reyes
to testify, when a party fails to call a witness who may reasonably
be assumed to be favorably disposed to the party, an adverse in-
ference may be drawn regarding any factual question on which
the witness is likely to have knowledge. In particular, it may be
inferred that the witness, if called, would have testified adversely
to the party on that issue. Valley did not provide any explanation
as to why Reyes did not testify, did not show that she was una-
vailable, and did not demonstrate other efforts to have her testify.
Thus, I infer that if Reyes (or other witnesses on the sign in
sheets) would have been called, their truthful version of events
would have supported Komeda’s version. See Flexsteel Indus-
tries, 316 NLRB 745, 758 (1995) (failure to examine a favorable
witness regarding factual issue upon which that witness would
likely have knowledge gives rise to the “strongest possible ad-
verse inference” regarding such fact); Martin Luther King Sr.
Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15, 15 fn. 1 (1977) (adverse infer-
ence appropriate where no explanation as to why supervisors did
not testify); accord Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121
(1893) (“if a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce
witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the
fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testi-
mony, if produced, would be unfavorable”).
(i) Schmid’s Promise of a Wage Increase Violated the Act.
An employer violates Section 8(a) (1) when it promises, either
explicitly or impliedly, improved benefits contingent on employ-
ees giving up union representation. See Bakersfield Memorial
Hospital, 315 NLRB 596 (1994). Similarly, an employer vio-
lates Section 8(a)(1) when it threatens that benefits will not be
available if the employees are represented by a union. See Lib-
bey-Owens-Ford Co., 285 NLRB 673 (1987). In this context,
the burden is upon the General Counsel to establish by a prepon-
derance of the evidence the existence of an unlawful promise of
benefits or threats of the unavailability of benefits. Wild Oats
Markets, 339 NLRB 81 (2003).
I find, relying on Komoda’s credited testimony, that the Gen-
eral Counsel has met its burden. Schmid’s statements, in essence
that Valley would not provide any raises in a bargaining context
as well as the clear inference that the only way to get a raise
would be to get rid of the union on their face, fall within the
realm of what the Board has found to be unlawful in both Bak-
ersfield Memorial Hospital and Libbey Owens Ford. I therefore
find that the promised wage increase violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
(ii) Schmid’s Expression of Futility Violated the Act
An employer violates the Section 8(a)(1) of the Act if it con-
veys to employees the futility of union representation. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours, 263 NLRB 159, (1982), Kona 60 Minute
Photo, 277 NLRB 867 (1985), Overnite Transportation Corp.,
296 NLRB 669 (1989), Hi Tech Cable Corp., 318 NLRB 280
(1995). I find that a reasonable employee hearing Schmid’s sug-
gestion that the hospital wasn’t going to give anything unless
they got everything that they wanted, and then they would extend
this bargaining would conclude that representation was not only
futile but would result in potentially never receiving any wage
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 21
increase if represented by the union. The statements also in their
very essence communicate what amounts to an underlying will-
ingness or threat to bargain in bad faith. Accordingly, I conclude
that Schmid’s expression of futility violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
(iii) Reyes’ Statements Also Violated the Act
Reyes’ statements conveyed the benefits of decertification in-
cluding the view that hospitals with unions resulted in substand-
ard administrators and by implication inferior working condi-
tions. Her statements must be viewed in context of Schmid’s
other unlawful statements. Viewed from this perspective, her
comments had the intended effect of discouraging the employees
from supporting the union by directly promising better future
conditions of employment specifically better administrators “be-
cause better administrators only go to nonunion hospital” with-
out unions and thus violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
8. Valley Withdraws Recognition from the Union
While the decertification effort was ongoing a Desert Springs
hospital RN set up two online forms on the website “Type-
form.com.” One was set up for a Valley RNs and the other for
Desert Springs. She also created flyers with “QR” codes and a
Facebook page. Each form allowed for the entry of name, email
address, telephone number, employer name, and a “yes/no con-
firmation to indicate whether the employee wished to be repre-
sented by the SEIU Local 1107. (Tr. 858–862, 865), (Resp. Exh.
28, 33). The forms did not include any form of electronic signa-
ture or other security feature to ensure that the person filling out
the form was in fact the person whose name appeared on the
form. After forms were completed and submitted, a copy was
automatically sent to the email address richel.borg@gmail.com.
Despite the email notifications there was no way to determine
whether an email was in fact sent by the person whose name ap-
peared on the form. Farese testified as follows:
Q - And you don’t have any personal familiarity with these
emails prior to -- like the individual email addresses prior to
you receiving these, correct?
A - No.
Q - So, for example, if I asked you John Arciaga’s email ad-
dress, could you tell me what his personal email address is?
A - No.
Q - So you don’t know who sent these, correct?
A - Correct.
Q - You just know the name that’s on each of these?
A - Correct.
Q - It could have been one person sending all of them and gen-
erating different email addresses, correct?
A - In theory.

5 The General Counsel and Charging Party vigorously objected to the
hearsay content of the emails. The emails were admitted over counsel’s
objection with the proviso that whether or not every single one of the
individuals who are purported employees of the hospital filled out the
form was a matter that had yet to be determined as part and parcel of the
ALJ authentication process. (Tr. 866–869). While there is no dispute
that Farese received emails, there is no competent proof to contradict her
own assertion that she could not determine who generated the forms or
alternatively whether one person generated all of the forms. Regardless
Q - But you have no way of knowing?
A - Nope.5
On February 17, 2017, Chief Nursing Officer of Valley Vic-
toria Barnhouse met with Employees Richel Burog and Jennifer
Yant. The meeting was to communicate with Barnhouse their
belief that enough signatures and cards had been collected to
support decertification. They handed over documents to her
which consisted of photocopies of cards along with original
inked signatures and 38 copies of the Typeform emails. (Resp.
Exh. 27, 28). Barnhouse took possession of the materials and
never asked any questions about the emails, visited the website
Typeform.com, nor did she inquire or know for sure whether any
of the emails were actually submitted by the employees whose
names appeared on the forms. (Tr. 797, 798). In this regard she
testified as follows:
Q - But let’s take, for example, the first one here. Respondent’s
28, the very first page. There’s a name on here. I might say it
wrong --
A - Yes, ma’am.
Q - but it’s Irene Dumlao (phonetic) Dumla (phonetic); is that
right?
A - I would say so, yes.
Q - Okay. You don’t -- when you looked at these, and even
sitting here today, you don’t know if Irene Dumlao had any-
thing to do with this email that went to Ms. Burog; is that right?
A - That’s correct.
Q - And that would be the same for all of these documents in
here, right?
A - Yes. (Tr. 798).
After receiving the materials Barnhouse, Schmid and Keim
met in a conference room to sort count and alphabetize the ma-
terials. They then delivered the materials to Thorne who com-
missioned Nursing Project Manager Crocker and Annette Litton
to split the cards between them and count them and compare sig-
natures to signatures in employee personnel files. (Tr. 816, 832,
835). Neither has any special handwriting comparison expertise
or training nor were either personally familiar with any of the
employee signatures. (Tr. 825, 826, 844, 845). Each was given
a list to check off against that purported to show who was em-
ployed at the time. (Resp. Ex. 29, 31). Litton concluded that
there were 132 that could be verified. Crawford in her count
concluded that there were 154 cards which could be verified. (Tr.
822). She testified that she identified two that could not be ver-
ified and asked Keim and Litton to review the cards but did not
recall whether they were included in the count or not after the
others reviewed them. (Tr. 269, 272). She (Tr. 822, 825), (Resp.
of whether the emails contained hearsay, the hospitals nevertheless relied
upon them in their decision to withdraw recognition. With the benefit of
a complete record, and the completion of the ALJ review process, it is
clear that whether couched in terms of inadmissible hearsay or in terms
of a failure of proof, the evidence of record clearly established that the
emails are insufficient evidence from which to conclude that Respond-
ents met their burden to establish that the emails were actually sent by
the employees persons whose information appeared on them.
22 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Exh. 30). Crocker and Litton counted the cards twice filled out
the count sheet which was witnessed by Keim.
Keim counted the emails. Of the emails counted only 30 were
counted to establish loss of majority status because there were
duplicate cards. (Tr. 1049). As long as the phone number along
with other information on the form but not the email address
matched; or if the email address matched that of the employee,
the Typeform email was counted.6 (Tr. 1050, 1093).
According to the list that was printed, there were 534 employ-
ees in the Valley Unit. However, Keim used the figure of 533
after getting word that an employee had been terminated that
day. (Tr. 1073) (Resp. Exh. 31). Despite the fact that the em-
ployee had been terminated and the number was subtracted from
the total number of employees, it appears that the terminated em-
ployee was still counted as an employee who no longer wished
to be represented by the Union. (Resp. Exh. 21, at 124, 27(a), at
K1). Later that same day Respondent sent a letter to the Union
notifying it of withdrawal of recognition and notified RN’s of
such through the distribution of a flyer.
(a) Valley Relied Upon Electronic Submissions That Did Not
Establish Evidence of Actual Loss of Majority Support by a
Preponderance of the Evidence.
In Levitz Furniture Co., 333 NLRB 717, 725 (2001), the
Board articulated the current standard regarding withdrawal of
recognition. In Levitz, the Board held that “an employer may
rebut the continuing presumption of an incumbent union’s ma-
jority status, and unilaterally withdraw recognition, only on a
showing that the union has, in fact, lost the support of a majority
of the employees in the bargaining unit.” Levitz, 333 NLRB at
725. In so doing, the Board emphasized that an employer “with-
draws recognition at its peril.” Id. The employer bears the bur-
den of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the union
had, in fact, lost majority support at the time of the withdrawal
of recognition. If the employer fails, it will not have rebutted the
presumption of majority status, and its withdrawal of recognition
will violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Under Levitz, an honest
but mistaken belief that a union has lost majority support will not
insulate a Respondent from liability.
In an attempt to meet its burden, Respondent relies upon email
submissions that were delivered to it. There are many facts that
are in dispute in this case however one undisputed fact stands out
in the voluminous record. The undisputed fact is that there is no
real evidence to establish that the emails that were counted were
in fact submitted by the employees listed on the emails. The
emails lacked electronic signatures and although Respondent
made good faith efforts to verify by phone number or email, the
undisputed evidence of record is that some or all of them could
have been prepared by someone other than the person listed on
the email. It is undisputed that presumably any person or persons
with an employee roster (or and employee sign in sheet like those
that were not produced) could have produced the email submis-
sions. The Board has sanctioned the use of electronic communi-
cations in some instances (see GC-Memo 15-08) however; it has

6 Schmid testified that emails were counted by simply comparing the
name on the email with the name on the employee list provided by
Thorne. (Tr. 74–76).
imposed strict requirements to ensure the integrity of the signa-
tures requiring for example a written declaration or confirmation.
(See GC Memo 15-08 (A) (2-3). No such safeguards were pre-
sent here. There were also irregularities that were identified in
the electronic submissions themselves. For example, approxi-
mately 55 of the email submissions for all the units did not match
email addresses of employees in the hospital records or there was
no email address in hospital records to compare to. (See GC Br.
75–77). Because of the failure to establish that the persons
whose name appeared on the emails, actually were the same per-
son that sent them, I find that Respondent failed to meet its bur-
den to show actual loss of majority. In view of Respondent’s
failure to meet its burden regarding withdrawal of recognition, I
find that Respondent violated Section (8)(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.7
(b) Valley Relied on Signatures Which Could Not Within a
Reasonable Degree of Certainty be Authenticated
In accordance with FRE 901(b)(3), the Board has authorized
the Administrative Law Judge to review signatures on cards in
order to make some assessment regarding their genuineness and
authenticity. See Acme Bus Corp., 357 NLRB 902 (2011), Parts
Depot Inc., 332 NLRB 670 (2000) enfd. 24 Fed. Appx 1 (D.C.
Cir. 2001). The General Counsel challenged 52 of the signatures
that Respondent Valley relied upon in support of its withdrawal
of recognition. (GC Br. at 69–71). I have carefully reviewed the
signatures and compared the cards submitted to the signatures
that appear in Respondent’s personnel records. (Resp. Exh. 27
and 21). I agree in part with the General Counsel that some cards
could not with any reasonable degree of certainty be determined
to be genuine or authentic because of the variation between the
signature on the card and that found in the personnel records.
However, unlike the General Counsel, I do not find all 52 cards
met this criteria. I find only the following cards fell into this
category: Violeta Aguirre, James Aldridge, Meredith Barker,
Lakeesha Blair, Arthur Catubaya, Savani Chettiar, Honk Kong
Connolly, Afifa Dastagir, Lori Davis, Leoncio Del Castillo,
Leslie Echols, Christine Edano, Michelle Elftman, Alfred
Fonacier, Myung Han, Era Irlandes, Lisa Laurence, Jessica
Mackey, Nicole McKay, Easterlyn Mendoza, Edward Nyame,
Hayley Pelz, Lucinda Peterson, Ebony Towels, Paula Williams,
and Carissa Young. (Resp. Exh. 27 A1, B1, B2, C4, C6, D2, D3,
E1, F1, H1, I1, L1, M1, M3, M5, N3, P3, T2, W1, Y1). Accord-
ingly, these 26 cards should not be counted for purposes of show-
ing actual loss of majority. In addition, Valley relied upon a card
for Timothy Mansfield that was dated after the withdrawal of
recognition and should also not be counted. (Resp. Exh. 27 M1).
The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is
that independent of the email submissions, if the above question-
able cards are subtracted from the total, Respondent failed to
meet its burden regarding withdrawal of recognition.
9. Valley Hospital’s Wage Increase
On February 23, 2017, Valley sent a letter to all Hospital
7 Using Respondent’s own figures regarding unit size and number of
emails it counted, even (assuming for the sake of argument that all other
cards were valid) once the emails are subtracted the count falls below the
267 required to show loss of majority support.
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 23
Medical Center Staff RN’s advising them of an immediate wage
adjustment. (GC Exh. 11). The pay adjustment was made effec-
tive February 19, 2017. The letter notified that each RN would
“move to the level commensurate with his/her years of experi-
ence on the Valley Health system nonunion pay scale. It further
provided that “every RN will receive something; the range of the
adjustments are from 2 percent - 9 percent which were not based
upon performance but were “market adjustments” to put nurses
“on the VHS RN non-union market scale.” The letter further
noted that “as with all VHS nonunion hospitals, nurses will be
eligible for a merit increase in July of 2017 ranging from 2.5
percent to 3.75 percent and RNs would be eligible for any other
market adjustments implemented by Valley.” (GC Exh. 11).
9. Unilateral Changes to Wages
Unilateral modification of wages or other mandatory subjects
of bargaining can constitute a per se violation of Section 8(a)(5).
In view of the fact that I have found that Valley’s withdrawal of
recognition was unlawful, it was not privileged to take unilateral
action regarding wages (one of the most material and substantial
subjects of bargaining) and in doing so violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act. See Southern Bakeries, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 64
(2016) enfd. 871 F.3d. 811, 825 fn. 4 (2017), see also Narricort
Indistries, L.P., 353 NLRB 775, 776 fn. 11 (2009).
10. Decertification Efforts at Desert Springs - Mark Smith an
RN from Corona Regional Medical Center in Corona, Califor-
nia Permitted Inside of Hospital to Solicit Decertification
In March of 2017, Mark Smith, although not an employee of
Desert Springs Hospital was authorized by Desert Springs to so-
licit and collect decertification cards from employees. His stated
purpose in going to Desert Springs was to “get rid of the union.”
(Tr. 498). He stayed in Las Vegas for 7 days and coordinated
with Courtney Farese, who provided him with literature and a
portable table. (Tr. 508). During his visit, he set up a portable
table inside the hospital and stayed there during the shift
changes. (GC Exh. 6). In between shift changes, he would set
up in the cafeteria. The portable table had a sign that said, “Stop
Unions” or “No Unions.” (Tr. 507). At the time of his activities,
Valley Hospital had in place a non-solicitation policy that pro-
vided as follows:
B. Non-Employees:
1. Solicitation by non-employees or distribution of non-
Facility materials or literature by non-employees on Facil-
ity owned or leased property is prohibited at all times. The
CEO, or his/her designee, must approve all fundraisers,
hospital sponsored events, and the solicitation/distribution
of literature by non-employees in the workplace.
2. Non-employees found soliciting and/or distributing lit-
erature on Facility property will be asked to leave the
premises and may be charged with trespassing. (GC Exh.
22).
On March 6, 2017, Megan Bell, a Desert Springs employee
arrived at the cafeteria to have lunch with Union Representative
John Archer. (Tr. 442). While waiting for Archer to arrive she
noticed Smith seated at his portable table who was dressed in a
nurse uniform with a Corona Hospital ID badge. (Tr. 442). She
approached Smith and asked what he was doing. He indicated
that he was there “to get the union out of the hospital” and that
he specifically told her “I’m here for UHS.” (Tr. 443). UHS re-
ferring to United Health Services the parent company of Desert
Springs. After approaching Smith, she sat back down to wait for
Archer to arrive. Shortly after Archer arrived, he approached
Smith and they began talking. Smith left his portable table and
sat at a cafeteria table. Archer followed him moving to the same
table where Smith was seated. (Tr. 445). Smith became irritated
by Archer, left the cafeteria and called Farese on his cell phone
and told her that he was being harassed. He returned with
Schmid, CNO McNutt, Dugan and Security Guard Hank Castro.
They approached Archer who credibly testified that he was
seated at the cafeteria table and the following colloquy ensued:
A - They walked up to the edge of the table and they -- Jeanne
Schmid looked at me and says, you cannot sit there.
Q - And what happened after she told you that?
A - I asked her, I figured it was open seating and I should be
able to sit there.
Q - And what happened after you said that?
A - I said, let’s see, I asked -- I got up and I went over to the
Union table and I got my notepad.
Q - And what happened after you got your notepad?
A - I asked her if she knew what Mark Smith was doing there.
Q - And what was her response?
A - She said she did not know what he was doing there and that
it was none of her business.
Q - And what happened after that?
A - I asked if he had their permission to be there.
Q - And what response, if any, did Jeanne Schmid give to that
question?
A - She said that he did not need her permission because he was
an employee.
Q - Okay. And what happened after that was said to you?
A - She said in the future, you will not sit at the same table, you
will not sit near Mark Smith.
Q - Okay. Did anything happen after that?
A - Well, the security guard kind of leaned in and said, am I
going to have to babysit you two? (Tr. 411).
In a video recording of the incident Schmid (contrary to her
testimony) openly tells Archer that he is “harassing” Smith. (Tr.
92–93). (GC Exh. 5). Smith thereafter moved to a different ta-
ble. (Tr. 447).
The next day March 7, 2017, Desert Springs issued to employ-
ees a Bargaining Brief. The brief touted the raise that the nurses
at Valley had received after Valley withdrew recognition. The
bargaining brief contained the following language:
On February 19, 2017, Valley was presented with signed, valid
cards providing objective and indisputable evidence that the
union had lost majority support of the nurses at Valley. The
cards’ signatures were verified against HR documents contain-
ing signatures of the signees. Because the union lost Majority
status, Valley was required by federal law to withdraw recog-
nition since SEIU no longer represented a majority of the bar-
gaining unit. This is the only avenue available to staff when a
union blocks an election scheduled by the NLRB. Despite what
SEIU posts on its webpage, the hospital did not block the
24 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election—the union did—the union was the one preventing
Valley nurses from having their voices heard. (GC Exh. 4).
On that same day Smith returned to Desert Springs and set up
a table near the entryway inside the main entrance. Archer also
arrived and set up an information table. (Tr. 411). While Archer
was setting up, employees stopped and spoke to him. At some
point in time Archer noticed that Smith had a camera pointed in
his direction and was recording him. He approached Smith and
asked him to stop filming, advising him that he didn’t want to be
filmed. (Tr. 412–413). Smith responded with the comment “get
over it” and in order to avoid a confrontation, Archer returned to
where he was seated. (Tr. 413). Then Smith moved the camera
and directed it again towards Archer. Later that evening Archer
returned with Union Representative Barry Roberts who sat in
stools in the main lobby engaging employees about the union
during the shift change. Again, Smith began to film Archer and
Roberts as they spoke to employees. (Tr. 384 414–415). Archer
notified two security guards that Smith was filming them without
their consent and after the security guards approached Smith he
stopped recording. (Tr. 415).
The next day, March 8, 2017, Smith and Roberts both set up
tables in the facility. Again, Smith filmed Roberts and employ-
ees who approached his table. Roberts moved to the cafeteria as
did Smith and again Smith filmed him in the cafeteria as he spoke
to employees. (Tr. 392).
(a) Smith was Vested with Apparent Authority to Solicit
Support for Decertification
In addressing questions of agency, the common law rule tra-
ditionally applied by the Board is that of “apparent authority.”
Allegany Aggregates Inc., 311 NLRB 1165 (1993). The deter-
mination is whether under the circumstances, the employees
would reasonably believe that the alleged agent was acting on
behalf of management. United Scrap Metal Inc., 344 NLRB 467
(2005). The principal must intend to cause the third person to
believe the agent is authorized to act on its behalf or should re-
alize that its conduct is likely to create such a belief.
Applying this standard to the facts presented, I find that Smith
was vested with, at the very least, apparent authority. There are
numerous factors that support this conclusion. First Desert
Springs expressly authorized Smith to solicit support for decer-
tification in plain view in both the lobby and cafeteria. This is
true despite its own written policies that prohibited solicitation
by non-employees. Secondly, Desert Springs not only allowed
Smith to solicit but also authorized this solicitation while dressed
in a nurse’s uniform wearing a hospital badge thereby bolstering
the appearance of his legitimacy. High ranking management of-
ficials, including the Chief Nursing Officer, and the Director of
Nursing openly authorized this solicitation in the cafeteria on
March 6, 2017. Smith himself when specifically queried about
his presence indicated he was “here for UHS.” (Tr. 442–443).
Smith was also given free meals while soliciting. All of these
factors taken together establish that Desert Springs provided
more than “ministerial aid” and would leave a reasonable em-
ployee to believe that Smith was acting on behalf of manage-
ment. Times Herald, 253 NLRB 524 (1980). For its part, Desert
Springs should have realized that its conduct was likely to create
such a belief. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding that
Smith was acting as an agent of Desert Springs when he was so-
liciting support for the decertification effort. It is well settled,
and I find that such conduct by Smith, Desert Springs’s agent,
taints the decertification effort and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. See Narricort Industries., L.P. 353 NLRB 775 (2009).
(b) Smith Engaged in Unlawful Surveillance
The Board has long held that absent proper justification pho-
tographing or video-taping employees engaged in protected con-
certed activities violates the Act because it has a tendency to in-
timidate. Waco, Inc. 273 NLRB 746 (1984). Typically, in order
to justify such photography or video-taping, Respondent must be
able to point to misconduct or some reasonable objective basis
to anticipate misconduct. F.W. Woolworth Co., 310 NLRB
1197(1993). The inquiry is whether the photographing has a rea-
sonable tendency to interfere with protected activity under the
circumstances. Trailmoble Trailer, LLC 343 NLRB 95 (2004).
There is no dispute that on at least three occasions, Smith
video-taped union officials and employees who were speaking
with union officials. The record is devoid of any reasonable ob-
jective evidence that the union officials who were engaging with
employees were engaging in misconduct or that Smith had any
reasonable objective basis to anticipate misconduct. Smith’s tes-
timony that he subjectively felt “harassed” is insufficient to pro-
vide such justification as purely subjective belief is insufficient.
Kingsbridge Heights, 352 NLRB 6 (2008). Rather the standard
requires some reasonable objective basis which in this case is
completely lacking. I find that photographing of employees and
union officials by Smith, who had been clothed with apparent
authority to act on behalf of management, had a reasonable ten-
dency to interfere with protected activity and therefore violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c) Security Guard Castro Did Not Give the Impression
of Surveillance
The test for determining whether an employer unlawfully cre-
ates an impression of surveillance is whether under the circum-
stances, the employee reasonably could conclude from the state-
ment in question that his or her protected activities are being
monitored. Mountaineer Steel, Inc., 326 NLRB 787 (1998),
enfd. 8 Fed.Appx. 180 (4th Cir. 2001), see also, Frontier Tele-
phone of Rochester, Inc., 344 NLRB 1270, 1276 (2005). The
Board’s view is that an employer “creates the impression of sur-
veillance when it monitors employees’ protected concerted ac-
tivity in a manner that is “out of the ordinary” even if the activity
is conducted openly noting that, “employees should not have to
fear that “members of management are peering over their shoul-
ders” taking note of their concerted activities. Conley Trucking,
349 NLRB 308 (2007).
The General Counsel’s assertions regarding this claim revolve
around the statement made by Castro inquiring whether he had
to “babysit” both Smith and Archer. I disagree with General
Counsel that the statement in and of itself would cause a reason-
able employee to conclude that the security guard “intended to
monitor employees protected activities.” (GC Br. at 60). Rather,
the statement addressed to both the agent of Desert Springs and
the union official appeared to be merely a colloquial call for them
to conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Accordingly, this
allegation is dismissed.
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 25
11. Desert Springs RN Unit Withdrawal of Recognition
In early March 2017, in a similar course of events, the process
of decertification began for the Desert Springs RN unit. As was
the case with Valley Courtney Farese, a nurse at Desert Springs,
set up an account for Desert Springs using the same Type-
form.com website. (Tr. 861, 864). She publicized the online pe-
tition on a Facebook page, and distributed fliers with a link to the
Facebook page and a QR scanner code that linked directly to the
online petition. (Tr. 861, 862). This time she had the emails sent
to her personal email address, courtneyfarese@gmail.com. (Tr.
861). As with the Valley online forms, there was no form of
electronic signature or other security feature to ensure that the
person filling out the form was in fact the person whose name
appeared on the form. Nor did Farese have any personal famili-
arity with any of the individual email addresses listed on the
emails she received from the online petitions. (Tr. 865, 875).
On March 12, 2017, Farese and two other employees pre-
sented McNutt a folder which contained decertification cards,
and emails and a 4-page petition. (Resp. Exh. 33, 35, GC Exh.
7). McNnutt and Schmidt alphabetized the materials and culled
out duplicates. (Tr. 208, 214). McNutt and Schmidt thereafter
contacted Keim who met in a hospital conference room. Keim
used a March 9, 2017 employee roster and used a yellow high-
lighter to mark which signatures needed to be compared to per-
sonnel files. (Resp. Exh. 38). Two employees assisted with sig-
nature review, Michele Crawford, Director of Business Devel-
opment and Kent Forsythe, Director of Biomedical Engineering.
(Tr. 940). Each took one half of the alphabet and compared cards
to signatures from employees’ personnel files. Crawford veri-
fied 62 cards and Forsythe 84. Forsythe set aside four cards
which he could not verify. (Tr. (964, 968). Keim reviewed the
cards and included them in the count. (Tr. 964, 967, 972). Keim
reviewed the email submissions and used the same process to
verify that he used for Valley counting submissions if the phone
number or email address on the form matched hospital records.
(Tr. 1092). Keim found three names that were not on the roster
he was using and inquired of McNutt. McNutt verified the em-
ployment status of the employees. (Tr. 1070–1071). After com-
pleting the count, later that same day, March 12, 2017, Desert
Springs notified the union and employees that it was withdraw-
ing recognition of the Union. (GC Exh. 27).
(a) Desert Springs Relied Upon Electronic Submissions That
Did Not Establish Evidence of Actual Loss of Majority Support
by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
As I previously found regarding Valley’s counting of emails,
applying the same reasoning and rationale set forth above, I find
Desert Springs failed to meet its burden to show actual loss of
majority in its RN Unit.8 In view of Respondent’s failure to meet
its burden regarding withdrawal of recognition, I find that Re-
spondent violated Section (8)(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
(b) Desert Springs Relied on RN Signatures Which Could Not
Within a Reasonable Degree of Certainty be Authenticated
The General Counsel challenged 31 of the signatures that

8 Using Respondent’s own figures once the emails are subtracted
(even assuming for the sake of argument that all other cards were valid)
the count falls below the 220 needed to establish loss of majority.
Respondent Desert Springs relied upon in support of its with-
drawal of recognition. (GC Br. at 71–72). I have carefully re-
viewed the signatures and compared the cards submitted to the
signatures that appear in Respondent’s personnel records. (Resp.
Exhs. 35 and 44). I agree in part with the General Counsel that
some cards could not with any reasonable degree of certainty be
determined to be genuine or authentic because of the variation
between the signature on the card and that found in the personnel
records. However, unlike the General Counsel, I do not find all
31 cards met this criteria. I find only the following cards fell into
this category: Hollie Cato, Brandon Dabu, Elizabeth Santos,
Matthew Gibson, Jennifer Labre-Go, Maria Lazo, Johnell
Maralit, Jibran Miller, Benjamin Ritchie, Kelley Tuminaro,
Kevin Virtusion, Julie Walton, Paola Watson. Resp. Exhs. 35.
2, 20, 21, 33, 46, 49, 54, 57, 66, 69, 80, 82, 83 and 84). Accord-
ingly, these 14 cards should not be counted for purposes of show-
ing actual loss of majority.
12. Desert Springs Implements RN Wage Increase
On March 14, 2107, Desert Springs sent a letter similar to that
which it had sent to Valley nurses advising of a wage increase.
(GC Exh. 9). The increase was effective March 19, 2017, and
employees met with their supervisors to discuss the amount of
their raises. (GC Exh. 33).
(a) Unilateral Changes to Wages
As previously noted, unilateral modification of wages or other
mandatory subjects of bargaining can be a per se violation of
Section 8(a)(5). In view of the fact that I have found that Desert
Springs’ withdrawal of recognition was unlawful, it was not
privileged to take unilateral action regarding wages and in doing
so violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. See Southern Bakeries,
LLC, 364 NLRB No. 64 (2016) enfd. 871 F.3d. 811, 825 fn. 4
(2017), see also Narricort Industries, L.P., 353 NLRB 775, 776
fn. 11(2009).
13. Desert Springs Withdrawal of Recognition of the Desert
Springs Technical Unit
On March 18, 2017, in a similar manner as had previously
transpired with Desert Springs, RNs Farese and Respiratory
Therapist Andrea Ormonata met with McNutt and presented her
with 42 signed decertification cards and 10 Typeform.com email
notifications. (Resp. Exh. 34, 36). Again, the materials were
sorted and duplicates were set aside by McNutt. Keim compared
the emails to a list generated on December 30, 2016 and counted
emails if the phone number or email matched. (Tr. 1030, 1060).
Keim identified one name that wasn’t on his list and as had been
done previously, a call was placed to verify the employment sta-
tus of the individual. (Tr. 1061). The signatures were verified
by Jim Tran, Director of Pharmacy and Crawford. After the
count was completed later that same day, Desert Springs with-
drew recognition from the technical bargaining unit. (GC Exh.
28).
26 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Desert Springs Relied Upon Electronic Submissions That
Did Not Establish Evidence of Actual Loss of Majority Support
by a Preponderance of the Evidence.
As I previously found regarding Valley’s counting of emails,
applying the same reasoning and rationale set forth above, I find
Desert Springs failed to meet its burden to show actual loss of
majority in its Technical Unit.9 In view of Respondent’s failure
to meet its burden regarding withdrawal of recognition, I find
that Respondent violated Section (8)(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
(b) Desert Springs Relied on One Tech Signature Which Could
Not Within a Reasonable Degree of Certainty be Authenticated
The General Counsel challenged three of the signatures that
Respondent Valley relied upon in support of its withdrawal of
recognition. (GC Br. at 72). I have carefully reviewed the sig-
natures and compared the cards submitted to the signatures that
appear in Respondent’s personnel records. (Resp. Exhs. 36 and
45). I agree in part with the General Counsel that one card, that
of Kurtis Groseclose, could not with any reasonable degree of
certainty be determined to be genuine or authentic because of the
variation between the signature on the card and that found in the
personnel records. Accordingly, this card should not be counted
for purposes of showing actual loss of majority.
14. Desert Springs Implements Technical Unit Wage Increase
In much the same fashion as had been done with the RNs, De-
sert Springs announced and implemented a wage increase retro-
active to March 19, 2017. (GC Exh. 10).
(a) Unilateral Changes to Wages
Unilateral modification of wages or other mandatory subjects
of bargaining can be a per se violation of Section 8(a)(5). In
view of the fact that I have found that the Desert Spring’s with-
drawal of recognition for the technical unit was also unlawful, it
was not privileged to take unilateral action regarding wages and
in doing so violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. See Southern
Bakeries, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 64 (2016) enfd. 871 F.3d. 811,
825 fn. 4 (2017), see also Narricort Industries, L.P., 353 NLRB
775, 776 fn. 11 (2009).
15. Respondent’s Unfair Labor Practices Caused Disaffection.
It is established law that “an employer may not withdraw
recognition from a union while there are unremedied unfair labor
practices tending to cause employees to become disaffected from
the union.” Broadway Volkswagen, 342 NLRB 1244, 1247
(2004) (citations omitted). In determining whether a causal re-
lationship exists between the unremedied unfair labor practices
and the loss of union support, the Board considers the following
factors: (1) the length of time between the unfair labor practices
and the withdrawal of recognition; (2) the nature of the viola-
tions, including the possibility of a detrimental or lasting effect
on employees; (3) the tendency of the violation to cause employ-
ees disaffection; and (4) the effect of the unlawful conduct on
employees’ morale, organizational activities, and membership in
the union. Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78, 84 (1984). See
also, Beverly Health & Rehab Services, 346 NLRB 1319 (2006).

9 Using Respondent’s own figures once the emails are subtracted
(even assuming for the sake of argument that all other cards were valid)
the count falls below the 48 needed to establish loss of majority.
(a) Valley Withdrawal
Applying these factors here, I conclude that the Respondent’s
violations of the Act which took place close in time to the with-
drawal of recognition including its efforts to censor union mes-
saging, attempts to thwart union access to its facility, ceasing
dues deductions, refusing to provide bargaining unit contact in-
formation at a critical time when decertification efforts were un-
derway, its unlawful captive audience meeting with Komeda and
others, which if taken together would, when viewed objectively,
tend to have a significant effect on employee morale and organ-
izational activities and tend cause employee disaffection. See
Kentucky Fried Chicken, 341 NLRB 69 (2004) (blaming union
for lack of wage increase caused disaffection), Bakeries LLC,
364 NLRB No. 64 enfd. 871 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2017) (interfer-
ence with union access caused disaffection), Scott Bros. Dairy,
332 NLRB 1542 (2000) (statements about the futility of bargain-
ing caused disaffection), Wire Products Mfg. Corp., 326 NLRB
625 (1998). (restricting union materials caused disaffection),
Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB 1655 (2015) (ceasing
dues deduction).
(b) Desert Springs RN and Technical Unit Withdrawal
Applying the Master Slack factors, I conclude that the Re-
spondent’s violation of the Act by ceasing dues deduction, cen-
soring union communications, disrupting union employee con-
tacts, and relying on Valley’s unlawful withdrawal and unlawful
wage increase to promise wage increases if the union was decer-
tified. I find that the legion of unfair labor practices, discussed
above, which all took place close in time to the withdrawal of
recognition would, when viewed objectively taken together, tend
to cause employee disaffection, and would adversely affect or-
ganizational activities and membership in the union. See Lincoln
Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB 1655 (2015).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondents are employers engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
1. The Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
unilaterally ceasing dues deductions.
2. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by confiscating union literature.
3. The Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
requiring “pre-approval” to post union materials.
4. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by unlawfully restricting union access to bargaining unit
members.
5. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by thwarting the union’s contractual right to address new
employees.
6. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by imposing unilateral changes regarding
when union representatives could speak with unit members.
7. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by imposing unilateral changes regarding when union
representatives could speak with unit members.
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 27
8. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(1) the Act by
unlawfully promising a wage increase only if employees got rid
of the union.
9. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by conveying to employees the futility of union representation.
10. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by conveying to employees by promising better future conditions
if employees got rid of the union.
11. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act by unlawfully withdrawing recognition of the union.
12. The Respondent Valley violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by unlawfully taking unilateral action regarding wages.
13. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by surveilling union officials and employees.
14. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by withdrawing recognition of the RN unit.
15. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act by unlawfully taking unilateral action regarding wages
regarding the RN unit.
16. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by withdrawing recognition of the Technical
Unit.
17. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act by unlawfully taking unilateral action regarding wages
regarding the Technical Unit.
18. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(1)
by directly soliciting decertification through Smith.
19. The Respondent Desert Springs violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by unlawfully causing disaffection.
REMEDY
Having found Respondents have engaged in certain unfair la-
bor practices, I find Respondents must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
a. Respondent Valley shall cease its interference with the Un-
ion’s access to the employees it represents at Valley as permitted
by the terms of its expired collective-bargaining agreements with
the Union, including by prohibiting the Union from talking with
more than two employees at a time or denying the Union access
to new employees at our orientation programs.
b. Respondent Valley shall cease promising employees bene-
fits, such as wage increases, if they remove the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
c. Respondent Valley shall cease threatening to withhold ben-
efits, such as wage increases, from employees, if they do not re-
move the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
d. Respondent Valley shall cease casting blame upon the Un-
ion for the withholding of benefits, such as wage increases, from
employees.
e. Respondent Valley shall cease suggesting to employees
that they should decertify the Union as their collective-bargain-
ing representative.
f. Respondent Valley shall cease granting benefits, such as
wage increases, to undermine employee support for the Union.
g. Respondent Valley shall not refuse to bargain in good faith
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the following appropriate unit
(the Valley RN Unit):
h. All Registered Nurses (RNs) employed by the hospital, but
excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
i. Respondent Valley shall cease making changes to the
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of
employees in the Valley RN Unit, including by changing rules
or practices related to Union access to the facilities and ceasing
to remit to the union dues deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired,
and unrevoked employee dues check off authorizations, and
changing employees’ rates of pay, without prior notice to the Un-
ion and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct and
without first bargaining with the Union to an overall good-faith
impasse for a collective-bargaining agreement.
j. Respondent Valley shall not refuse to provide the Union
with information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the
collective-bargaining representative of the Valley RN Unit.
k. Respondent Valley shall cease engaging in conduct that
undermines the Union’s status as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the Valley RN Unit.
l. Respondent Valley shall not withdraw recognition from the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the Valley RN Unit employees and thereafter fail and refuse to
recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of those unit employees, in the absence of a Board-
conducted election, in the absence of a showing that the Union
has lost majority support, or based on evidence of loss of major-
ity support that was caused by our unfair labor practices.
m. Respondent Valley shall cease threatening employees with
withholding benefits if the employees support the Union or
promise to grant you benefits if you do not support the Union.
n. Respondent shall not in any manner interfere with em-
ployee rights under Section 7 of the Act.
o. Respondent shall, bargain in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Valley
RN Unit employees.
p. Respondent Valley shall upon request of the Union, rescind
the changes made to the wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment for the employees in the Valley RN Unit,
including changes made to rules and practices related to the post-
ing of materials on the Union’s bulletin boards at its facilities,
changing rules or practices related to union access to its facilities,
promulgating new rules related to employee conduct or activi-
ties, failing to remit to the Union dues deducted pursuant to valid,
unexpired, and unrevoked employee dues check off authoriza-
tions, and changing employees’ rates of pay, without prior notice
to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain with respect to this conduct and the effects of this con-
duct and without first bargaining with the Union.
q. Respondent Valley shall provide the Union the following
information it requested on January 31, 2017: Employee job
classification, name, address, telephone number(s), email or
other electronic address, and department where employee works.
r. Respondent Valley shall reimburse the Union, with interest,
at no expense, for all dues that it failed to deduct and remit
28 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pursuant to valid, unexpired, and unrevoked employee dues
check off authorizations.
s. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease removing union lit-
erature from bulletin boards maintained by Service Employees
International Union, Local 1107 (the Union) at our facility.
t. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease confiscating union
literature from employee break rooms in the presence of employ-
ees.
u. Respondent Desert Springs shall not interfere with the Un-
ion’s access to the employees it represents at our facility, as per-
mitted by the terms of our expired collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the Union, including by prohibiting the Union from
talking with employees it represents in the presence of unrepre-
sented employees.
v. Respondent Desert Springs shall not prohibit employees
who support the Union from being near other people soliciting
in opposition to the Union.
w. Respondent Desert Springs shall not engage in surveil-
lance of union officials or employees including by recording em-
ployees speaking with union representatives.
x. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease providing assistance
to employees in soliciting employees to sign cards or a petition
seeking to remove the Union as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative.
y. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease soliciting employ-
ees to sign cards or a petition seeking to remove the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
z. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease promising employ-
ees benefits, such as wage increases, if they remove the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
aa. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease threatening to
withhold benefits, such as wage increases, from employees, if
they do not remove the Union as their collective-bargaining rep-
resentative.
bb. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease granting employ-
ees benefits, such as wage increases, to undermine your support
for the Union.
cc. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease its refusal to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of employees in the following appropriate
unit (the Desert Springs RN Unit): All Registered Nurses em-
ployed by the hospital, including all relief charge nurses, but ex-
cluding all other employees, guards and supervisors, including
all charge nurses, as defined in the National Labor Relations Act
the Act).
dd. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease refusing to bargain
in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of our employees in the following appropriate
unit (the Desert Springs Technical Unit):
All technicians and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) employed
by the hospital, but excluding all other employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
ee. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease making changes to
the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment

10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
of employees in the Desert Springs RN Unit or the Desert
Springs Technical Unit, including by changing rules and prac-
tices related to the posting of materials on the Union’s bulletin
boards at our facilities, changing rules or practices related to un-
ion access to its facilities, promulgating new rules related to em-
ployee conduct or activities, and ceasing to remit to the union
dues deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired, and unrevoked em-
ployee dues check-off authorizations, without prior notice to the
Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct and
without first bargaining with the Union to an overall good-faith
impasse for successor collective-bargaining agreements.
ff. Respondent Desert Springs shall cease engaging in con-
duct undermining the Union’s status as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Desert Springs RN Unit and the Desert
Springs Technical Unit.
gg. Respondent Desert Springs shall not withdraw recogni-
tion from the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the Desert Springs RN Unit or
the employees in the Desert Springs Technical Unit and thereaf-
ter fail and refuse to recognize the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of those unit employees, in the ab-
sence of a Board-conducted election, in the absence of a showing
that the Union has lost majority support, or based on evidence of
loss of majority support that was caused or directly tainted by
our unfair labor practices.
hh. Respondent Desert Springs shall not in any manner inter-
fere with employee rights under Section 7 of the Act.
ii. Respondent Desert Springs shall upon request of the Un-
ion, bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of employees in the Desert
Springs RN Unit and the employees in the Desert Springs Tech-
nical Unit.
jj. Each Respondent will be ordered to post an appropriate
notice.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
The Respondents, Valley Health System LLC, d/b/a Desert
Springs Hospital Medical Center and Valley Hospital Medical
Center, Inc., d/b/a Valley Hospital Medical Center Las Vegas,
Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from engaging in the following conduct
a) Respondent Valley shall cease its interference with the Un-
ion’s access to the employees it represents at Valley as permitted
by the terms of its expired collective-bargaining agreements with
the Union, including by prohibiting the Union from talking with
more than two employees at a time or denying the Union access
to new employees at our orientation programs.
b) Respondent Valley shall cease promising employees ben-
efits, such as wage increases, if they remove the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 29
c) Respondent Valley shall cease threatening to withhold ben-
efits, such as wage increases, from employees, if they do not re-
move the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.
d) Respondent Valley shall cease casting blame upon the Un-
ion for the withholding of benefits, such as wage increases, from
employees.
e) Respondent Valley shall cease suggesting to employees
that they should decertify the Union as their collective-bargain-
ing representative.
f) Respondent Valley shall cease granting benefits, such as
wage increases, to undermine employee support for the Union.
g) Respondent Valley shall not refuse to bargain in good faith
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of employees in the following appropriate unit (the Valley
RN Unit): All Registered Nurses (RNs) employed by the hospi-
tal, but excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
h) Respondent Valley shall cease making changes to the
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of
employees in the Valley RN Unit, including by changing rules
or practices related to union access to the facilities and ceasing
to remit to the union dues deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired,
and unrevoked employee dues check off authorizations, and
changing employees’ rates of pay, without prior notice to the Un-
ion and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct and
without first bargaining with the Union to an overall good-faith
impasse for a collective-bargaining agreement.
i) Respondent Valley shall not refuse to provide the Union
with information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the
collective-bargaining representative of the Valley RN Unit.
j) Respondent Valley shall cease engaging in conduct that un-
dermines the Union’s status as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the Valley RN Unit.
k) Respondent Valley shall not withdraw recognition from
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the Valley RN Unit employees and thereafter fail and refuse
to recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of those unit employees, in the absence of a
Board-conducted election, in the absence of a showing that the
Union has lost majority support, or based on evidence of loss of
majority support that was caused by our unfair labor practices.
l) Respondent Valley shall cease threatening employees with
withholding benefits if the employees support the Union or
promise to grant you benefits if you do not support the Union.
m) Respondent shall not in any manner interfere with em-
ployee rights under Section 7 of the Act.
n) Respondent shall, bargain in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Valley
RN Unit employees.
o) Respondent Valley shall upon request of the Union, rescind
the changes made to the wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment for the employees in the Valley RN Unit,
including changes made to rules and practices related to the post-
ing of materials on the Union’s bulletin boards at its facilities,
changing rules or practices related to union access to its facilities,
promulgating new rules related to employee conduct or activi-
ties, failing to remit to the union dues deducted pursuant to valid,
unexpired, and unrevoked employee dues check off authoriza-
tions, and changing employees’ rates of pay, without prior notice
to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain with respect to this conduct and the effects of this con-
duct and without first bargaining with the Union.
p) Respondent Valley shall provide the Union the following
information it requested on January 31, 2017: Employee job
classification, name, address, telephone number(s), email or
other electronic address, and department where employee works.
q) Respondent Valley shall reimburse the Union, with inter-
est, at no expense, for all dues that it failed to deduct and remit
pursuant to valid, unexpired, and unrevoked employee dues
check off authorizations.
r) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease removing union lit-
erature from bulletin boards maintained by Service Employees
International Union, Local 1107 (the Union) at our facility.
s) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease confiscating union
literature from employee break rooms in the presence of employ-
ees.
t) Respondent Desert Springs shall not interfere with the Un-
ion’s access to the employees it represents at our facility, as per-
mitted by the terms of our expired collective-bargaining agree-
ments with the Union, including by prohibiting the Union from
talking with employees it represents in the presence of unrepre-
sented employees.
u) Respondent Desert Springs shall not prohibit employees
who support the Union from being near other people soliciting
in opposition to the Union.
v) Respondent Desert Springs shall not engage in surveillance
of union officials or employees including by recording employ-
ees speaking with union representatives.
w) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease providing assis-
tance to employees in soliciting employees to sign cards or a pe-
tition seeking to remove the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
x) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease soliciting employ-
ees to sign cards or a petition seeking to remove the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
y) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease promising employ-
ees benefits, such as wage increases, if they remove the Union as
their collective-bargaining representative.
z) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease threatening to with-
hold benefits, such as wage increases, from employees, if they
do not remove the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
aa) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease granting employ-
ees benefits, such as wage increases, to undermine your support
for the Union.
bb) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease its refusal to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of employees in the following appropriate
unit (the Desert Springs RN Unit): All Registered Nurses em-
ployed by the hospital, including all relief charge nurses, but ex-
cluding all other employees, guards and supervisors, including
all charge nurses, as defined in the National Labor Relations Act
the Act).
cc) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease refusing to bargain
in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
30 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining representative of its employees in the following ap-
propriate unit (the Desert Springs Technical Unit):
All technicians and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) employed by
the hospital, but excluding all other employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
dd) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease making changes
to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment of employees in the Desert Springs RN Unit or the Desert
Springs Technical Unit, including by changing rules and prac-
tices related to the posting of materials on the Union’s bulletin
boards at its facilities, changing rules or practices related to Un-
ion access to its facilities, promulgating new rules related to em-
ployee conduct or activities, and ceasing to remit to the union
dues deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired, and unrevoked em-
ployee dues check-off authorizations, without prior notice to the
Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct and
without first bargaining with the Union to an overall good-faith
impasse for successor collective-bargaining agreements.
ee) Respondent Desert Springs shall cease engaging in con-
duct undermining the Union’s status as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Desert Springs RN Unit and the Desert
Springs Technical Unit.
ff) Respondent Desert Springs shall not withdraw recognition
from the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the Desert Springs RN Unit or the
employees in the Desert Springs Technical Unit and thereafter
fail and refuse to recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of those unit employees, in the absence
of a Board-conducted election, in the absence of a showing that
the Union has lost majority support, or based on evidence of loss
of majority support that was caused or directly tainted by our
unfair labor practices.
gg) Respondent Desert Springs shall not in any manner inter-
fere with employee rights under Section 7 of the Act.
hh) Respondent Desert Springs shall, upon request of the Un-
ion, bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of employees in the Desert
Springs RN Unit and the employees in the Desert Springs Tech-
nical Unit.
ii) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in Las Vegas, NV copies of the attached notices marked
“Appendix.”11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. In addition to physical
posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electron-
ically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. In the event

11 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
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time since Sep-
tember 23, 2016.
Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Re-
gional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on
a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 28, 2018
APPENDIX A
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 be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the
above rights.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the Union’s access to the employ-
ees it represents at our facility, as permitted by the terms of our
expired collective-bargaining agreements with the Union, in-
cluding by prohibiting the Union from talking with more than two
employees at a time or denying the Union access to new employ-
ees at our orientation programs.
WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits, such as wage in-
creases, if they remove the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten to withhold benefits, such as wage in-
creases, from employees, if theydo not remove the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT blame the Union for our withholding of benefits,
such as wage increases, from employees.
WE WILL NOT suggest to employees that they should decertify
the Union as their collective-bargainingrepresentative.
WE WILL NOT grant you benefits, such as wage increases, to
undermine your support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit (the Valley RN Unit):
All Registered Nurses (RNs) employed by the hospital, but
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 31
excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
WE WILL NOT make changes to the wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment of employees in the Valley
RN Unit, including by changing rules or practices related to un-
ion access to our facilities and ceasing to remit to the union dues
deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired, and unrevoked employee
dues check off authorizations, and changing employees’ rates of
pay, without prior notice to the Union and without affording the
Union an opportunity to bargain with respect to this conduct and
the effects of this conduct and without first bargaining with the
Union to an overall good-faith impasse for a collective-bargain-
ing agreement.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Union with information that
is relevant and necessary to its role as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Valley RN Unit.
WE WILL NOT engage in conduct undermining the Union’s sta-
tus as the collective-bargaining representative of the Valley RN
Unit.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from the Union as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the Valley RN
Unit employees and thereafter fail and refuse to recognize the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
those unit employees, in the absence of a Board-conducted elec-
tion, in the absence of a showing that the Union has lost majority
support, or based on evidence of loss of majority support that was
caused by our unfair labor practices.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with withholding benefits if you
support the Union or promise to grant you benefits if you do not
support the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with your rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, bargain in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the Valley RN Unit employees.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, rescind the changes we
made to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment for the employees in the Valley RN Unit, including
changes we made to rules and practices related to the posting of
materials on the Union’s bulletin boards at its facilities, changing
rules or practices related to union access to its facilities, promul-
gating new rules related to employee conduct or activities, failing
to remit to the union dues deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired,
and unrevoked employee dues check off authorizations, and
changing employees’ rates of pay, without prior notice to the Un-
ion and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct and
without first bargaining with the Union.
WE WILL provide the Union the following information it re-
quested on January 31, 2017:
Employee job classification, name, address, telephone num-
ber(s), email or other electronic address, and department
where employee works.
WE WILL reimburse the Union, with interest, at no expense to
you, for all dues that we failed to deduct and remit pursuant to
valid, unexpired, and unrevoked employee dues check offauthor-
izations.
VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D/B/A
VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-184993 or by using the QR code be-
low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273-1940.
APPENDIX B
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 be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the
above rights.
WE WILL NOT remove union literature from bulletin boards
maintained by Service Employees International Union, Local
1107 (the Union) at our facility.
WE WILL NOT confiscate union literature from employee break
rooms in the presence of employees.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the Union’s access to the employ-
ees it represents at our facility, as permitted by the terms of our
expired collective-bargaining agreements with the Union, in-
cluding by prohibiting the Union from talking with employees it
represents in the presence of unrepresented employees.
WE WILL NOT prohibit employees who support the Union from
being near other people soliciting in opposition to the Union.
WE WILL NOT watch out for or make it appear that we are
watching out for your or other employees’ union activity,
32 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including by recording employees speaking with union repre-
sentatives.
WE WILL NOT provide assistance to employees in soliciting em-
ployees to sign cards or a petition seeking to remove the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to sign cards or a petition seek-
ing to remove the Union as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits, such as wage in-
creases, if they remove the Union as their collective-bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten to withhold benefits, such as wage in-
creases, from employees, if theydo not remove the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT grant employees benefits, such as wage in-
creases, to undermine your support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit (the Desert Springs RN
Unit):
All Registered Nurses employed by the hospital, including all
relief charge nurses, but excluding all other employees, guards
and supervisors, including all charge nurses, as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act the Act).
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit (the Desert Springs
Technical Unit):
All technicians and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) employed
by the hospital, but excluding all other employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT make changes to the wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment of employees in the Desert
Springs RN Unit or the Desert Springs Technical Unit, including
by changing rules and practices related to the posting of materials
on the Union’s bulletin boards at our facilities, changing rules or
practices related to union access to our facilities, promulgating
new rules related to employee conduct or activities, and ceasing
to remit to the union dues deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired,
and unrevoked employee dues check-off authorizations, without
prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an op-
portunity to bargain with respect to this conduct and the effects
of this conduct and without first bargaining with the Union to an
overall good-faith impasse for successor collective-bargaining
agreements.
WE WILL NOT engage in conduct undermining the Union’s sta-
tus as the collective-bargaining representative of the Desert
Springs RN Unit and the Desert Springs Technical Unit.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from the Union as the ex-
clusive collective- bargaining representative of the employees in
the Desert Springs RN Unit or the employees in the Desert
Springs Technical Unit and thereafter fail and refuse to recognize
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
those unit employees, in the absence of a Board-conducted elec-
tion, in the absence of a showing that the Union has lost majority
support, or based on evidence of loss of majority support that was
caused or directly tainted by our unfair labor practices.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with your rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, bargain in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of employees in the Desert Springs RN Unit and the employees
in the Desert Springs Technical Unit.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, rescind the changes we
made to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment for employees in the Desert Springs RN Unit and the
employees in the Desert Springs Technical Unit without afford-
ing the Union an opportunity to bargain with respect to this con-
duct and the effects of this conduct and without first bargaining
with the Union to an overall good-faith impasse for successor
collective-bargaining agreements, including: changes we made to
rules and practices related to the posting of materials on the Un-
ion’s bulletin boards at our facilities, changes to rules or practices
related to union access to our facilities, promulgation of new rules
related to employee conduct or activities, and cessation of remis-
sion to the Union of dues deducted pursuant to valid, unexpired,
and unrevoked employee dues check-off authorizations.
WE WILL reimburse the Union, with interest, at no expense to
you, for all dues that we failed to deduct and remit pursuant to
valid, unexpired, and unrevoked employee dues check-off au-
thorizations.
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM LLC, D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-184993 or by using the QR code be-
low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273-1940.