Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 12, 2007

28-CA-020805 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 12, 2007)

JD(ATL)—19—07
Las Vegas, NV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
5
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC
D/B/A DESERT SPRINGS HOSPITAL
MEDICAL CENTER10
and Cases 28-CA-20805
28-CA-20806
NEVADA SERVICE EMPLOYEES 28-CA-20807
UNION, LOCAL 1107, affiliated with 28-CA-2080815
SERVICE EMPLOYEES 28-CA-20854
INTERNATIONAL UNION 28-CA-20861
28-CA-20877
28-CA-21014
28-CA-2111520
Joel C. Schochet, Esq., for the General
Counsel.
Raymond J. Carey, Esq., for the Respondent.
Glenn Rothner, Esq., for the Charging Party.
25
DECISION
Statement of the Case30
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard
before me in Las Vegas, Nevada, on April 17 and 18, 2007. The complaint is based on
charges filed by Local 108, affiliated with Service Employees International Union (“the
Charging Party” or “the Union”), in Cases 28-CA-20805, 28-CA-20806, 28-CA-20807, 28-35
CA-20808, 28-CA-20854, 28-CA-20861, 28-CA-20877, 28-CA-21014 and 28-CA-21115,
against Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center, herein described by its correct name, Valley
Health System, LLC d/b/a Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center (“the Respondent” or “the
Hospital”). The complaint alleges violations of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”).
The complaint is joined by the Answer filed by the Respondent wherein it denies the 40
commission of any violations of the Act.
After due consideration of the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the
briefs filed by the parties, I make the following:
45
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 2 -
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
I. The Business of the Respondent
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material herein 5
the Respondent has been a Delaware limited liability company, with an office and place of
business in Las Vegas, Nevada, engaged in the operation of a hospital providing inpatient and
outpatient medical care, that during the 12-month period ending May 4, 2006, the Respondent
in conducting its aforesaid business operations derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000,
and purchased and received at its facility, goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from 10
points outside the State of Nevada and has been 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.
II. The Labor Organization115
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material herein
the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices20
A substantial part of the allegations in this consolidated complaint have been resolved
by settlement and dismissed leaving for resolution only the various allegations of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) violations concerning registered nurse Christina Schofield. These remaining
allegations concerning Schofield are as follows:25
1. On or about May 1, 2006, Respondent revoked its permission for Schofield to
park in the Physicians Parking Lot at the Respondent’s facility.
2. On or about May 30, 2006, the Respondent issued Schofield an unwarranted
verbal warning.30
3. On or about July 3, 2006, the Respondent issued Schofield an unwarranted
written warning.
4. On or about September 29, 2006, the Respondent discharged Schofield.
In early April 2006, the Union and the Respondent commenced bargaining for a 35
successor collective-bargaining agreement (c/b/a) to the existing agreement which was set to
expire by its terms on April 30, 2006. In April, 2006 Cristina Schofield became a member of

1 The following employees of the Respondent, herein called the RN unit, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All Registered Nurses employed by the Respondent, including all relief charge nurses;
excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors, including charge nurses as defined in
the Act.
On or about October 3, 1994, the Union was certified as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the RN unit and has since then been recognized as such representative by the
Respondent. This recognition has been embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the
most recent of which became effective on February 22, 2007, and is currently in force.
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 3 -
the Union’s negotiating committee. She also was a member of the Union and Management
committee under the existing c/b/a. The bargaining for a successor agreement was
contentious and Schofield was a supporter of the Union during the bargaining. She was one
of five nurses who called themselves the “truth squad” whose photographs and comments
appeared in the Union’s literature. Schofield was active in distributing the union literature5
which she caused to be distributed to the registered nurses by placing it on Union bulletin
boards with the approval of Respondent’s management. Her role as a Union advocate did not
go unnoticed. She was told by her supervisor Matthew Grimes that he had been told by
Respondent’s management to watch her and that he would write her up for any infractions.
The General Counsel contends that although Schofield had an unblemished record since 10
becoming a regular employee in June 2004, that she became the recipient of discipline from
the Hospital management that occurred in less than a five-month period after she became
more active on behalf of the Union’s position on the contract negotiations in April 2006. She
received verbal and written warnings and was discharged on September 29, 2006 for alleged
“insubordination.” General Counsel asserts that the timing of the disciplinary actions taken 15
against Schofield supports a finding that these actions taken against Schofield were in
retaliation for her support of the Union. General Counsel also notes comments made by
Respondent after certain of the nurses filed a petition to decertify the Union on February 22,
2007. On April 3, 2007, the Respondent directed a letter to the Nurses’ bargaining unit
employees proclaiming that “the future arrived at Desert Springs” on March 22, 2006 when 20
certain of the unit employees filed a petition to decertify the Union.
Schofield testified that for almost two years she had parked in a parking lot referred to
as the physicians’ parking lot and that other non-physicians also parked in the lot as well. In
its brief General Counsel contends that unit employees parked in this lot as well. However 25
there is little support in the record for this contention. The physicians’ parking lot is
described in the record as being the northwest lot. Schofield testified that the parking lot was
on the northwestern side of the hospital and was not designated for physicians and that she
and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Sam Kaufman, had routinely seen each other park on this
lot which operates with a cardkey entry to open the gate and that she used her employee badge30
card to open the gate as any type of card would open the gate. She testified that this was
related to her by Dr. Mohammed Amad, a doctor on the hospital’s staff with whom she has a
relationship. She testified that she had not been previously told that she could not park in the
lot. However, in early May 2006, Kaufman barred her from the use of the parking lot.
Kaufman testified that there are three parking lots which are limited to physician parking. 35
There are signs stating “No Parking, Doctors Only.” This prohibition of the use of the parking
lot by Schofield occurred shortly after she had become a member of the Union’s bargaining
committee in April 2006. Kaufman testified that parking on the Physicians’ parking lot is
limited to doctors and members of the Hospital’s executive team.
40
The General Counsel contends that the revocation of the parking lot privilege is a
violation of the Act. I find, however, that the Respondent did not violate the Act by advising
Schofield that she could not park on the lot. As noted above, the record does not support
General Counsel’s contention that unit employees were permitted to park on the lot. I find as
contended by the Respondent that it had designated this lot for physician parking and for 45
executive department heads as testified to by Kaufman. Although Schofield testified she saw
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 4 -
other unit employees park on this parking lot, I find that the evidence is insufficient to support
a finding that Schofield had somehow acquired permission to park in the parking lot which
was designated for physician parking. Accordingly, I find that Respondent did not violate the
Act when it ordered Schofield to refrain from parking on the lot.
5
As noted above in April 2006, the Union and the Respondent were negotiating a
successor labor agreement to replace the existing labor agreement which was to expire on
April 30, 2006. Schofield, a registered nurse, became a member of the Union after she had
assumed a fulltime staff position with the Respondent in June 2004. Schofield also became a
Union representative on the Union’s negotiating team and on its collective-bargaining 10
agreement labor management committee. Schofield worked in the Special Procedures unit
and the Gastrointestinal (GI) unit of the hospital. The Union has represented the registered
nurses (“RN’s”) since 1994. It also represents a separate unit for the technical employees at
the hospital. On April 13, 2006, the parties began negotiations for a successor labor
agreement but did not reach agreement until March 22, 2007, several months after the labor 15
agreement had expired. According to a letter sent by Respondent to the RN unit employees
on April 2, 2007, negotiations were difficult and contentious. On March 22, 2007 a
decertification petition was filed. In its letter of April 2, 2007 to the employees in the nurses’
bargaining unit, which was signed by Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Sam Kaufman, Chief
Nursing Officer (“CNO”) Marcey Jorgenson and Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) Mark 20
Crawford, Respondent hailed the filing of the decertification petition on February 22, 2007, as
the day “the future arrived” at Respondent. Respondent also hired a labor consultant. During
this period the parties were campaigning for their respective positions with Respondent in
favor of the decertification of the Union and the Union opposing it. Commencing in April
2006, Schofield became more active on behalf of the Union and was one of five nurses who 25
labeled themselves as the “Truth squad” and prepared and circulated literature on behalf of
the Union’s position on the ongoing contract bargaining. The literature contained their
photographs as well as their statements in favor of the Union’s position. It is undisputed and I
find significant that prior to April of 2006, Schofield had an unblemished record as an
employee of Respondent and had never been disciplined. However, she soon received 30
discipline in the form of written and verbal warnings and ultimately was discharged allegedly
for insubordination because of her refusal to take responsibility for a patient.
In early May 2006, when Schofield arrived at the GI lab, she encountered recovery
nurse Cathy Ruis and admitting nurse Georgene Kreger, who were upset that a doctor’s office 35
had not been getting his schedules in on time which was causing scheduling problems in the
GI lab. Schofield and technician Tony Robinson, using separate telephone handsets, called
the physician’s office and talked to his scheduler and explained the problem. The scheduler
transferred the telephone call to the office manager who listened to the explanation of the
problem and said “OK.” Schofield testified that no harsh words or rudeness were exchanged. 40
I credit her testimony which was unrebutted as neither Robinson nor the scheduler nor the
Office Manager were called to testify. It was almost a month later that Schofield received a
warning for this incident from Matt Grimes, (who was, then the head of Ancillary Services
and Risk Management which includes Special Procedures and the GI lab) for failing to follow
the chain of command in contacting the Doctor’s office. This warning was issued to 45
Schofield the same time as a written verbal warning for an incident which occurred in the late
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 5 -
half of May for the alleged failure of Schofield to inform the director of Biomedical
Engineering that a part had arrived. Schofield testified she had signed for the box containing
the part while she was in the GI lab and that normally it was the responsibility of the
radiology techs to go through the packages and deliver them. Grimes issued the written
verbal warning to her for both incidents. He told Schofield that it was her responsibility to 5
know what she was signing for. Grimes was not called to testify in this proceeding.
Subsequently in June, Schofield’s wallet was missing and she was required to change
bank accounts and file a new direct deposit form. She went to Respondent’s Human
Resources office and spoke to a clerical employee named “Romina.” Schofield testified she 10
tried to explain what she needed but Romina spoke over her and would not look at the letter
she had brought from the bank. She also testified that Romina was rude. Schofield then went
to the office of Human Resource Representative Angie Davidson and explained the situation
and complained about the rude treatment she had received from Romina. Davidson explained
what was needed for the direct deposit and apologized to Schofield for Romina’s conduct. 15
However, Grimes issued a written warning to Schofield on July 3, 2006. He told Schofield
that he had received an e-mail from Human Resources ordering him to discipline Schofield.
He did not tell her who had ordered the discipline. Schofield explained what had happened
and Grimes told her she could issue a rebuttal. She did but the discipline was not changed.
As noted above, Grimes was not called to testify in this proceeding.20
On July 6, 2006, Schofield poured a soda from the soda machine near the Emergency
Department (ED). CEO Kaufman was present in the ED kitchen and saw this. Shortly
thereafter Grimes called Schofield to his office and issued her a verbal warning dated July 7,
2006 and told her that Kaufman did not want her to get soda from the ED diet kitchen. 25
Grimes also gave Schofield a memo dated July 7, 2006, from Jane Nash, the radiology
manager, which advised employees, “the ER fountain drink machine is for use by EMT
personnel and available for the patients and the patient families.” Schofield testified she told
Grimes that he was “kidding” her. She testified that employees from Radiology, Special
Procedures and the ED use soda from that machine daily. I credit Schofield’s testimony in 30
this regard which was unrebutted as Grimes did not testify. The record supports a finding that
the Hospital had never previously disciplined either Schofield or other employees for using
the soda machine.
Analysis35
Disparate treatment may be inferred from the circumstances. Shattuck Denn Mining
Corp. v. NLRB, 62 LRRM 2401, 2404 (9th Cir. 1966). Unlawful motivation may be inferred
from the evidence in the absence of direct evidence of animus. The New Otani Hotel &
Garden, 325 NLRB 928 (1998). It is well settled that an employer’s failure to conduct a 40
meaningful investigation of the alleged wrongdoing of the employee who is under scrutiny
and the failure to give the employee an opportunity to explain his conduct is an indication of
discriminatory intent. New Orleans Cold Storage & Warehouse Co., 326 NLRB No. 161
(1998). If the reasons for the decision advanced by the employer are shown to be pretextual,
the Board may infer that the true motivation for the discipline was unlawful. Bardaville 45
Electric, Inc., 309 NLRB 337 (1992). Timing alone may suggest antiunion animus as the
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 6 -
motivation for discharge. Masland Industries, Inc., 311 NLRB 184 (1993). The discipline of
an employee violates Section 8(a)(3) of the Act when there is evidence that the employer has
seized upon union activity to justify changing its previous tolerant policy toward the
employee. Gravure Packaging, Inc., 321 NLRB 1296 (1996).
5
I find the foregoing instances of discipline support the unrebutted testimony of
Schofield and the conclusion that Respondent was seizing on any opportunity to discipline
Schofield. It is significant that in each instance there was little or no investigation of the
incident but rather Respondent issued the discipline to Schofield without giving her an
opportunity to answer these charges before imposing discipline. I also find significant 10
Schofield’s testimony that Grimes told her the management of Respondent had told him to
watch her. I credit Schofield’s testimony which was unrebutted as Grimes was not called to
testify. I thus conclude that the issuances of the foregoing disciplines were motivated by
Respondent’s determination to rid itself of a leading Union advocate who had become a
source of irritation for Respondent.15
The Termination of Christina Schofield
On September 27, 2006, Schofield was assigned to work in the gastrointestinal (“GI”)
lab as the procedure nurse along with Georgene Kreger who served as the admissions nurse 20
and Kathy Ruis who served as the recovery room nurse. She arrived at the lab around 7:30
a.m. and assisted in a procedure which was concluded about 8:45 a.m. Recovery room nurse
Ruis then took over the responsibility for the patient. Schofield then went to the cafeteria for
coffee and returned to the GI lab about 9:15 or 9:20 a.m. Upon her return she was met by
nurse Ruis who told her that nursing supervisor Alice Kelly had come by the GI lab and said 25
that there was an Emergency Department (ED) patient that Kelly wanted taken report on. To
“Take report” is to accept primary responsibility for the patient. Schofield testified that she
said “Oh No” and that she could not take the patient because she was to assist in a procedure
at 10 a.m. that morning. Schofield testified that ED nurse Traci Cornelison then came in with
the patient’s chart and asked Schofield where the patient would be put. Schofield told 30
Cornelison that she could not take report on the patient as she had to assist with procedures in
the GI lab. Cornelison said, OK and then left. Schofield testified that Ruis did not say
anything. Schofield then went to the area where nurse Kreger was and told her that the
management was going to assign an ED patient to the GI lab. Kreger said she could not and
would not take the patient because she lacked ED skills. Schofield testified that she did not at 35
any time tell Ruis or Kreger to refuse to take the patient. Kreger testified she told Schofield
she would not take the patient. Ruis was not called to testify.
Schofield returned to the GI lab and met Kelly there who told her she (Schofield) must
take the patient. Schofield told Kelly she could not take the patient as she could not do 40
procedures and be responsible for primary care of an ED patient. Kelly repeated that
Schofield must take report for the ED patient and Schofield said she would not do so. Kelly
also informed Schofield that the patient was scheduled for a procedure later that day in the GI
lab for the removal of a foreign substance. Schofield testified that she was concerned that the
patient might choke in another room while she was assisting in a procedure. At that point 45
Kelly told Schofield she was in “charge.” Schofield asked when this had happened. A charge
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 7 -
nurse is a supervisory employee outside of the bargaining unit and receives a higher rate of
pay than a registered nurse in the bargaining unit. Schofield had never been told she was a
charge nurse and had never received charge nurse pay. Kelly again said that Schofield was in
charge and that Schofield must take responsibility for the patient. Schofield said she would
not risk the patient’s life and her nursing license. Kelly left but returned shortly thereafter 5
with Chief Nursing Officer Jorgenson. This was about 20 minutes prior to the next procedure
scheduled for 10 a.m. Jorgenson asked what Schofield was doing. Schofield said she was
preparing for the procedure. Jorgenson said she (Schofield) was not doing anything.
Schofield said she was getting ready for the procedure. Jorgenson told Schofield she must
take the patient. Schofield said she could not do so for the good of the patient as she would be 10
assisting with the 10 a.m. procedure. Jorgenson told Schofield she must take report on the
patient or go home. Schofield said she would go home. According to Schofield, neither
Jorgenson nor Kelly asked Kreger or Ruis to take the patient. When Jorgenson returned
shortly thereafter, Schofield told her she would not set a precedent of taking on another
patient while running the GI lab as this would risk the patient’s safety. On Thursday, 15
September 28, 2006, Respondent called Schofield and told her there would be a meeting on
September 29, to discuss her situation.
Jorgenson testified that she was informed by supervisor Alice Kelly that Ruis had
already agreed to take report on the patient in the ED. Schofield testified that Kelly and 20
Jorgenson had asked her to take report for the patient in the ED. Jorgenson testified that
Schofield, herself, was not asked to take report on the ED patient but was preventing Ruis
from taking report. Jorgenson testified that Schofield was in charge of the Procedure
Department. However, Schofield was not a charge nurse, did not receive charge nurse pay
and consequently did not have the authority to order either Ruis or nurse Kreger not to take 25
report for the ED patient. Schofield testified that she herself was asked to take report for the
patient and told both Kelly and Jorgenson that she could not take report for the ED patient
because she was the procedure nurse and was scheduled to assist in a procedure at 10 a.m. that
morning in approximately 20 minutes. Upon Schofield’s refusal to take the ED patient,
Jorgenson sent her home. Jorgenson assigned two nurses to assist with the 10 a.m. procedure, 30
and the ED patient was not transferred to the Procedure Department until shortly prior to her
scheduled time for a procedure. On September 28, 2006, (the very next day) Respondent’s
Recovery Supervisor, Ramona J. Chatman created an e-mail in which she contended that
Schofield was a charge nurse although she had never received charge nurse pay. I find the
creation of this was designed to bolster Respondent’s contention that Schofield was a charge 35
nurse who had ordered nurse Ruis not to take report although Ruis had agreed to do so on the
request of supervisor Alice Kelly. Neither Ruis nor Kelly were called to testify in this
proceeding.
Respondent introduced into evidence, statements taken by Respondent on its behalf 40
with respect to the events of September 27, 2006. To this end statements were taken from
recovery nurse Ruis, admitting nurse Kreger, ED nurse Traci Cornelison and house nurse
Kelly by Respondent’s Director of Human Resources Robert Taylor and from CNO
Jorgenson. However, Respondent did not call Cornelison, Kelly or Ruis to testify. While the
statements of these individuals tended to support Respondent’s position with respect to the 45
events of September 27 when Schofield refused to take the ED patient, they were not
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 8 -
conclusive and these individual’s credibility was not tested by cross-examination by the
General Counsel and the Charging Party’s counsel. Thus there remains doubt as to which
version is the accurate one. If in fact Schofield was truly under the impression that she was
being asked or ordered to personally undertake the case of the ED patient in addition to
performing as the procedure nurse, for a procedure that was expected to start in 20 minutes, 5
this does clearly appear unreasonable.
With respect to Respondent’s contention that it was only ordering Schofield to permit
nurse Ruis to take the ED patient and that Schofield was exercising her authority as a charge
nurse, I find this contention is implausible as the evidence is overwhelming that she was not a 10
charge nurse and did not receive any increment in pay as a charge nurse. Consequently,
Schofield had no authority to direct nurse Ruis to refrain from taking the ED patient. Clearly,
Kelly and Jorgenson had the authority to order Ruis to take report for the ED patient while
Schofield was left to attend the patient who was scheduled to undergo a procedure at 10 a.m.
15
In evaluating the testimony of Schofield and Jorgenson concerning precisely what was
said during the discussion concerning whether the ED patient could be brought into the
Procedure Department, I find it unlikely that Schofield was acting as a charge nurse refusing
to let the other nurses take the ED patient. I find it was significant that Respondent did not
call Ruis as a witness if her testimony would have supported Respondent’s position that she 20
had agreed to take the ED patient but had been ordered by Schofield not to do so. Moreover,
even if Schofield had ordered Ruis not to take the ED patient, either Kelly or Jorgenson had
the authority to overrule Schofield’s order and to order Ruis to take report for the ED patient.
Jorgenson and Human Resource Director Robert Taylor met with Schofield and Union 25
representative Ann Wagner on September 29. Jorgenson opened the meeting and asked
Schofield who had ordered her to assume the care of the ED patient. Schofield said that
Jorgenson had done this. Jorgenson asked why she had concluded this. Schofield said it was
Jorgenson’s statement that she must take the patient for the good of the hospital. Jorgenson
then told Schofield that Ruis had agreed to take the ED patient but that Schofield had told her 30
not to do so. Schofield denied this. At this point Jorgenson and Taylor left the room to
caucus. They returned and told Schofield that the Respondent was “severing relations” with
her. She was thus discharged at this time.
Analysis35
Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), end. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982) the General Counsel has the initial burden to establish that:
1. The employee engaged in protected concerted activities.40
2. The employer had knowledge or at least suspicion of the employee’s protected
activities.
3. The employer took adverse action against the employee.45
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 9 -
4. A nexus or link between the protected activities and the adverse action
underlying motive.
Once these four elements have been established, the burden shifts to the Respondent to
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that it took the action for a legitimate non-5
discriminatory business reason. In Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970 (1991), the Board said
that once the General Counsel makes a prima facie case that protected conduct was a
motivating factor in the employer’s decision, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate
that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct.
10
In the instant case, it is clear, and I find, that Christina Schofield was engaged in
protected concerted activity. She was a known active union adherent who had incurred the
displeasure of Respondent and had been punished for her support of the Union by the
unlawful warnings issued to her and was discharged in September 2006. She served on the
Union’s bargaining team upon her appointment to it in April 2006. She had appeared in 15
photographs and in print on Union literature which she distributed to employees by placing it
on Union bulletin boards after obtaining permission from Respondent to do so. CEO
Kaufman and CNO Jorgenson were both aware of Schofield’s engagement in protected union
activity. I find Respondent’s antiunion animus was the motivating reason for the discipline
and discharge of Schofield.20
Not only was Schofield subjected to unwarranted discipline after April 2006, she was
also excluded from attending hospital retreats for medical personnel and management which
she had previously attended as a guest of Dr. Mohammed Amad who was on the staff. She
was warned by Manager Matt Grimes that he had been told to watch her. Schofield also 25
testified that Respondent’s outside labor consultant Brent Yessen followed her on the
premises and would attempt to engage her in conversations about the Union. The timing of
all of the above within the April 2006 to September 29, 2006 period, supports the inference of
Respondent’s unlawful motivation in its discipline and discharge of Schofield.
30
See Hialeah Hospital, 343 NLRB 391, 394 (1994) regarding retaliatory discharge.
See Cox Communications Gulf Coast, L.L.C., 343 NLRB 164 at 164 (2004) finding that the
reason for a discharge was pretextual and supported an inference that the discharge was in
retaliation for the employees’ union activity, citing Shattuck Denn Mining Corp., supra, and
Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799, (6th Cir. 1982).35
I conclude that General Counsel has established a prima facie case of a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Schofield was engaged in protected concerted activities on
behalf of the Union; the Respondent had knowledge of her protected activities; the
Respondent had antiunion animus and took adverse actions against Schofield. A nexus or link 40
has been established between Schofield’s protected concerted activities and Respondent’s
knowledge thereof and the adverse action taken against Schofield by her discharge allegedly
for “insubordination.” I find that Respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case by the
preponderance of the evidence and has failed to demonstrate that it would have disciplined
and discharged Schofield in the absence of her engagement in the protected concerted 45
activities, Wright Line, supra.
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 10 -
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6) and (7)
and (14) of the Act.5
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by the issuance of the 10
above warnings issued to Christina Schofield.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by its discharge of
Christina Schofield.
15
The Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in the above violations of the Act, it
shall be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act and post the 20
appropriate notice. It is recommended that Respondent cease the issuance of the unlawful
warnings and discipline and rescind the warnings and the discharge of Christina Schofield and
offer immediate reinstatement to Schofield. Schofield shall be reinstated to her prior position
or to a substantially equivalent one if her prior position no longer exists. She shall be made
whole for all loss of backpay and benefits sustained by her as a result of the Respondent’s 25
unfair labor practices. All of the backpay amounts shall be computed in the manner
prescribed in F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as computed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) at the “short term federal rate” for the
underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621.
30
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended:
2
ORDER
35
The Respondent Valley Health System, LLC d/b/a Desert Springs Hospital Medical
Center, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
40
(a) Issuing unlawful verbal and written warnings to its employees because
of their engagement in protected concerted activities.

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by §102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in §102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 11 -
(b) Discharging its employees because of their engagement in protected
concerted activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing 5
its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions to effectuate the policies of the Act.
10
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order rescind the warnings issued
to registered nurse Christina Schofield and the discharge of Schofield and offer her full
reinstatement to her former job or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job
without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and
expunge from its files the unlawful warnings and discharge issued to Schofield.15
(b) Make whole Schofield for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, with interest.
(c) Preserve and within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the 20
Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated
by the Board or its agents all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of the
records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order25
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix”
3
at its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada. Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon 30
receipt and maintained for 60 days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at 35
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by the Respondent at any time since April 2006.

3 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall read
"POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 12 -
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
5
Dated at Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007
_______________________10
Lawrence W. Cullen
Administrative Law Judge
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 13 -
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by the Order of the5
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.10
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection15
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT issue our employees, verbal and written warnings because of their
engagement in union and other protected concerted activities.
20
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because of their engagement in union and other
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.25
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order rescind the unlawful warnings
and discharge of Christina Schofield and offer her reinstatement to her former job or if that
job no longer exists, a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to her seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.30
WE WILL, make Christina Schofield whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits as a
result of the discrimination against her, with interest.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any 35
reference to the unlawful warnings issued to Schofield and the discharge of Schofield and
WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has been done and that the
unlawful actions will not be used against her in any way.
Valley Health System, LLC d/b/a 40
Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center
(Employer)
Dated: By:_______________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)45
JD(ATL)—19—07
- 14 -
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and
how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the 5
Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue – Suite 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099
(602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.10
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY
ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S 15
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (602) 640-2146