Hospital Damas, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 16, 2009

24-CA-011124 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 16, 2009)

JD(ATL)–34–09
Ponce, PR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
HOSPITAL DAMAS, INC.
and CASES 24-CA-11124
24-CA-11217
UNIDAD LABORAL DE ENFERMERAS(OS) 24-CA-11263
Y EMPLEADOS DE LA SALUD
Isis M. Ramos–Melendez, Esq.,
and Vanessa Garcia, Esq.,
for the Government. 1
Polonio J. Garcia, Esq.,
Yomaira Perez Sierra, Esq.
Neribel Ortiz Ramirez, Esq.
and Javier Font, Esq.,
for the Hospital.2
Harold E. Hopkins, Esq.
and Carlos M. Ortiz Velazquez, Esq.,
for the Union3
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case involves the
alleged unilateral layoff and/or termination of approximately 70 unit employees by
Hospital Damas, Inc. (herein Hospital) on or after January 2009. It is also alleged the
Hospital made the layoffs and/or terminations without prior notice to Unidad Laboral de
Enfermeras(os) y Empleados de la Salud (herein Union) and/or without first bargaining
with the Union to a good-faith impasse. It is alleged the Hospital, by its actions and/or

1 I shall refer to Counsel for General Counsel as Counsel for the Government and General Counsel
as the Government.
2 I shall refer to Counsel for the Hospital as Counsel for the Hospital and shall refer to the
respondent as the Hospital.
3 I shall refer to Counsel for the Union as Union Counsel and refer to the Charging Party as the
Union.
JD(ATL)–34–09
2
inaction, has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union
as the exclusive collective–bargaining representative of it employees within the meaning
of Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (Act) and in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
5
The parties reached a non-Board settlement of allegations the Hospital
unilaterally discontinued its past practice regarding the distribution of union literature at
the hospital; that it unilaterally changed the work schedules of four Hospital Surgery
Department employees; and, that the Hospital failed and refused and/or unreasonably
delayed furnishing the Union with certain specifically requested relevant information. I 10
dismissed, on the record, those complaint allegations based on the parties non-Board
settlement.
I heard these cases in trial in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on October 6, 7 and 8, 2009.
The cases originate from certain charges filed by the Union including the charge in case 15
24-CA-11124 filed on February 11, and amended on April 24 and June 29, 2009; and,
the charge in case 24-CA-11217 filed on May 11 and amended on June 26 and August
28, 2009; and, the charge in case 24-CA-11263 filed on August 28, 2009. The
prosecution of these cases was formalized on September 10, 2009, when the Regional
Director for Region 24 of the National Labor Relations Board (Board), acting in the 20
name of the Board’s General Counsel, issued an Order Consolidating Cases,
Consolidated Amended Complaint and Notice of Hearing (Complaint) against the
Hospital.
The Hospital, in a timely filed answer to the Complaint, denied having violated 25
the Act in any manner alleged in the Complaint.
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant
evidence, to examine and cross–examine witnesses, and to file briefs. I carefully
observed the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified. I have studied the whole 30
record, the post trial briefs, and the authorities cited therein. Based on more detailed
findings and analysis below, I conclude and find the Hospital violated the Act as alleged
in the complaint.
Findings of Fact35
I. Jurisdiction, Labor Organization and Supervisory Status
The Hospital is a Puerto Rico corporation with an office and place of business in
Ponce, Puerto Rico, where it is, and has been since approximately 1863, engaged in the 40
operation of a hospital providing acute health care services. During the past twelve
months ending September 9, 2009, a representative period, the Hospital purchased and
received directly from points and places located outside the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico goods valued in excess of $50,000. During the same period of time it also had
gross revenues in excess of $250,000. The parties admit, and I find, the Hospital is an 45
JD(ATL)–34–09
3
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the
Act.
The parties admit, and I find, the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.5
Human Resources Director Gilberto Cuevas Aponte, Nursing Director Sandra
Dominicci Gonzalez, Surgery Department Supervisor Amael Rodriguez, Chief Operating
Officer Enrique Vicens Rivera, Finance Director Julio Colon Rivera and Assistant
Human Resources Director Isabel Mercado Roman are supervisors and agents of the 10
Hospital within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act.
II. The Facts
a) Background15
The parties stipulated the Registered Nurses unit, Office Clerks (Clerical) unit,
the Licensed Practical Nurses and Technicians unit, Professional unit, Maintenance (and
Laundry) unit, Diet and Cafeteria unit and Housekeeping (Cleaning) unit, herein called
the Units4, constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within 20
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. It is stipulated the Union has been designated the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Units since at least September 12,
2002, and has been recognized as such by the Hospital. The parties admit that at all
times since September 12, 2002, and based on Section 9(a) of the Act the Union has been
the exclusive collective–bargaining representative of the Units. All of the most recent 25
collective bargaining agreements for the Units, by the terms of the agreements, expired
on September 12, 2006, except the agreement for the Housekeeping (Cleaning) unit
which expired on December 31, 2008.5
b) The Layoffs and/or Terminations30
It is alleged at paragraph 8(a) of the complaint the Hospital in or about January
2009 laid off and/or terminated approximately 70 employees of the Units and that the
Hospital effectuated the layoffs and/or terminations without prior notice to the Union
and/or without first bargaining with the Union to a good-faith impasse. It is alleged the 35
Hospital, by this conduct, has been failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of its employees, in violation of Section 8
(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
In its answer to the complaint allegations regarding the layoffs the Hospital 40
asserted 16 of those listed as being laid off and/or terminated were not affected by the
layoff and one individual was listed twice. At trial the parties reached stipulations
addressing the names and numbers of unit employees laid off. The parties stipulated

4 The units are described in detail elsewhere in this decision.
5 There are two collective bargaining agreements currently in effect between the Hospital and the
Union covering the surgery center and accounting employees which are not at issue herein.
JD(ATL)–34–09
4
Union Vice President Jose Alverio Diaz was notified in writing by Human Resources
Director Gilberto Cuevas Aponte on January 8, 2009, that the following unit employees
would be laid off the following day January 9, 2009. The Union received the letter at
approximately 4 p.m. on January 8. The listed unit employees are:
5
Virginia Batalla-Soltero Bárbara Torres-Ruiz
Carmen Borelly-León Sonia Barriera-Ortiz
Ana García-Andujar Dinorah Medina-Torres
Maricruz Hilerio-Burgos Amayra Morales-Santiago
José La Torre-Pagan Marisol Torres-Figueroa
María V. Martínez-Albino Oneida Albino-Rodríguez
María Martínez-Irizarry Yaneth Rodríguez-Figueroa
Linda R. Mercado-Pérez Gladys Perez-Ramos
Elizabeth Quiñones-Santos Rosalinda Rosado-Figueroa
Frances Santiago-Ortiz Gina Bauza-Ramos
Linned Torres-Burgos Lexa Cedeño-Rodríguez
Moriama Vélez-Figueroa Myrna González-Martín
William Pagan-Plaza Merilyn Irizarry-Torres
Margarita Valentín-Vélez Esther Maldonado-Alvarado
Gilberto Burgos-Caraballo Evette Martínez-Boffil
Mildred Sierra-Torres Graciela Méndez-Casiano
Marta Barriera-Candel Cesarine Pérez-Lara
Nereida Rosado Lourdes Pulliza-Rivera
Janice Torres-Rodríguez Nidia Rivera-Martínez
Franklyn Goenga-Morell Sonia Mattei-Torres
Josephine D. Alvarado-Rodríguez María Velazquez
Nicolás Ortiz-Descartes Juan José Muñoz-Vélez
Angela Serrano-López Ricardo Torres-Matos
Isaías Vázquez-Maldonado Yasmin Fontanez
Wilson Padilla-Ralat Efrain Rivera-Rios
Ana D. Quirindongo Jorge Carlo-Torres
José A. Acosta-Torres Aurea Pérez-Rivera
Manuel Ramos-Miranda Edwin Moreno-Morales
The letter of notification to the Union contained, among other information, the
following:
We notify you that we will comply with the Section Payment in 10
substitution of Notification according to the collective bargaining
agreement, making a payment of 15 additional days to the payment of
wages earned to January 9, 2009.
Each of the above listed employees laid off on January 9, 2009, received a letter 15
from Human Resources Director Cuevas Aponte dated January 9, 2009, notifying the
employees their position had been eliminated and they were terminated effective that day.
The employees were advised the Hospital would establish a reinstatement list, for one
year, for recall rights according to seniority. The letter also addressed the employees’
COBRA Law rights and the following paragraph:20
In accordance with the Section Payment in substitution of
Notification, we will be giving you a check corresponding to 15 days of
JD(ATL)–34–09
5
salary, as well as a payroll check for wages you have earned to January 9,
2009.
The following employees were laid off on the dates reflected by their names.
Each employee listed below received a letter of notification with the same language as 5
noted above with only the date changed:
Israel Rodríguez-Santiago January 12, 2009
Ana D. Nieves-Arroyo January 12, 2009
Miriam Méndez-Pérez January 13, 2009
Ramonita Rodríguez-Echevarría January 13, 2009
Rafael Rodríguez-Prado January 26, 2009
Rosa Torres-Torres January 26, 2009
Wanda I. Escalera-Ríos January 26, 2009
René Ramos-Ramos January 28, 2009
Angela Andujar-Andujar January 28, 2009
Cruz De Jesus-Rivera January 30, 2009
Marta Viera-Maldonado February 2, 2009
Unit employee and Graduate Nurse Jose Alverio Diaz testified he has worked for
the Hospital for approximately twenty-eight years and has also served as steward and 10
vice president for the Union for the last twenty of those years. Diaz stated most layoffs at
the Hospital are taken care of or handled through arbitration; however, with the January
9, 2009, and following layoffs the Union filed charges with the National Labor Relations
Board because of the large number of employees being laid off.
15
In fulfilling his duties as Union Vice President Diaz participated in contract
negotiations and specifically participated in the contract negotiations starting in 2006.
Diaz testified the parties commenced negotiating in May 2006 for successor
agreements to the most recent agreements that expired on September 12, 2006. 20
According to Diaz, the parties are currently, sporadically, still negotiating toward
successor agreements. Diaz, Union Director Radames Quinones, Union Executive
Committee President Ana Consuelo Melendez and at least one employee from each
bargaining unit serve on the Union’s negotiating committee. Hospital HR Director
Cueras Aponte, Assistant HR Director Isabel Mercado Roman, Nursing Director Sandra 25
Dominicci Gonzalez and others serve on the Company’s negotiating committee.
Diaz testified the parties established certain ground rules for negotiating at the
first bargaining session held in May 2006. According to Diaz the ground rules included
where the parties agreed on language for any particular article or subject matter the 30
article(s) would be reviewed over the evening hours, reduced to writing, and initialed by
the parties the next day. During negotiations the parties had the right to caucus on items
considered at any bargaining session. Any collective bargaining agreement arrived at had
to be ratified by the unit employees in assembly with notification of the results reported
to the Hospital. According to Diaz, the Hospital was to present any collective bargaining 35
agreement(s) arrived at and ratified by the Union to the Hospital Board for its approval.
If all approved the parties then executed the agreement(s). Diaz specifically testified the
JD(ATL)–34–09
6
parties did not agree that any article(s) would be implemented prior to ratification of a
complete collective bargaining agreement or agreements.
Hospital Executive Director Enrique Vicens Rivera testified the Hospital actually
began negotiations with the Union in March 2006, prior to the September 2006,5
expiration of certain of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements. Vicens Rivera
explained the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico passed a law, known as Law 27, in 2005
which mandated minimum salaries for graduate, licensed, practical and non-licensed
nurses. Vicens Rivera said the Hospital’s wages for its nurses was well below the
minimums set by Law 27 for nurses, practical nurses and non-licensed nurses. Vicens 10
Rivera explained the Hospital provided better benefits rather than higher salaries. Vicens
Rivera said Law 27 resulted in the Hospital having “to increase substantially the cash
outlay for the Hospital to the tune of roughly $1.3, $1.4 million per annum [sic], which
was 12 to 15 percent more than the salary that the Hospital was paying nurses.” Vicens
Rivera said the Hospital gave the Union the financial numbers and operating results as 15
well as the impact the additional salaries would have on the Hospital’s operations, and
tried to get the Union to compromise or reduce benefits for the nurses to off set the
additional salaries to be paid the nurses pursuant to Law 27.
Vicens Rivera testified the Hospital could not afford to continue with the same 20
payroll and the same number of employees unless something was renegotiated to mitigate
the impact of Law 27. Vicens Rivera noted Law 27 provided for the filing of a waiver
from that law’s requirements. Accordingly, the Hospital submitted its financial records
to the Commonwealth but, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico denied the Hospital’s
requested waiver from Law 27’s requirements. Vicens Rivera added the Hospital then 25
presented the whole situation to the Union advising the Union the Hospital could not
afford the increases unless there were savings in other areas to off set the extra payroll.
Vicens Rivera explained the Hospital tried various other conditional measures to
increase revenues such as asking insurance companies to renegotiate increases in 30
payments to the Hospital but their efforts in that regard were unsuccessful.
Additionally, Vicens Rivera testified the Hospital was unable to get relief from Medicare
and got insufficient savings from cutting back on the use of hospital supplies and other
expenses. When the Hospital presented its situation to the Union in March 2006, it was
also noticing a census reduction of patients of approximately fifteen percent. 35
Vicens Rivera said the Hospital, “first sat down to talk to them [Union] in March
and from then on to this day [trial herein]” continued to talk about the Hospital’s
financial situation. Vicens Rivera said he personally presented the Hospital’s financial
information to the Union President and Negotiating Committee and added the Hospital’s 40
accountants also did so on three occasions stressing the dire financial situation of the
Hospital.
Hospital Executive Director Vicens Rivera testified he made the decision to lay
off unit and other employees in January and early February 2009, after proper analysis 45
and with approval from the Hospital’s Board. Vicens Rivera said the decision to layoff in
JD(ATL)–34–09
7
January 2009, was made toward the end of 2008. Vicens Rivera testified; “I think we
started contemplating that decision as one of our options. I would say roughly, maybe
the end of November, beginning of December, because we tried several other
alternatives.” He added, “it was a decision, [that] was not [made] overnight.” After
Vicens Rivera made the decision he instructed the Human Resources department to 5
implement it thus the employees were notified in writing on January 9, 2009, and certain
other dates in January and February. Vicens Rivera acknowledged that in his 5 to 10
meetings with the Union during negotiations he did not tell the Union the Hospital was
going to implement a layoff in 2009. Vicens Rivera also acknowledged that in the layoff
letters to the employees no mention was made of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Law 27.10
Hospital Finance Director Julio Colon Rivera, explaining the Hospital’s financial
concerns, testified that when he came to the Hospital in 2007, it was projecting a loss of
$2 million but that it ended up being $4 million. Colon Rivera said the Hospital lost $5
million in 2008 and as of the trial herein, the Hospital had lost $18 million and was still 15
suffering “millionaire losses.”
Human Resource Director Cuevas Aponte was the Hospital’s spokesperson
during negotiations. Cuevas Aponte explained the negotiations normally followed a
pattern of the Union submitting a proposal with articles the Union wished to agree upon. 20
The Hospital reviewed the articles and at the next meeting informed the Union which
articles the Hospital agreed to and advised which articles would need to be negotiated.
The articles both parties agreed to were initialed by the parties. Cuevas Aponte said the
Hospital implemented its bargaining offer on July 24, 2007, including agreed upon
articles as well as articles not agreed upon. In a letter to Union dated July 26, 2007, HR25
Director Quinones Aponte discussed the parties July 24, 2007, negotiating session.
Cuevas Aponte noted the Union had submitted a written proposal and “…the Hospital
has wished that the Union understood our need and that way it would do a real and
practical proposal for our situation.” Cuevas Aponte added in his letter, “this would
require a significant change in your statements and claim. Up to this moment we have30
not achieved it.” Cuevas Aponte continued in his letter, “we exposed our statement that
the new proposal of the Union didn’t attend the necessities and realities of the Hospital so
that ours of July 9th was final. That way the one of the Union was refused.” Cuevas
Aponte concluded his letter saying; “It is for the above mentioned that we repeat the
necessity to which the circumstances obligates us, out of our control; particularly the 35
impart of Law 27 and, now also, the new minimum wage. We understand that all that has
occurred, including the Union’s inability to do a significant movement, does not leave us
margin but to implement the proposal of the Hospital.” Although Cuevas Aponte
attended approximately 30 bargaining sessions, he could not remember how many of
those sessions took place before July 24, 2007.40
According to Human Resources Director Cuevas Aponte, the parties had, as of
July 24, 2007, agreed upon Article VII, “Administrative Rights”, Article X, “Seniority
Rights” and Article XI, “Security in Employment”.
JD(ATL)–34–09
8
Article VII, Administrative Rights, Section A reads as follows:
SECTION A: The Hospital and the Union recognize the need of
maintaining the well-being of the institution and its employees. The 5
Hospital, therefore, will have the exclusive right to administrate its affairs
and to manage its employees, and any other right necessary for the
functioning of the Hospital, such as the right to plan, program, manage
and to continue or not operations and/or services, establish work in
overtime, supervise the employees, to employ, transfer, assign employees 10
to different shifts and/or departments, to discipline and establish
reasonable rules of conduct and determine the services to be rendered.
Article X, Seniority Rights, at specific sections reads as follows:
15
SECTION G. In case that the need of suspension and/or lay off of
employees within the bargaining unit, the hospital will notify the labor
Union and the employees affected with at least 15 calendar days prior. It
also will submit to the labor Union a list with the names and positions of
the staff to be laid off under the terms already established of 15 days.20
SECTOIN H. The hospital will be able to separate employees without
complying with Section G notification in the event of a suspension of this
article as long as, it pays the salary that he or the employees would have
earned during the term of notification established in said Section. Under 25
any of the two alternatives, the Employer will notify in writing the facts of
the lay off to employee with a copy to the labor Union.
Article XI, Security in Employment Section A “Dismissal” and Section B
“Reduction of Staff”, calls for notice to the Union within two days of a dismissal and 30
that seniority will be followed with respect to any permanent reductions in force.
Human Resources Director Cuevas Aponte said all previous layoffs he managed
at the Hospital followed the same procedure that was followed in the January 2009
layoffs. Hospital Finance Director Colon Rivera testified there were a series of layoffs35
involving unit and contract employees halfway through 2008 based on economic
considerations. One of the lay offs took place in June 2008.
On June 25, 2008, HR Director Cuevas Aponte, notified Union Vice President
Diaz in writing (hand delivered) the Hospital would reduce its staff for economic reasons 40
effective June 30, 2008. The reduction involved certain (7) unit employees. Cuevas
Aponte, however, testified some unit employees who were senior to others, exercised
“bumping” rights over less senior employees that resulted in only four or five unit
employees actually being laid off and/or terminated on that date. Cuevas Aponte noted in
his letter to the Union; “We will have to comply with the Section of Payment in 45
substitution of Notifying, performing a payment of 15 days, in addition to the payment
earned up to June 30, 2008.” Cuevas Aponte wrote each terminated employee on June
JD(ATL)–34–09
9
25, 2008, explaining their seniority and “bumping’ rights and notifying the employees;
“As Section of Payment establishes in substitution of Notice, we will be delivering a
check corresponding to a 15 day salary, as well as a check with the payment earned up to
June 30, 2008.” There was a second lay off later that year.
5
On September 18, 2008, HR Director Cuevas Aponte notified Union Vice
President Diaz in writing the Hospital would be eliminating some employment positions
that would result in a reduction of staff. Cuevas Aponte attached to his letter a list of
seven unit employees to be laid off effective September 19, 2008. Cuevas Aponte stated
the Hospital did not notify the Union prior to September 18, it was going to lay off 10
certain employees on September 19, 2008. However, Cuevas Aponte acknowledged on
cross-examination he had actually sent a letter to Union Vice President Diaz on
September 5, 2008, notifying the Union of the need for a reduction of two employees in
the Bio Medical Department at the Hospital. Wigberto Vargas Rivera and Richard
Echevarria Turpeau, were Bio Medical Department employees listed for lay off in the 15
September 19, 2008 reduction in work force or layoff.
Cuevas Aponte acknowledged, on cross-examination, the layoffs in June and
September 2008, were not comparable with the January 9, 2009, regarding the number of
employees laid off. Cuevas Aponte stated he did, however, follow the same procedure in 20
the 2008 and 2009 lay offs.
It is undisputed there were no layoffs at the Hospital between June 1999 and mid-
2008. Assistant Human Resources Director, Mercado Roman testified there was a layoff
in June 1999. The Union was notified in writing on June 2, 1999, of a lay off effective 25
June 4, 1999. However, the letter indicates, and Assistant HR Director Mercado Roman
asserted, the Union had been advised earlier of the pending layoff. Mercado Roman
acknowledged the collective bargaining agreement in effect in 1999 between the parties
specified the Union be given notice 10 days prior to any lay off.
30
III. Analysis, Discussion and Conclusions
The following principles are helpful in examining the issues herein. It is well
settled and accepted that absent waiver or impasse an employer may not unilaterally
change terms and conditions of employment for employees represented by a labor 35
organization NLRB v. Katz 369 U.S. 736 (1962). Laying off unit employees is a change
in terms and conditions of employment over which an employer must bargain Tri-tech
Services 340 NLRB 894 (2003). Stated differently a decision to lay off employees is a
mandatory subject of bargaining. The Board in Pan American Grain Co. 351 NLRB
1412, 1414 (2007) stated: “Where an employer decides to lay off employees for 40
‘economic reasons’ rather than due to a change in the scope of its operations, such a
layoff decision is a mandatory subject of bargaining.” The Board in Alpha Associates
344 NLRB 782, 785 (2005) explained:
It is axiomatic that an employer’s decision to lay off employees is 45
a mandatory subject of bargaining; thus, in the absence of an agreed-upon
JD(ATL)–34–09
10
contractual provision on the subject, an employer is obligated to bargain
with an incumbent union with respect to both the decision to conduct a
layoff and the effects of any such decision. See, Farina Corp., 310 NLRB
318, 320 (1993). That an employer’s determination to lay off employees
is motivated by economic considerations does not relieve an employer of 5
its bargaining obligation. Id. However, if an employer can demonstrate
that ‘economic exigencies’ compelled prompt action, the Board will
excuse the employer’s failure to notify and bargain with the union prior to
implementing its decision. See Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373
(1991). The Board has characterized the economic exigency exception as 10
a heavy burden, however; thus, the Board has limited its application of the
exception to ‘extraordinary events which are ‘an unforeseen occurrence,
having a major economic effect [requiring] the company, to take
immediate action.’’ Hawkins Lumber Co., 316 NLRB 837, 838 (1995)
(quoting Angelica Healthcare Services, 284 NLRB 844, 852-853 (1997)). 15
“Absent a dire financial emergency, the Board has held that economic
events such as the loss of significant accounts or contracts, operation at a
competitive disadvantage, or supply shortage do not justify unilateral
action.” RBE Electronics of S.D., 320 NLRB 80, 81 (1995).[footnote
omitted]20
Absent “economic exigencies” an employer must provide adequate notice to the
union and bargain with the union representing its employees concerning both the layoff
decision and the effects of that decision. Lapeer Foundry & Machine, Inc., 289 NLRB
952, 954-955 (1988).25
An employer may not rely upon a management rights clause in an expired
collective bargaining agreement, to constitute a waiver by a union to bargain over the
employer’s decision to lay off employees and over the effects of these layoffs. The
waiver of a union’s right to bargain does not outlive the contract that contains it, absent 30
some evidence of the parties’ intention to the contrary. Paul Mueller Co 332 NLRB 312,
313 (2000). Where a management rights clause constitutes such a waiver, such is
ordinarily limited to the duration of the collective-bargaining agreement. Stated
differently, a management rights clause simply does not survive the expiration of the
collective-bargaining agreement. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 346 NLRB 696, 703 35
(2006).
As to waivers, the Board will not infer a waiver of a statutory right to bargain
unless the waiver is “clear and unmistakable.” Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460
U.S. 693, 708 (1983). The Board will assess alleged waivers by examining a number of 40
factors including bargaining history. The fact that a union may have acquiesced to
certain prior unilateral changes does not operate as a waiver of its right to bargain over
such changes for all time. King Soopers Inc. 340 NLRB 628, 635 (2003).
As to notice, for a prior notice to be adequate under the Act a union must be 45
provided a reasonable opportunity to evaluate the employer’s proposals and present
JD(ATL)–34–09
11
counter proposals before the employer implements change. Gannett Co., 333 NLRB 355,
357 (2001).
If the Government demonstrates an employer made a unilateral change involving
a mandatory subject of bargaining the burden rests with the employer to demonstrate 5
such a unilateral change was in some way privileged or the employer’s change will
violate the Act. Pam American Grain 351 NLRB 1412, 1414, fn 9. In that regard if an
employer can establish that the unilateral change was made pursuant to a longstanding
practice it amounts to a continuation of the status quo and not a violation of the Act.
Stated differently a longstanding practice may become a term and condition of 10
employment and an employer would not violate the Act if it acts consistently with that
practice in making further unilateral changes. Courier–Journal I, 342 NLRB 1093, 1094
(2004) and Courier–Journal II, 342 NLRB 1148 (2004). [I can not deny familiarity with
Courier–Journal II.] The Board in Shell Oil Company 149 NLRB 283, 287 addressed the
issue of the establishment of a prior practice brought about by contract provisions that 15
had expired. The Board in Shell Oil Company concluded the employer was simply
following an established practice when it unilaterally subcontracted out certain
maintenance work, during a hiatus between contracts, in light of the fact it was
contractually permitted to do so pursuant to the parties prior, but expired, collective
bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining agreement provisions, which had been 20
“frequently invoked”, had become established employment practices and as such terms
and conditions of employment. The Board further noted, “it is well settled that
notwithstanding the termination of a labor contract, the parties, pending its renewal or
negotiation, have the right and obligation to maintain existing conditions of
employment.”25
An employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally changing
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of represented employees,
as is the case herein, without first providing the bargaining representative with notice and
a meaningful opportunity to bargain about the change. First, it is clear, and I find, the 30
decision to lay off employees constitutes a change in their working conditions. In fact, it
is a dramatic change. Second, the change (layoffs) was based on economic
considerations unrelated to managerial decisions that may be exercised exclusively by
management. The Hospital was clear its need for the layoffs was based on economic
considerations. In that regard, Hospital HR Director Cuevas Aponte informed the Union 35
in his January 8, 2009, letter notifying the Union of the layoffs effective the next day its
actions were based on, “the difficult fiscal situation which the Hospital is going
through.” Cuevas Aponte informed each of the employees being laid off their layoff was
as a direct result of economic difficulties the Hospital was experiencing. Hospital
Executive Director Vicens Rivera explained the Hospital simply could not afford to 40
continue the same payroll with the same number of employees unless something was
negotiated to mitigate the effects of Commonwealth Law 27 that mandated certain
minimum wages for graduate, licensed, practical and non-licensed nurses. It is clear the
layoffs were for economic reasons and a mandatory subject of bargaining.
45
JD(ATL)–34–09
12
The fact the Hospital was experiencing a census reduction in patients and a
Commonwealth mandated wage increase for unit employees does not relieve the
Hospital of its bargaining obligations with the Union regarding its represented
employees. The Hospital failed to establish “economic exigencies” compelling prompt
action that might have excused its failure to timely notify and bargain with the Union 5
over the layoffs. The evidence establishes the Hospital’s economic concerns had been
ongoing for an extended time. As Hospital Finance Director Colon Rivera testified that
when he came to the Hospital in 2007 it was projecting a loss of 2 million which doubled
to 4 million and the Hospital experienced “millionaire losses” yearly thereafter. Simply
stated, there was no sudden economic emergency in January 2009 that would justify the 10
Hospital’s lack of adequate notice to the Union.
The one day notice the Hospital gave the Union regarding the January 2009,
layoffs did not provide the Union with a meaningful opportunity to bargain. The Union
was, for example, denied any opportunity to consult with the unit employees and/or to15
formulate or propose other actions that might have negated the need for the layoff. The
Union was notified at around 4 p.m. the evening before the layoff that it would be
effective the next morning. The evidence warrants, and I conclude, the Hospital
presented the Union with a “fait accompli” regarding the layoff.
20
Any contention of the Hospital that the Union waived its right to timely notice
and an opportunity to negotiate fails upon close scrutiny. While provisions contained in
the parties most recently expired collective bargaining agreements may have outlined a
procedure for the Hospital to forgo providing notice of a layoff as long as it paid unit
employees a fixed number of days of wages, those agreement provisions had expired. 25
Assuming arguendo, a waiver of notice and bargaining in certain articles of the parties
most recently expired collective bargaining agreements, which articles are specifically
set forth elsewhere in this decision, any such waiver(s) did not outline the expired
agreements. The fact the Union may have tentatively agreed to like language in any new
agreements with the Hospital, such does not alter the fact no complete agreements had 30
been negotiated at the time of the layoffs. The parties negotiating rules precluded
implementation of partial agreements arrived at during negotiations. The negotiating
rules called for complete agreements to be formally accepted before any tentative
agreements could be given full force and effect.
35
The Hospital failed to establish the parties were at a legal impasse in July 2007,
when it asserts it implemented its last, best, and final offer which assertedly contained
tentatively agreed upon provisions regarding notice or payment to unit employees instead
of notice. There is no showing the parties believed they were at the end of their rope on
further negotiations in July 2007. Statements by various witnesses indicates the parties 40
continued to negotiate long after July 2007. Union Vice President Diaz credibly testified
the parties currently are still; albeit sporadically, negotiating toward new collective
bargaining agreements. Hospital Executive Director Vicens Rivera testified the Hospital
has continued to talk with the Union until the present about its financial situation.
Hospital Human Resource Director Cuevas Aponte, who served as the Hospitals’ 45
spokesperson during negotiations, attended approximately 30 bargaining sessions but
JD(ATL)–34–09
13
could not recall how many of the sessions occurred before July 2007, and how many
afterward. Simply stated the evidence does not support a finding the parties had reached
a deadlock in their negotiations in July 2007. Accordingly, I conclude no lawful impasse
existed in July 2007, even though the Hospital declared such to be the case. The
Hospital can not justify nor establish a valid defense to its actions by contending it 5
implemented terms and conditions, after impasse, that allowed or permitted its unilateral
action regarding the January 9, 2009, layoff of the unit employees at issue herein. The
Hospital in its post-trial brief even acknowledges; “it is true that there was no collective
bargaining [agreement] in place at the moment these [2009] layoffs were decided and
executed,” however; the Hospital asserts it was following an established past practice 10
which was outlined in the management, seniority, and reduction of staff rights provisions
in the most recently expired collective bargaining agreements between the parties.
In that regard, the Hospital presented evidence about a layoff in 1999, and two
layoffs in the summer of 2008 which it contends further supports its defense it was 15
following an established past practice.
I find the Hospital’s evidence regarding the 1999 layoff and the two 2008 layoffs
do not establish a past practice regarding lay offs that would justify the Hospital’s
unilateral layoff action in early 2009. The evidence not only does not establish a past 20
practice it does not even support a conclusion the Hospital was maintaining the status
quo and thus no unlawful unilateral action on its part. First, three layoffs over a 10 year
span does not establish a practice that occurs with such regularity and frequency that it
could be expected to reoccur on a consistent basis. Second, the three previous layoffs, at
best, only establishes the Hospital provided inconsistently timed notices to the Union. 25
For example, in the 1999 layoff the Hospital provided the Union written notice on June
2, 1999, that a layoff would take effect on June 4, 1999; however, Assistant HR Director
Mercado Roman testified, and the notification letter reflects, the Union had been earlier
notified of the pending June 4, 1999 layoff. Additionally, there was a collective
bargaining agreement in effect between the parties at the time which specified, according 30
to Mercado Roman, the Union would be given a 10 day notice. I note the Hospital did
not provide copies of the collective bargaining agreements in effect in 1999, thus no
showing has been made with respect to what, if any, other language in those agreements
could be considered applicable to layoffs or even if the language set forth in the most
recently expired collective bargaining agreements was the same as the 1999 agreements.. 35
The procedure and routine followed by the Hospital in the 1999 layoff does not support
the Hospital’s contention it was following an established past practice with regard to the
procedure it followed in its early 2009 layoffs.
The second layoff the Hospital contends supports its defense it was following an40
established past practice in its early 2009 layoffs involves a September 2008 layoff. In
that layoff the Hospital notified the Union in writing on September 18, 2008, it would
eliminate some (seven) employment positions for economic reasons effective September
19, 2008. HR Director Cuevas Aponte first testified the Hospital did not notify the
Union before September 18, 2008, of the September 19, 2008 layoff; however, on cross-45
examination he acknowledged, and identified, a letter he sent to the Union on September
JD(ATL)–34–09
14
5, 2008, notifying the Union of the need for a reduction in force of two Bio Medical
Department employees. I note two specifically named Bio Medical Department
employees were included among the seven listed on the September 19, 2008 layoff. It
appears the Union was provided early notice regarding at least some of the employees
who were eventually laid off on September 19, 2008. This additional notice time would 5
have provided the Union more time to negotiate with the Hospital regarding the layoff;
however, and more to the point, it does not support the Hospital’s contention it was
following an established practice of a one day notice when it provided the Union one day
notice of layoffs in early January 2009.
10
The third layoff the Hospital relies on to demonstrate it followed an established
past practice took place in June 2008. HR Director Cuevas Aponte notified the Union on
June 25, 2008, the Hospital would reduce, by seven, its staff effective June 30, 2008, for
economic reasons. Cuevas Aponte acknowledged that of the seven unit employees some
senior ones exercised “bumping” rights over less senior employees resulting in only four 15
or five unit employees actually being laid off. With the five day instead of one day
notice as was in the case in the 2009 layoffs, the Union had additional time to respond;
and some unit employees by exercising certain rights, were able to avoid being laid off.
It is clear the June 2008 procedure and layoff notification was significantly different
from the early 2009 layoff.20
I find, for the reasons outlined above, the Hospital failed to demonstrate an
established past practice regarding layoffs. Further I find the Hospital, in early 2009,
unilaterally laid off the unit employees specifically identified elsewhere herein, and
others similarly situated, without affording the Union adequate notice and an opportunity 25
to bargain with respect to the layoff decision and its effects. I find the Hospital’s actions
violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
REMEDY
30
Having found that the Hospital has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
it necessary to recommend the Hospital be ordered to cease and desist there from and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and post an
appropriate notice in both English and Spanish. . It is recommended the Hospital be
ordered to reinstate the laid off employees and make them whole for any losses they may 35
have suffered, in accordance with F.W. Woolworth Co. 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) see also
Lapeer Foundry & Machine, 289 NLRB 952, 955-956 (1988). It is also recommended the
Hospital be ordered to bargain with the Union concerning any decision to lay off and/or
terminate unit employees for economic reasons and the effects of any layoff for economic 40
reasons.
JD(ATL)–34–09
15
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended:6
ORDER
5
The Hospital, Hospital Damas, Inc. Ponce, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
10
(a) Laying off and/or terminating employees for economic reasons in
the units represented by Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras(os) y Empleados de la Salud
without providing the Union timely notice and an opportunity to bargain about the
decision and the effects thereof. The bargaining units are:
15
Registered Nurses Unit
INCLUDED: All Registered Nurses, including the Registered Nurses in
Cardiology.
20
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including Supervisory Nurses,
Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act
(N.L.R.A.).
Office Clerical Unit25
INCLUDED: All ward clerks. office/clerical employees, bookkeepers,
sales persons, emergency room cashiers, telephone switchboard operators,
computer operators, receptionists, merchandise receivers and dispatchers,
liaison officer and transcriptionists.30
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Executive
Secretaries, Nurses and Registered Nurses, Accountants, Professional
Personnel, Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National Labor
Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).35
Licensed Practical Nurses and Technicians Unit
INCLUDED: All Licensed Practical Nurses, Practical Nurses II, Nursing
Assistants, Orderlies, X-Ray Technicians, Emergency Room Technicians, 40
EKG Technicians, Operating Room Technicians, Pharmacy Assistants,
Respiratory and Physical Therapists, Nuclear Medicine and Ultrasound

6 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(ATL)–34–09
16
Technicians, Cardiology Practical Nurses and Oxygen Equipment
Technicians.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Executive
Secretaries, Nurses and Registered Nurses, Accountants, Professional 5
Personnel, Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National Labor
Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
Professional Unit
10
INCLUDED: All Medical Technologists, Microcopists, Laboratory
Technicians, Blood Bank Technicians, Histopathology Technicians,
Laboratory Assistants, Laboratory and Autopsy Technicians, Physical
Therapists.
15
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Executive
Secretaries, Nurses and Registered Nurses, Accountants, Professional
Personnel, Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National Labor
Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
20
Laundry and Maintenance Unit
INCLUDED: All General Mechanics, carpenters, Bio-medical Equipment
Technicians, Boiler Operators, Drivers, Electricians, General Helpers,
Plumbers, Cabinet Makers, Refrigeration Mechanics, Maintenance 25
Assistants, Masons, and al the employees in the Laundry Department.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Executive
Secretaries, Nurses and Registered Nurses, Accountants, Professional
Personnel, Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National Labor 30
Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
Diet and Cafeteria Unit
INCLUDED: All Cooks, Cook Assistants, Warehouse employees, Food 35
Service Employees and Cafeteria Employees.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including Nurses and Registered
Nurses, Accountants, Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National
Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).40
Cleaning Unit
INCLUDED: All janitorial employees.
45
JD(ATL)–34–09
17
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Nurses and
Registered Nurses, Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National
Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or 5
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:
10
(a) Before laying off and/or terminating bargaining unit employees for
economic reasons, notify and , on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in units described above over the
layoff and/or termination decision and its effects.
15
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, to the extent it
has not already done so, offer the following and other similarly situated employees,
immediate reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed:20
Virginia Batalla-Soltero Isaías Vázquez-Maldonado Lourdes Pulliza-Rivera
Carmen Borelly-León Wilson Padilla-Ralat Nidia Rivera-Martínez
Ana García-Andujar Ana D. Quirindongo Sonia Mattei-Torres
Maricruz Hilerio-Burgos José A. Acosta-Torres María Velazquez
José La Torre-Pagan Manuel Ramos-Miranda Juan José Muñoz-Vélez
María V. Martínez-Albino Bárbara Torres-Ruiz Ricardo Torres-Matos
María Martínez-Irizarry Sonia Barriera-Ortiz Yasmin Fontanez
Linda R. Mercado-Pérez Dinorah Medina-Torres Efrain Rivera-Rios
Elizabeth Quiñones-Santos Amayra Morales-Santiago Jorge Carlo-Torres
Frances Santiago-Ortiz Marisol Torres-Figueroa Aurea Pérez-Rivera
Linned Torres-Burgos Oneida Albino-Rodríguez Edwin Moreno-Morales
Moriama Vélez-Figueroa Yaneth Rodríguez-Figueroa Israel Rodríguez-Santiago
William Pagan-Plaza Gladys Perez-Ramos Ana D. Nieves-Arroyo
Margarita Valentín-Vélez Rosalinda Rosado-Figueroa Miriam Méndez-Pérez
Gilberto Burgos-Caraballo Gina Bauza-Ramos Ramonita Rodríguez-Echevarría
Mildred Sierra-Torres Lexa Cedeño-Rodríguez Rafael Rodríguez-Prado
Marta Barriera-Candel Myrna González-Martín Rosa Torres-Torres
Nereida Rosado Merilyn Irizarry-Torres Wanda I. Escalera-Ríos
Janice Torres-Rodríguez Esther Maldonado-Alvarado René Ramos-Ramos
Franklyn Goenga-Morell Evette Martínez-Boffil Angela Andujar-Andujar
Josephine D. Alvarado-Rodríguez Graciela Méndez-Casiano Cruz De Jesus-Rivera
Nicolás Ortiz-Descartes Cesarine Pérez-Lara Marta Viera-Maldonado
Angela Serrano-López
(c) Make whole the unit employees named above in subparagraph
2(b), and other similarly situated employees, for any loss they may have suffered as a
result of the Hospital’s unlawful conduct, in the manner set forth in the remedy section 25
herein.
JD(ATL)–34–09
18
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time
as the 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 records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic
copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of 5
backpay due under the terms of the Board’s Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by Region 24 of the Board post at its
Ponce, Puerto Rico, facility copies of the attached notice in English and Spanish marked
“Appendix.” Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for 10
Region 24, after being duly signed by the Hospital's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Hospital 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 the Hospital to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the 15
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Hospital has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Hospital shall duplicate
and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current and former employees
employed by the Hospital at any time since January 9, 2009.
20
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director for Region 24 a sworn certificate of a responsible official on a form provided by
the Region attesting to the steps that the Hospital has taken to comply herewith.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 16, 200925
30
William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge
JD(ATL)–34–09
19
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 layoff and/or terminate employees in the units represented by Unidad
Laboral de Enfermeras(os) y Empleados de la Salud, for economic reason without first
providing the Union timely notice and an opportunity to bargain about the decision and
its effects. The Units are:
Registered Nurses Unit
INCLUDED: All Registered Nurses, including the Registered Nurses in
Cardiology.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including Supervisory Nurses, Guards and
Supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
Office Clerical Unit
INCLUDED: All ward clerks. office/clerical employees, bookkeepers, sales
persons, emergency room cashiers, telephone switchboard operators, computer
operators, receptionists, merchandise receivers and dispatchers, liaison officer
and transcriptionists.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Executive Secretaries,
Nurses and Registered Nurses, Accountants, Professional Personnel, Guards and
Supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
Licensed Practical Nurses and Technicians Unit
INCLUDED: All Licensed Practical Nurses, Practical Nurses II, Nursing
Assistants, Orderlies, X-Ray Technicians, Emergency Room Technicians, EKG
Technicians, Operating Room Technicians, Pharmacy Assistants, Respiratory
JD(ATL)–34–09
20
and Physical Therapists, Nuclear Medicine and Ultrasound Technicians,
Cardiology Practical Nurses and Oxygen Equipment Technicians.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Executive Secretaries,
Nurses and Registered Nurses, Accountants, Professional Personnel, Guards and
Supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
Professional Unit
INCLUDED: All Medical Technologists, Microcopists, Laboratory Technicians,
Blood Bank Technicians, Histopathology Technicians, Laboratory Assistants,
Laboratory and Autopsy Technicians, Physical Therapists.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Executive Secretaries,
Nurses and Registered Nurses, Accountants, Professional Personnel, Guards and
Supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
Laundry and Maintenance Unit
INCLUDED: All General Mechanics, carpenters, Bio-medical Equipment
Technicians, Boiler Operators, Drivers, Electricians, General Helpers, Plumbers,
Cabinet Makers, Refrigeration Mechanics, Maintenance Assistants, Masons, and
al the employees in the Laundry Department.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Executive Secretaries,
Nurses and Registered Nurses, Accountants, Professional Personnel, Guards and
Supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (N.L.R.A.).
Diet and Cafeteria Unit
INCLUDED: All Cooks, Cook Assistants, Warehouse employees, Food Service
Employees and Cafeteria Employees.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including Nurses and Registered Nurses,
Accountants, Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations
Act (N.L.R.A.).
Cleaning Unit
INCLUDED: All janitorial employees.
EXCLUDED: All other employees, including executives, Nurses and Registered
Nurses, Guards and Supervisors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act
(N.L.R.A.).
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
JD(ATL)–34–09
21
WE WILL, before laying off and/or terminating bargaining unit employees, for
economic reasons, timely notify the Union , and upon request, bargain with the Union, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the units described above, over
the decision to layoff and/or terminate employees and the effects thereof.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, to the extent we have not
already done so, offer the following employees, and other similarly situated employees,
immediate reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
previously enjoyed:
Virginia Batalla-Soltero Isaías Vázquez-Maldonado Nidia Rivera-Martínez
Carmen Borelly-León Wilson Padilla-Ralat Sonia Mattei-Torres
Ana García-Andujar Ana D. Quirindongo María Velazquez
Maricruz Hilerio-Burgos José A. Acosta-Torres Juan José Muñoz-Vélez
José La Torre-Pagan Manuel Ramos-Miranda Ricardo Torres-Matos
María V. Martínez-Albino Bárbara Torres-Ruiz Yasmin Fontanez
María Martínez-Irizarry Sonia Barriera-Ortiz Efrain Rivera-Rios
Linda R. Mercado-Pérez Dinorah Medina-Torres Jorge Carlo-Torres
Elizabeth Quiñones-Santos Amayra Morales-Santiago Aurea Pérez-Rivera
Frances Santiago-Ortiz Marisol Torres-Figueroa Edwin Moreno-Morales
Linned Torres-Burgos Oneida Albino-Rodríguez Israel Rodríguez-Santiago
Moriama Vélez-Figueroa Yaneth Rodríguez-Figueroa Ana D. Nieves-Arroyo
William Pagan-Plaza Gladys Perez-Ramos Miriam Méndez-Pérez
Margarita Valentín-Vélez Rosalinda Rosado-Figueroa Ramonita Rodríguez-Echevarría
Gilberto Burgos-Caraballo Gina Bauza-Ramos Rafael Rodríguez-Prado
Mildred Sierra-Torres Lexa Cedeño-Rodríguez Rosa Torres-Torres
Marta Barriera-Candel Myrna González-Martín Wanda I. Escalera-Ríos
Nereida Rosado Merilyn Irizarry-Torres René Ramos-Ramos
Janice Torres-Rodríguez Esther Maldonado-Alvarado Angela Andujar-Andujar
Franklyn Goenga-Morell Evette Martínez-Boffil Cruz De Jesus-Rivera
Josephine D. Alvarado-Rodríguez Graciela Méndez-Casiano Marta Viera-Maldonado
Nicolás Ortiz-Descartes Cesarine Pérez-Lara
Angela Serrano-López Lourdes Pulliza-Rivera
WE WILL make the employees listed above, and other similarly situated employees,
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of their unlawful
layoff or termination, plus interest.
_____Hospital Damas, Inc.______
(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
JD(ATL)–34–09
22
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.
La Torre de Plaza, Suite 1002, 525 F. D. Roosevelt Avenue,
San Juan, PR 00918–1002
(787) 766–5347, Hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 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 (787) 766–5377