Fredick Memorial Hospital, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 36 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frederick Memorial Hospital, Inc. and The Feder-
ation of Nurses and Health Professionals, AFT,
AFL-CIO. Case 5-CA- 11712
January 13, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on November 23, 1979, by
The Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals,
AFT, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and
duly served on Frederick Memorial Hospital, Inc.,
herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 5, issued a complaint on
December 11, 1979, against Respondent, alleging
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint
and notice of hearing before an administrative law
judge were duly served on the parties to this pro-
ceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on October 29,
1979, following a Board election in Case 5-RC-
10933, the Union was duly certified as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of Respon-
dent's employees in the unit found appropriate;'
and that, commencing on or about November 14,
1979, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has
refused, and continues to date to refuse, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative, although the Union has re-
quested and is requesting it to do so. On December
19, 1979, Respondent filed its answer to the com-
plaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the al-
legations in the complaint.
On January 14, 1980, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on January 17,
1980, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent
thereafter filed an opposition to General Counsel's
i Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing, Case 5-RC-10933, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68
and 102.69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
See LTV Electrosyslems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683
(4th Cir. 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415
F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573
(D.C.Va. 1967); Follell Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91
(7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA, as amended.
254 NLRB No. 2
Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motions for Summary Judgment
In its answer and its opposition to the Motion for
Summary Judgment, Respondent admits most of
the operative factual allegations of the complaint
but denies its conclusionary averments. 2 Respon-
dent attacks the Union's certification on the
grounds that the unit found appropriate in the rep-
resentation proceeding is inappropriate and results
in an undue proliferation of bargaining units at its
health care facility. The General Counsel contends
that Respondent is improperly seeking to relitigate
issues which were raised and decided in the under-
lying representation case. We agree.
Review of the record herein reveals that, in Case
5-RC-10933, the petition was filed by the Union
on August 3, 1979. On September 19, 1979, the Re-
gional Director issued his Decision and Direction
of Election in which he found that a unit of all Re-
spondent's registered nurses, with various exclu-
sions, was an appropriate unit for collective bar-
gaining.3 With regard to Respondent's contention
that the registered nurse unit was inappropriate,
and that the unit should include all professional
employees, the Regional Director set out evidence
on the registered nurses' duties and terms of em-
ployment and concluded that the evidence in the
record was insufficient to rebut the appropriateness
of a unit confined to registered nurses. The Region-
al Directo also noted that the Board had consis-
tently held that "registered nurses have a sufficient
community of interest, separate and apart from all
2 Respondent continues to deny in this proceeding that the Union is a
labor organization. We note the Regional Director's finding in the under-
lying representation proceeding that the Union is a labor organization
under Sec. 2(5) of the Act. Subsequent to the Regional Director's Deci-
sion and Direction of Election, Respondent filed a request for review
with the Board, claiming, inter alia, that the Union is not a labor organi-
zation. As indicated below, on October 16, 1979, by telegram, we denied
Respondent's request for review, as we found it did not raise any substan-
tial issues warranting review. Accordingly, in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence, we find that the issue of the
Union's labor organization status is not properly raised in this unfair labor
practice proceeding as it has already been litigated and decided in the un-
derlying representation proceeding.
3 The unit found appropriate by the Regional Director was:
All registered nurses employed by Respondent including home care
nurses, staff development instructor nurses, utilization review nurses,
infection surveillance nurses, oncology nurses and nursing graduates,
but excluding all other employees, nursing director, assistant nursing
director, nurse supervisors, home-care supervisors, head nurses,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
36
FREDERICK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
other professionals, and that, if they so desire, they
are entitled to be represented in a separate bargain-
ing unit," citing Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento,
Inc., 217 NLRB 765 (1975), and Newton-Wellesley
Hospital, 219 NLRB 699 (1975).
On September 28, 1979, Respondent filed a re-
quest for review of the Regional Director's Deci-
sion and Direction of Election and, on October 9,
1979, the Union filed an opposition to the request
for review. In its request for review, Respondent
contended that the Regional Director was in error
in finding appropriate a unit limited to registered
nurses and instead should have found appropriate a
unit which included all professional employees at
its hospital. On October 16, 1979, by telegram, the
Board denied Respondent's request for review of
the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election, as it raised no substantial issues warrant-
ing review. The election was held on October 19,
1979. At the conclusion of the election, the tally
revealed that 103 votes had been cast for the Union
and 41 votes were cast against the Union. There
were two challenged ballots, an insufficient number
to affect the results. On October 29, 1979, no ob-
jections having been filed to the election, the Re-
gional Director certified the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the unit found appropriate.
In its opposition to the present Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment, Respondent again argues that the
Regional Director improperly limited the unit
which he found appropriate to only the registered
nurses in spite of Respondent's claim that any ap-
propriate unit would have to include all profession-
al employees at its facility. Respondent's arguments
are the same as it had urged in the representation
proceeding. It thus appears that Respondent is at-
tempting to relitigate herein issues raised and re-
solved against it in the underlying representation
case. We do note that, since the submission of the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment,
the Board has had occasion in its recent decision in
Newton-Wellesley Hospital, 250 NLRB 409 (1980),
to reexamine at some length its approach to the ap-
propriateness of registered nurse units. In Newton-
Wellesley, the Board considered the contention that
it had previously found registered nurse units ap-
propriate per se without evaluating countervailing
evidence concerning the relationship between reg-
istered nurses and other professional employees.
This contention has also been raised in this pro-
ceeding. After a thorough examination of all of the
evidence in Newton-Wellesley, we concluded that
the registered nurses there comprised a separate ap-
propriate unit. In so doing, the Board indicated
abandonment of any rule that indicated a registered
nurse unit was an irrebuttably presumptive appro-
priate unit. Here, while the Regional Director
issued his decision in the underlying representation
case without the benefit of Newton- Wellesley, he did
receive and consider all of the evidence presented
by the parties concerning the alleged appropriate-
ness of the petitioned-for unit of registered nurses.
Here, unlike the situation in St. Francis Hospital of
Lynwood,4 all parties at the hearing in the represen-
tation case encouraged the taking of testimony con-
cerning the appropriateness of a registered nurse
unit. With all evidence having been adduced that
the parties deemed relevant, the Regional Director
in his decision then concluded that the requested
unit of registered nurses here was an appropriate
unit for collective bargaining. Having examined
this conclusion in light of Newton-Wellesley,5 we
affirm the Regional Director's decision for the fol-
lowing reasons.
Respondent is a not-for-profit corporation which
operates as an acute care hospital. The hospital is
licensed for 226 beds and employs approximately
575 full-time and part-time employees. The hospital
is administratively structured into departments that
report directly to the president, the vice president
for fiscal services, the vice president for administra-
tive services, or the vice president for professional
services. The departments under the supervision of
the president include social work, patient relations,
laboratory, personnel, and social work. The depart-
ments under the supervision of the vice president
for fiscal services include the business office, credit
and collections, data processing, accounting, and
the financial office. Under the vice president for
professional services are the following departments:
nursing services, operating and recovery rooms,
respiratory, radiology (X-ray), utilization review,
oncology, infection surveillance, dietary, and emer-
gency room. Under the vice president for adminis-
trative services are the departments of admitting,
EKG, EEG, pharmacy, physical therapy, home
care, housekeeping, laundry, maintenance and engi-
neering, and facilities construction.
According to the Regional Director, there are
approximately 158 registered nurses working at the
hospital who are included in the unit found appro-
priate. 6 All of these registered nurses are in the
nursing services department, except for 14 who are
assigned to the operating and recovery rooms, 3
4 232 NLRB 32 (1977), enforcement denied 601 F.2d 404 (9th Cir.
1979).
5 Given that all evidence relevant to a disposition of this case pursuant
to Newton-.Wellesley was received at the hearing, we find that a remand
for the taking of further evidence is unnecessary.
I The Regional Director excluded 12 head nurses, sought to be includ-
ed by the Union, who were deemed to be supervisors under Sec. 2(11) of
the Act.
37
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
home care nurses, a utilization review nurse, an in-
fection surveillance nurse, and an oncology nurse.
Respondent contended that the only appropriate
unit is one which combines the 158 registered
nurses with the 36 other health care professionals
employed by the hospital. This professional group
consists of 22 emergency room physicians, I respi-
ratory therapist, 2 physical therapists, 2 dieticians,
4 pharmacists, 1 social worker, 2 nuclear medical
technicians, and 2 respiratory technicians.7
As noted by the Regional Director, the commu-
nity of interests shared by all registered nurses is
significant. For instance, all registered nurses must
be licensed by the State of Maryland. In contrast,
the training requirements for other professionals
vary. For example, social workers are required to
be licensed by the State, dieticians need only be
registered by their association, while physical
therapists must be licensed by the State and regis-
tered.
As also noted by the Regional Director, except
for physicians and part-time employees, profession-
als and registered nurses do share some common
personnel policies and employee benefits. For ex-
ample, all full-time employees receive the same in-
surance benefits (including the same liability insur-
ance), pension benefits, sick leave, and educational
leave. However, while all professionals receive 2
weeks' vacation after 1 year of continuous employ-
ment, registered nurses, after the same period of
time, are entitled, subject to the administrator's dis-
cretion, to 4 weeks of vacation. s All employee sal-
aries are given an annual merit review, and are in-
creased based on incremental steps. All employees
are paid on the same day, given an across-the-
board cost-of-living wage increase and are eligible
for overtime. As for overtime payment, however,
registered nurses only receive their hourly rate
while all other professionals sought to be included
in the unit are entitled to 1-1/2 times their standard
hourly rate. Finally, all employees attend company
gatherings and are paid on a shift-differential
basis.9
7 Whether respiratory technicians are professionals was never decided
by the Regional Director because of his finding that a unit of registered
nurses was appropriate. Similarly, we do not need to resolve this issue
because of our decision in this case.
a It is worth noting that the only other employees who receive 4
weeks of vacation after I year of continuous employment are the admin-
istrator, the assistant administrator, and department heads. For other em-
ployees to be entitled to 4 weeks of vacation per year, they must have
worked at the Employer for 20 consecutive years.
9 The differences between physicians, who comprise the majority of
nonregistered nurse professionals, and all other professionals and regis-
tered nurses are rather substantial. The two full-time physicians have in-
dividual contracts with the Employer that are not subject to the same
kind of merit review and step increases as other employees. Moreover,
these two physicians are not covered by the pension plan, but are entitled
to more vacation and educational leave than other employees. As for the
20 part-time emergency room physicians, they also have individual em-
Although there are similarities for all profession-
als in personnel policies and employee benefits,
there are substantial differences between the work-
ing conditions of registered nurses and all other
professionals. As the Regional Director noted, reg-
istered nurses, who comprise the majority of the
professionals at the Employer's facility, are "pri-
marily responsible for the maintenance of patient
care." Registered nurses are also the only profes-
sional employees who see every patient every day.
In fact, under the licensing requirement of the
State of Maryland, no other professional, except
for physicians, can replace a registered nurse in all
facets of delivering nursing care to a patient. The
nursing department, in which the vast majority of
the registered nurses are assigned, promulgates its
own work policies and procedures. It is also the
only department in the hospital that has three shifts
and is staffed 24 hours a day.1 0 Thus, registered
nurses in the nursing department work on a rotat-
ing-shift basis whereas other professionals and re-
maining registered nurses work in departments
where there is only one shift. With respect to su-
pervision, while all of the registered nurses, with
the exception of home care nurses, are under the
supervision of the vice president for professional
services, the professional employees sought to be
included in the unit are under the supervison of the
vice president for administrative services, the vice
president for professional services, and the presi-
dent.
Registered nurses do not have extensive contact
with other professionals at the hospital, except for
physicians. The contact they have with other pro-
fessionals, such as dieticians, social workers, and
physical therapists, usually takes place because of
the registered nurses' "overall responsibility for the
patient, which puts them in a position of constantly
monitoring the care each patient is receiving, thus
also monitoring each patient's contact with other,
more specialized, professionals."t However, as the
Regional Director noted, pharmacists and nuclear
medical technicians have little or no contact with
registered nurses. As for the registered nurses in
departments other than the nursing departments,
except for home care nurses, they all spend varying
amounts of time on the floors in contact with regis-
tered nurses. Finally, there is no interchange be-
tween registered nurses and other professsional em-
ployment contracts, are compensated at a rate of $23 per hour, and as
part-time employees are ineligible for all of the employee benefits listed
above.
10 All other departments are on call 24 hours a day. There is, howev-
er, a physician in the emergency room 24 hours a day, every day, year
round.
II Newton-Wellesley. 250 NLRB 409-410.
38
FREDERICK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
ployees. There was no evidence of bargaining his-
tory in the area presented in the record.
Analyzing these factors, we find, in agreement
with the Regional Director, that a unit of regis-
tered nurses in this proceeding is an appropriate
unit for collective-bargaining purposes. First, the
vast majority of registered nurses are administra-
tively separated in a nursing division where they
are subject to common supervision and specialized
working conditions, as set out above. Second, the
registered nurses in the nursing division here, like
the registered nurses in issue in Newton-Wellesley,
work in close and continuous contact with one an-
other, in juxtaposition to the minimal daily interac-
tion between registered nurses and other profes-
sionals. Third, other specialized professionals, such
as pharmacists, therapists, and dieticians, do not
share with registered nurses in the nursing division
the problems inherent in ever-changing assignments
and rotating shifts. Finally, the responsibility of the
registered nurse as the one individual in the hospi-
tal primarily responsible for the maintenance of pa-
tient care is unique when compared to other pro-
fessionals who have limited contact with patients.
As for those registered nurses employed outside
the nursing division, we also find it appropriate
that they be included in the unit. Although these
nurses are not part of the nursing division, they do
have the same license, utilize their similar educa-
tional background in the performance of their
duties, and almost all of them are supervised by the
vice president of professional service, as are the
registered nurses in the nursing division. Mo-
veover, some of these registered nurses, such as the
infection surveillance nurse, spend most of their
time on patient floors in close contact with the
other registered nurses and some, particularly those
in the operating and recovery rooms, share similar
problems in working conditions, such as rotating
shifts. Accordingly, we agree in full with the Re-
gional Director that an all registered nurse unit
here is appropriate. 1 2
As noted, Respondent in this proceeding contin-
ues to argue that the Regional Director erred in
finding appropriate a unit of registered nurses ex-
cluding other professionals. It is well settled that in
the absence of newly discovered or previously un-
available evidence or specials circumstances a re-
spondent in a proceeding alleging a violation of
Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate issues
"a We do not rely on, however, any comments in the Regional Direc-
tor's decision that may be taken as a conclusion that the registered nurse
unit sought here was per se appropriate. Our conclusion on the appropri-
ateness of the unit is based on the particular circumstances involved here.
Member Jenkins has, in appropriate cases, excluded from a nurses' unit
those registered nurses not engaged in patient care; however, in defer-
ence to the decision of the panel which decided the representation case
which is sought to be relitigated, he joins in the decision herein.
which were or could have been litigated in a prior
representation proceeding.' 3 All issues raised by
Respondent in this proceeding were or could have
been litigated in the prior representation proceed-
ing, and Respondent does not offer to adduce at a
hearing any newly discovered or previously un-
available evidence. We therefore find that Respon-
dent has not raised any issue which is properly liti-
gable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. Ac-
cordingly, we grant the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment and deny Respondent's
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
At all times material herein, Respondent, a
Maryland corporation, operates a hospital in Fred-
erick, Maryland, where it is engaged in the provid-
ing of health care. During the previous 12 months
before issuance of the complaint, a representative
period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, received revenues in excess
of $250,000. During the same period, Respondent
purchased and received, in interstate commerce,
supplies valued in excess of $50,000 from points lo-
cated outside the State of Maryland.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Federation of Nurses and Health Profession-
als, AFT, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All registered nurses employed by the Em-
ployer including home care nurses, staff devel-
opment instructor nurses, untilization review
nurses, infection surveillance nurses, oncology
13 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941);
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
39
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nurses and nursing graduates, but excluding all
other employees, nursing director, assistant
nursing director, nurse supervisors, home-care
supervisor, head nurses, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On October 19, 1979, a majority of the employ-
ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot
election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 5, designated the
Union as their representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with Respondent.
The Union was certified as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in said unit
on October 29, 1979, and the Union continues to be
such exclusive representative within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about November 1, 1979, and
at all times thereafter, the Union has requested Re-
spondent to bargain collectively with it as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about November 14, 1979, and con-
tinuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent
has refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative for collective bargaining of all employees
in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
November 14, 1979, and at all times thereafter, re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and,
upon request, bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
In order to insure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi-
fication as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc.,
136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Frederick Memorial Hospital, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Federation of Nurses and Health Profes-
sionals, AFT, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All registered nurses employed by the Em-
ployer including home care nurses, staff develop-
ment instructor nurses, utilization review nurses, in-
fection surveillance nurses, oncology nurses and
nursing graduates, but excluding all other employ-
ees, nursing director, assistant nursing director,
nurse supervisors, home-care supervisor, head
nurses, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since October 29, 1979, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about November 14, 1979,
and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all the employ-
ees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
40
FREDERICK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Frederick Memurial Hospital, Inc., Frederick,
Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with The Federation of
Nurses and Health Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All registered nurses employed by the Em-
ployer including home care nurses, staff devel-
opment instructor nurses, utilization review
nurses, infection surveillance nurses, oncology
nurses and nursing graduates, but excluding all
other employees, nursing director, assistant
nursing director, nurse supervisors, home-care
supervisor, head nurses, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its facility in Frederick, Maryland,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
24 In the event that 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 Pursu-
the Regional Director for Region 5, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment
with The Federation of Nurses and Health
Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO, as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All registered nurses employed by the Em-
ployer including home care nurses, staff devel-
opment instructor nurses, utilization review
nurses, infection surveillance nurses, oncology
nurses and nursing graduates, but excluding all
other employees, nursing director, assistant
nursing director, nurse supervisors, home-care
supervisor, head nurses, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
FREDERICK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
INC.
41