Hills and Dales General Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 17, 2012

07-CA-053556 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 17, 2012)

JD−09−12
Cass City, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
HILLS AND DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL
and Case No. 7–CA–53556
DANIELLE CORLIS, an individual
Jennifer Brazeal, Esq.,
for the Acting General Counsel.
Timothy Ryan, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEOFFREY CARTER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Saginaw,
Michigan on January 9, 2012. Daniel Corlis filed the original charge in this case on March 16,
2011, and filed an amended charge on April 14, 2011.1 The Acting General Counsel issued the
complaint on November 15, 2011.
The complaint alleges that Hills and Dales General Hospital (the Respondent or the
Hospital) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by maintaining a
Values and Standards of Behavior policy that includes overbroad provisions that restrict
employee rights under Section 7 of the Act. (General Counsel (GC) Exh. 1(e), pars. 6–7)
On the entire record,2 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the Acting General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following

1 All dates are in 2011 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The Acting General Counsel’s motion to strike a seven-page transcript that was inadvertently
included in GC Exhibit 1 is hereby denied as moot. (See GC Br. at 1 fn. 2 (noting that the transcript in
question is from an immigration proceeding that is unrelated to this case).) The materials that the Acting
General Counsel identified were not included in my copy of the trial exhibits, nor were they included in
the electronic copy of the trial exhibits that is stored in the electronic files for this case.
JD−09−12
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, provides acute hospital care at its facility in Cass City,
Michigan, where it annually derives gross revenues in excess of $250,000, and purchases and
receives at its Michigan facilities goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside
the state of Michigan. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. (GC Exhs. 1(e), pars. 3–4;
1(f), pars. 3–4)
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Hospital’s Culture in 2005
In 2005, the Hospital was struggling with a poor work environment. Among other
problems, Hospital departments were not cooperating with each other, and employee
relationships were suffering due to “back-biting and back stabbing.” As a result, employee
satisfaction was low, employees were looking for other job opportunities (outside of the
Hospital), and patients were seeking health care in other hospitals. (Transcript (Tr.) 26.)
B. The Hospital Develops and Adopts
its Values and Standards of Behavior Policy
In 2006, the Hospital decided to begin working on changing its culture, and to that end
began implementing measures that had been used successfully by another hospital that had faced
similar problems. (Tr. 26–27, 31.) Among other measures, the Hospital set up employee teams
to address issues such as standards and performance, employee recognition, continuous
improvement, communication, and service recovery. (Tr. 27, 31.)
As its first project, the Hospital’s standards and performance team took on the task of
developing a statement of values and standards. (Tr. 31.) Using the values and standards
statement of another hospital as a template, the standards and performance team distributed a
draft set of standards to all employees for review and comment. After editing the draft standards
based on the first round of employee feedback, the standards and performance team circulated
two additional drafts to employees before settling on a final Values and Standards of Behavior
Policy for the Hospital. (Tr. 32–35; see also Jt. Exh. 5.)
The Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy covers a wide range of topics,
including customer service, respect, teamwork, attitude, continuous improvement and fun. (Jt.
Exh. 4.) In this case, the following paragraphs from the Respondent’s Values and Standards of
Behavior policy are at issue:
Teamwork
. . .
JD−09−12
3
11. We will not make negative comments about our fellow team members3 and we will
take every opportunity to speak well of each other.
. . .
16. We will represent Hills & Dales in the community in a positive and professional
manner in every opportunity.
Attitude
. . .
21. We will not engage in or listen to negativity or gossip. We will recognize that
listening without acting to stop it is the same as participating.
(Jt. Exh. 4 at pp. 2–3; see also GC Exh. 1(e), pars. 6–7.) The Hospital has never given
employees specific examples of what conduct would be considered “negative” or “positive and
professional.” (Tr. 41.)
C. How the Hospital Uses its Values and Standards of Behavior Policy
As a public declaration of its new culture, the Hospital asked employees to sign (on a
voluntary basis) poster-sized copies of the Values and Standards of Behavior policy. The
Hospital then framed the posters and placed them in the lobby (as well as other locations) to
enable patients to see them. (Tr. 35–36.) The Hospital also asked employees to sign individual
copies of the policy (which were then placed in the employees’ personnel files), and has included
the policy in its human resources policy manual. (Tr. 36–37); Jt. Exh. 6 at pp. 6–8 (including a
form that employees sign to acknowledge receipt of the human resources policy manual).)
The Hospital has also used the Values and Standards of Behavior policy as a basis for
employee discipline. For example, on March 4, 2011, the Hospital cited paragraph 16 of the
policy when it issued Danielle Corlis a written warning for posting the following comment on
Facebook:
Holy shit rock on [S!]. Way to talk about the douchebags you used to work with. I
LOVE IT!!!
(Jt. Exh. 3; see also Tr. 15–16; Jt. Exh. 2 (Corlis was responding to remarks by a former Hospital
employee who was discharged for, as the employee described it, “playfully throwing a yogurt
cup at [her] boss”).)4

3 The term “team member” covers everyone who works at the Hospital, ranging from the CEO to
employees in entry level positions. (Tr. 40.)
4 The complaint does not allege that the Hospital violated the Act by terminating the employee based
on the yogurt cup incident or by disciplining Corlis based on her Facebook posting. Only the Hospital’s
maintenance of the work rules stated in paragraphs 11, 16 and 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards
of Behavior policy is at issue. (See GC Exh. 1(e).)
JD−09−12
4
The Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy remains in effect. (Tr. 17–18,
29.) Since beginning its efforts to change its culture in 2006, the Hospital has noted
improvements in employee and patient satisfaction, and the Hospital has improved its ability to
attract and retain personnel. (Tr. 28–29.)
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A. Credibility Findings
A credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors, including the context of the
witness’ testimony, the witness’ demeanor, the weight of the respective evidence, established or
admitted facts, inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the
record as a whole. Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi,
335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589
(1996)), enfd. 56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see also Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center,
348 NLRB 1016, 1022 (2006) (noting that an ALJ may draw an adverse inference from a party’s
failure to call a witness who may reasonably be assumed to be favorably disposed to a party, and
who could reasonably be expected to corroborate its version of events, particularly when the
witness is the party’s agent). Credibility findings need not be all or nothing propositions —
indeed, nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some, but not
all, of a witness’ testimony. Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB at 622.
In this case, credibility is generally not at issue because all three witnesses provided
unrebutted testimony and came across as poised and forthright in their testimony. The Findings
of Fact are accordingly based on the testimony of all three witnesses who testified at trial.
B. The Validity of Paragraphs 11, 16 and 21 of the Hospital’s
Values and Standards of Behavior Policy
1. Applicable legal standards
The Acting General Counsel alleges that by maintaining paragraphs 11, 16 and 21 of its
Values and Standards of Behavior policy, the Hospital is violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
because those paragraphs of the policy constitute overbroad restrictions of employee rights
protected under Section 7 of the Act. (GC Exh. 1(e), pars. 6–7.)
Under Section 7 of the Act, employees have the right to engage in concerted activities for
their mutual aid or protection. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for an employer (via
statements, conduct, or adverse employment action such as discipline or discharge) to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7. See
Brighton Retail, Inc., 354 NLRB No. 62, slip op. at 7 (2009).
The test for evaluating whether an employer’s conduct or statements violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act is whether the statements or conduct have a reasonable tendency to interfere
with, restrain or coerce union or protected activities. KenMor Electric Co., 355 NLRB No. 173,
slip op. at 4 (2010) (noting that the employer’s subjective motive for its action is irrelevant);
JD−09−12
5
Yoshi’s Japanese Restaurant & Jazz House, 330 NLRB 1339, 1339 fn. 3 (2000) (same); see also
Park N’ Fly, Inc., 349 NLRB 132, 140 (2007).
The Board has articulated the following standard that specifically applies when it is
alleged that an employer’s work rule violates Section 8(a)(1):
If the rule explicitly restricts Section 7 activity, it is unlawful. If the rule does not
explicitly restrict Section 7 activity, it is nonetheless unlawful if (1) employees would
reasonably construe the language of the rule to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule
was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict
the exercise of Section 7 rights. In applying these principles, the Board refrains from
reading particular phrases in isolation, and it does not presume improper interference
with employee rights.
NLS Group, 352 NLRB 744, 745 (2008) (citing Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB
646, 646–647 (2004)), adopted in 355 NLRB No. 169 (2010), enfd. 645 F.3d 475 (1st Cir. 2011).
As with all alleged Section 8(a)(1) violations, the judge’s task is to “determine how a reasonable
employee would interpret the action or statement of her employer . . . , and such a determination
appropriately takes account of the surrounding circumstances.” The Roomstore, 357 NLRB No.
143, slip op. at 1 fn. 3 (2011).
The Board has issued two decisions that are instructive on how the Lutheran Heritage
Village-Livonia standard should apply to work rules such as the ones at issue in this case. In
Claremont Resort & Spa, the Board was presented with a work rule that prohibited “negative
conversations” about employees or managers and warned employees that such conversations
were in violation of the employer’s standards of conduct and could result in disciplinary action.
344 NLRB 832, 832, 836 (2005). Applying the test set forth in Lutheran Heritage Village-
Livonia, supra, the Board found that the rule was unlawful because its “prohibition of ‘negative
conversations’ about managers would reasonably be construed by employees to bar them from
discussing with their coworkers complaints about their managers that affect working conditions,
thereby causing employees to refrain from engaging in protected activities.” Claremont Resort
& Spa, 344 NLRB at 832.
In Hyundai America Shipping Agency, the Board was presented with a number of work
rules that the Acting General Counsel challenged as unlawful. 357 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 1
(2011). The Board agreed that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining
work rules that threatened employees with discipline if they disclosed information from their
personnel files, or if they complained to their coworkers instead of voicing complaints directly to
their supervisor or the human resources office. Id. However, the Board also held that it was
lawful for the employer to threaten employees with discipline for “indulging in harmful gossip”
and “exhibiting a negative attitude toward or losing interest in your work assignment.” Id., slip
op. at 2. Regarding the “harmful gossip” rule, the Board held that employees could not
reasonably construe the rule as prohibiting Section 7 activity because the rule did not prohibit
discussions about managers, and was only directed at gossip, which was commonly defined as
chatty talk or rumors or reports of an intimate nature. Id. (distinguishing the work rule at issue in
Claremont, which referred to any negative conversations about employees or managers, and thus
implicitly extended to protected activity). Similarly, in finding that the rule prohibiting a
JD−09−12
6
“negative attitude toward your work assignment” was lawful, the Board explained that the
wording of the rule only applied to an employee’s attitude toward his or her work assignment
and did not expressly prohibit employee conversations, and thus was less likely to be construed
as prohibiting protected concerted activities. Id., slip op. at 2–3.
2. Analysis
The Acting General Counsel takes issue with paragraphs 11, 16 and 21 of the Hospital’s
Values and Standards of Behavior policy because they state work rules that either prohibit
“negative comments about our fellow team members” or “negativity or gossip” (pars. 11 and 21)
or direct employees to be “positive and professional” (par. 16). In the Acting General Counsel’s
view, those work rules are overbroad because a reasonable employee would conclude that the
rules prohibit protected activity such as employee discussions about the terms and conditions of
their employment. (Tr. 9–10; GC Br. at 5) In its defense, the Respondent maintains that the
work rules cannot be reasonably interpreted as restricting employee activities that are protected
by Section 7 of the Act. (Tr. 11; R. Br. at 5)
In presenting its case, the Acting General Counsel essentially argued that the text of the
work rules themselves establishes that the rules are unlawful. There is no evidence that the
Hospital made statements or engaged in conduct that affirmatively linked its rules to protected
activity,5 and thus the merits of the Acting General Counsel’s challenges to the Hospital’s work
rules turn solely on the language of the rules themselves.
a. Values and Standards of Behavior policy – paragraph 11
Paragraph 11 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy states that “[w]e
will not make negative comments about our fellow team members and we will take every
opportunity to speak well of each other.” The term “team member” includes everyone who
works at the Hospital, including managers and employees. (See Findings of Fact (FOF) Section
II(B).)
I agree with the Acting General Counsel that paragraph 11 of the Hospital’s policy is
unlawful because employees would reasonably construe the language of the rule to prohibit
Section 7 activity. Although the rule does not explicitly restrict Section 7 activity and the Acting
General Counsel did not offer evidence that the Hospital made statements or engaged in conduct
that linked the rule to such activity, paragraph 11 implicitly includes protected activities because
it prohibits negative comments about managers. Indeed, the Board’s decision in Claremont
Resort & Spa is directly on point, as the Board found that the respondent’s rule prohibiting
“negative conversations” about managers “would reasonably be construed by employees to bar
them from discussing with their coworkers complaints about their managers that affect working
conditions, thereby causing employees to refrain from engaging in protected activities.”

5 Although the Acting General Counsel called Danielle Corlis to testify about the warning that the
hospital issued to her on March 4, the Acting General Counsel only presented that testimony to show that
the rules remain in effect and can be used to discipline employees. (Tr. 22.) There is no evidence (or
argument by the Acting General Counsel) that the remarks that Corlis made on Facebook were protected
by the Act.
JD−09−12
7
Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB at 832; see also Hyundai America Shipping Agency, 357
NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 2 (explaining that the work rule at issue in Claremont Resort & Spa
implicitly included protected activity). The Hospital’s work rule prohibiting “negative
comments” about fellow team members is virtually identical to the work rule that the Board
found unlawful in Claremont Resort & Spa, and thus by its terms also would reasonably be
construed by employees as implicitly prohibiting protected activity.
Accordingly, I find that the Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining
the work rule stated in paragraph 11 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy.
b. Values and Standards of Behavior policy – paragraph 16
Paragraph 16 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy states that “[w]e
will represent Hills & Dales in the community in a positive and professional manner in every
opportunity.” (FOF Section II(B).) The Acting General Counsel asserts that the work rule is
unlawful because employees could conceivably violate the rule by engaging in protected
activities that the Hospital would not view as “positive.” (See Tr. 10.)
The Acting General Counsel’s challenge to the rule in paragraph 16 fails, as I do not find
that an employee would reasonably interpret the Hospital’s directive to represent the Hospital “in
the community in a positive and professional manner” as a rule that prohibits Section 7 activities.
Paragraph 16 does not explicitly or implicitly prohibit Section 7 activity. To the contrary, the
surrounding circumstances indicate that the Hospital adopted the rule for the more narrow (and
lawful) purpose of encouraging employees to assist with improving the Hospital’s reputation in
the community by maintaining a positive and professional attitude when interacting with the
community. (FOF, Section II(A)–(B) (noting that the Hospital developed the rule in paragraph
16 in connection with its efforts in 2006 to improve its culture).)
The Board’s decision in Tradesmen International is applicable here, as in that case, the
Board held that a work rule that stated that employees were “expected to represent the company
in a positive and ethical manner” did not violate Section 8(a)(1). 338 NLRB 460, 461–462
(2002). The Board declined to read the word “positive” in isolation, and found that employees
would not reasonably believe that an expectation that they represent the company in a positive
and ethical manner amounted to a work rule that prohibited Section 7 activities, given the context
of the employer’s efforts to prohibit conflicts of interest and the lack of any actions by the
employer that established a link between the rule and protected activities.6 Id. at 462.
I find similar deficiencies in the Acting General Counsel’s challenge to the rule in
paragraph 16 that employees represent the Hospital in the community in a positive and
professional manner. Although the Acting General Counsel asserts that the word “positive” is
ambiguous, like the Board in Tradesmen International I find that the term “positive” cannot be
read in isolation. Rather, in the context of the Hospital’s efforts to improve its reputation in the
community, paragraph 16’s call for employees to represent the hospital in a positive and

6 The Acting General Counsel argued that I should adopt the reasoning set forth in the dissent in
Tradesmen International (see GC Br. at 6 fn. 3), but I am bound to follow the majority opinion in that
decision.
JD−09−12
8
professional manner is a lawful call for employees to maintain a high standard of professionalism
with potential (or actual) customers at every opportunity. Since the terms of paragraph 16 are
clear and serve a lawful purpose, and since there is no evidence that the Hospital made
statements or engaged in conduct that linked paragraph 16 to protected activity, the Acting
General Counsel did not meet its burden of proving that the rule is unlawful.
c. Values and Standards of Behavior policy – paragraph 21
Finally, paragraph 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy states
that “[w]e will not engage in or listen to negativity or gossip. We will recognize that listening
without acting to stop it is the same as participating.” (FOF Section II(B).) The Acting General
Counsel maintains that the work rule violates the Act because a reasonable employee would
construe the term “negativity” as including protected activity. (Tr. 10.)
Paragraph 21 would arguably be on solid ground if it was limited only to prohibiting
gossip. Indeed, in Hyundai America Shipping Agency, the Board explained that because gossip
is defined as “rumor or report of an intimate nature” or “chatty talk,” a work rule prohibiting
gossip could not be reasonably construed as prohibiting Section 7 activity. 357 NLRB No. 80,
slip op. at 2; see also Southern Maryland Hospital, 293 NLRB 1209, 1221–1222 (1989)
(explaining that an employer may lawfully maintain a work rule that prohibits “malicious
gossip”), enfd. in pertinent part, 916 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1990).
What makes paragraph 21 problematic, however, is that it also prohibits employees from
engaging in or listening to “negativity.” The Board has found work rules that prohibit negativity
to violate Section 8(a)(1) on multiple occasions, usually in cases where the record has included
evidence that the employer made statements or engaged in conduct that linked the negativity rule
to protected activity. See, e.g., The Roomstore, 357 NLRB No. 143, slip op. at 1 fn. 3 (finding
that an employer’s work rule prohibiting “any type of negative energy or attitudes” was unlawful
because the evidentiary record showed that the employer made statements that linked the rule to
protected activity); Salon/Spa at Boro, Inc., 356 NLRB No. 69, slip op. at 14–15 (2010)
(employer’s negativity policy was unlawful because the evidentiary record showed that the
policy proscribed protected activity in the form of complaints about management’s conduct and
other working conditions). That line of cases does not help the Acting General Counsel’s cause
here, because the Acting General Counsel did not present any evidence that the Hospital made
remarks that linked paragraph 21 to protected activity, and the surrounding circumstances show
that the Hospital adopted paragraph 21 to address a work environment that by all accounts was
marred with a history of back biting and back stabbing.
However, the Board has also found fault with work rules that are overbroad and
ambiguous by their terms. For example, in 2 Sisters Food Group, the Board found that it was
unlawful for an employer to maintain a work rule that subjected employees to discipline for an
“inability or unwillingness to work harmoniously with other employees,” because the rule was
patently ambiguous and so imprecise that employees would reasonably construe the rule as
prohibiting discussions and disagreements between employees that related to protected Section 7
activities. 357 NLRB No. 168, slip op. at 2 (2011); see also Hyundai America Shipping Agency,
357 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 2 (explaining that the Board found that the work rule at issue in
Claremont Resort and Spa, 344 NLRB 832 violated the Act because the rule prohibited negative
JD−09−12
9
employee conversations generally). It is here that the Acting General Counsel’s challenge to
paragraph 21 gains traction, because like the work rule that the Board found unlawful in 2 Sisters
Group, the Hospital’s prohibition of “negativity” is so patently ambiguous, imprecise and
overbroad that a reasonable employee would construe it as prohibiting protected discussions
about working conditions and the terms and conditions of employment. I therefore find that the
Hospital violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining the work rule stated in paragraph 21
of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By maintaining a work rule (par. 11 of its Values and Standards of Behavior policy)
that proscribes making “negative comments about our fellow team members,” the Respondent
interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, and thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By maintaining a work rule (par. 21 of its Values and Standards of Behavior policy)
that proscribes engaging in or listening to negativity, the Respondent interfered with, restrained
and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thus
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By committing the unfair labor practices stated in Conclusions of Law 1–2 above, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. I recommend dismissing the allegation in the complaint that asserts that the
Respondent violated the Act by maintaining the work rule stated in paragraph 16 of the
Respondent’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Specifically, having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by maintaining a work rule that prohibits negative comments about fellow team
members (defined as including employees and managers), and by maintaining a work rule that
prohibits engaging in or listening to negativity, I shall recommend that the Respondent be
ordered to revise or rescind those rules (paragraphs 11 and 21 of the Values and Standards of
Behavior policy).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended7

7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended 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.
JD−09−12
10
ORDER
The Respondent, Hills and Dales General Hospital, Cass City, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a work rule that prohibits negative comments about fellow team
members.
(b) Maintaining a work rule that prohibits employees from engaging in or listening to
negativity.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, 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) Within 14 days of the Board’s order, revise or rescind the rules stated in paragraphs
11 and 21 of the Hospital’s Values and Standards of Behavior policy.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Cass City, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the 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. 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 its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since September 16, 2010 (6 months
before the original charge in this proceeding was filed).

8 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 United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD−09−12
11
(c) 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 17, 2012
____________________
GEOFFREY CARTER
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain the following rule stated in paragraph 11 of our Values and Standards
of Behavior policy: “We will not make negative comments about our fellow team members and
we will take every opportunity to speak well of each other.”
WE WILL NOT maintain the following rule stated in paragraph 21 of our Values and Standards
of Behavior policy: “We will not engage in or listen to negativity or gossip. We will recognize
that listening without acting to stop it is the same as participating.”
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL revise or rescind the rules stated in paragraphs 11 and 21 of our Values and Standards
of Behavior policy.
HILLS AND DALES GENERAL HOSPITAL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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 Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 300, Detroit, MI 48226-2569
(313) 226-3200, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
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
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (313) 226-3244.